[redpit]

Thanks, that makes me feel better

You should feel happy with the DA 560! Give yourself some time to learn handle the beast

Is the 784mm focal length what you get from the 1.4 TC?

Exactly!

[str8talk83]

Str8talk83 I suspect you have been hanging out in Cape Coral as we did last year, but I didn't get Burrowing Owl shots as good as those.

I was actually in Marco Island, but I know there are lot of them in the cape as well.

---------- Post added 02-19-2019 at 07:47 AM ----------

[siva.ss.kumar]

Dan. IMO, the 560 should be sharper than even 150-450. Please check for any front/back focus issues.
Here is one from my weekend trip. K-5IIS with 560
White bellied sea eagle

[Canada_Rockies]

Dan, try f/11 @ 1/500. Use Tav and let the ISO float. Use tripod and delayed release. Use LiveView to focus. Take a picture of a house 300 ft away from you. I do not recall ever using an aperture smaller than f/11 with my 400. The most common is at f/8.

The Osprey is M400 alone on my K10D at about 200 ft. The two grebes are M400+AFA1.7x at about 300 ft. These were taken using a Manfrotto 055B tripod with Manfrotto 0168 ball head (I do get my exercise when birding), cabled release, no delay on the release.

You should be able to get much better quality with the 560 and better resolution sensor.

.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

How are you focusing, manual or auto. Either way, are the critical aspects calibrated properly?

tried both (phase AF only - don't much care for "live view"); and frankly, I have no idea - relying on Ricoh's assertion that the firmware upgrade takes care of that.

Btw, as to the question of whether the filter has to be installed - no information I could find on that anywhere, and the instructions are ambiguous. Under "features", it says, "The filter attachment which can be mounted on and removed from the lens is equipped. [sic] You can attach the supplied C-PL filter to adjust the polarizing effect with the operation ring." That seems to suggest that you can remove the filter optionally.

On the other hand, the instructions also say (under "Caution"): "To maintain the optical performance, be sure to attach a supplied filter when using the lens. Only the supplied filter can be used for the lens." That seems to imply that the presence of either supplied filter is required.

I sent Ricoh a request for "support" to clear up that ambiguity, as well as a question about the performance of the aperture. The instructions say you get a round aperture from f/5.6 through f/11, but the numbers go up to f/45 (must be a pinhole) - does that mean that the aperture is not round at smaller settings?

I'll update this thread if they come back with answers. In the meanwhile, I stuck the UV filter back in, and I'll experiment with it a bit more - it's a bright sunny day here right now, so I'll go out and see if the filters make any difference. The front of the lens is threaded, so I got a UV filter to go there, but may be that's a shouldn't-happen, too.

[normhead]

K-1 and DA*200 with F 1.7x AF Adapter. (340mm)

[Canada_Rockies]

I stuck the UV filter back in, and I'll experiment with it a bit more - it's a bright sunny day here right now, so I'll go out and see if the filters make any difference. The front of the lens is threaded, so I got a UV filter to go there, but may be that's a shouldn't-happen, too.

There are a number of lenses from lens makers that require a filter in the back slot. My personal preference is to never use a filter on the front of my lenses except for polarizers. With digital and the ability to take bracketed exposures, I haven't used gradients for years, preferring to take widely spaced multiple exposures and combining them in post processing. YMMV.

A few years back I did a quick and dirty look and it seemed that the use of clear/uv filters for "protection" is about 50/50. I fall into the 'any extra pieces of glass can degrade the image but never improve it' category myself. Others fall into the "if I drop it a filter is cheaper than a Lens" category. It's your choice.

[Chris Mak]

PS: You said that you removed the rear filter completely from the lens? I'm not sure that the filter holder should be empty... Maybe this element also contributes to the IQ of the lens... Try and see.

I have tried the DA560 with and without the drop-in filter in place (normal UV filter) extensively, and I can say that whatever difference it makes, it certainly does not make IQ any worse when having the drop-in filter removed (and the slot "empty"), in fact, it is my preferred way of shooting this lens. Colors are slightly less neutral in some types of light with the UV-filter in place, but sharpness wise, I can in any case not see any loss whatsoever when leaving the slot empty. B.t.w.: the supplied "normal" filter (UV filter) is the only part of the lens itself that does not appear to be made in Japan. It says "made in Phillipines".

Furthermore, the DA560 is a very sharp lens, but is also heavily affected by atmospheric circumstances, which can totally ruin the image sharpness esp. at longer distances. Like any 600mm type lens I suppose, but perhaps this lens has it even more than the f4 600mm monsters, most likely because AF fails under such circumstances, and imprecise AF further degrades the images. The DFA 150-450 and the DA300 may appear to be sharper by the total sum of their images posted, but then again, they don't have to face atmospheric distortion at 560mm with F5.6 AF (im)precision.

Chris

[redpit]

I have tried the DA560 with and without the drop-in filter in place (normal UV filter) extensively, and I can say that whatever difference it makes, it certainly does not make IQ any worse when having the drop-in filter removed (and the slot "empty"), in fact, it is my preferred way of shooting this lens. Colors are slightly less neutral in some types of light with the UV-filter in place, but sharpness wise, I can in any case not see any loss whatsoever when leaving the slot empty. B.t.w.: the supplied "normal" filter (UV filter) is the only part of the lens itself that does not appear to be made in Japan. It says "made in Phillipines". Chris

Thank you for the feedback Chris! I've never tried the lens without the UV filter in the slot. Since I've put a lens cover it is quite difficult to open the filter holder so I don't even bother anymore... I should try it myself though at some point.

Furthermore, the DA560 is a very sharp lens, but is also heavily affected by atmospheric circumstances, which can totally ruin the image sharpness esp. at longer distances. Like any 600mm type lens I suppose, but perhaps this lens has it even more than the f4 600mm monsters, most likely because AF fails under such circumstances, and imprecise AF further degrades the images. The DFA 150-450 and the DA300 may appear to be sharper by the total sum of their images posted, but then again, they don't have to face atmospheric distortion at 560mm with F5.6 AF (im)precision.

Chris

Totally agree on that. The DA 560 is not an easy lens to focus and this makes a lot of pictures come out degraded and with strange OOF areas... I think (because in AF-C I use the K-1 in release priority even without prior focus confirmation) sometimes the lens motor still moves-adjusts focus as I shoot and the resulted image also has a strange rendering that I know something wrong happened (there are some images where you can find no obvious in focus areas). OTOH when you have done it all correctly you can tell from the first look on the back screen! it's so obvious and the IQ is superb!

[jcdoss]

Rime Frost Line
Round Mtn, Jasper, AR
K-1 mII, M400f5.6

This mountain scene is almost exactly 2 miles from the shooting location. Handheld, but stabilized on a post. I need to make some beanbags.
(XPosted at Telephoto Landscape)

[Basie]

Taken in 2013 when I convinced myself that I needed the DA*300 F4. I am still convinced. I use it handheld most of the time or with a beanbag on the car's window sill. I have had problems with focusing and getting it to focus on the heyna's face and not the grass stalks. Must have taken a dozen and this one worked. I have now upgraded to a KP and the Pentax 1.4 WR TC. I will post some later, but on hot days ( of which we have plenty here) I found the atmospherics degrading the sharpness quite significantly with the longer reach of the TC

[Canada_Rockies]

Taken in 2013 when I convinced myself that I needed the DA*300 F4. I am still convinced. I use it handheld most of the time or with a beanbag on the car's window sill. I have had problems with focusing and getting it to focus on the heyna's face and not the grass stalks. Must have taken a dozen and this one worked. I have now upgraded to a KP and the Pentax 1.4 WR TC. I will post some later, but on hot days ( of which we have plenty here) I found the atmospherics degrading the sharpness quite significantly with the longer reach of the TC

That's a very nice portrait of the hyena. I find even with the lowly 55-300 that using spot AF works better for me, and when it doesn't I use MF.

[h4yn0nnym0u5e]

The RAF are retiring the Tornado in March after 40 years of service, and are doing a final "lap of honour" to mark the occasion. I popped out to a field near Duxford with a work colleague and the trusty K-1 and DA* 300/4. 1 minute 12s of excitement...

[Dave L]

Nice Tornados photo, much better than the similar lower resolution images I've seen on the BBC! I too love my DA* 300.

[tim60]

The RAF are retiring the Tornado in March after 40 years of service, and are doing a final "lap of honour" to mark the occasion. I popped out to a field near Duxford with a work colleague and the trusty K-1 and DA* 300/4. 1 minute 12s of excitement...

Saw them. I knew they were going near one place I work but yesterday I had to go to the other place and did not know they were going there. Got to work and there was a entry in the daily notices from the employer on the screen. So we went out after lunch to see it.