[Cold Iron]

Light where I live in the North prohibits high shutter speeds much of the year. I normally shoot Tav and offhand and it was only a week ago that I started seeing iso 100 flashing, and normally use 1/400 shutter and 6.3 or 7.1 and usually end up with high ISO but am very pleased with with the DA 1.4 and DA* 300. In the last 2 weeks I am able to push shutter speed but usually choose Aperture to increase DOF. Because the DOF is so shallow sometimes I think people confuse it with pictures being out of focus.



f/11 at 1/400 which caused ISO to jump to 5000


f/11 at 1/400 with a bit more light allowing ISO at 1600


The tc really helps focus in where branches would have not allowed the DA* 300 by itself


And a very wet eagle...


This is half way across the Mississippi river. Granted it is the upper Miss but still quite a distance away


Those pictures are all handheld. For tripod mount, DA* 300


With DA 1.4x tc on tripod


I can't drag a tripod into many of the places I go. And don't see much of a disadvantage to it, most of the birds I shoot don't like to sit still and pose for me anyhow.

[jpzk]

There seems to be a large mix of "right on focus" and OOF images as well in many of the images posted in this thread.

1. Is this lens - TC related ?
2. Can the technique be involved ?

For instance: I see many great images with the Sigma 500/4.5 + the TC.
while some with the DA*300/4 are "soft" while some others aren't.
Then again, the 60-250 brings some good results (Norm's pictures are generally quite right on focus with this set up).

I doesn't seem to matter if a tripod was used or not, generally speaking.

Pretty tough to make a call as to whether this TC is better on some specific lenses.

JP

[Aristophanes]

Comparable?

Sandhill Symmetry - FM Forums
GBH - FM Forums

Some of these guys have amazing light, I'll admit.

[derekkite]

There seems to be a large mix of "right on focus" and OOF images as well in many of the images posted in this thread.

1. Is this lens - TC related ?
2. Can the technique be involved ?

For instance: I see many great images with the Sigma 500/4.5 + the TC.
while some with the DA*300/4 are "soft" while some others aren't.
Then again, the 60-250 brings some good results (Norm's pictures are generally quite right on focus with this set up).

I doesn't seem to matter if a tripod was used or not, generally speaking.

Pretty tough to make a call as to whether this TC is better on some specific lenses.

JP

I suspect that most of what looks like oof is movement blur. I have two DA*300's and one is awful with the TC, the other is quite nice. The IQ is good, there is a slight degradation. It needs good light; the K3 seems to underexpose a bit with the TC. In some circumstances filling the frame with the subject in low light higher iso conditions gives a better shot than a stop less iso and cropping.

The further away the subject the more cropping a DA*300 without TC gives an advantage. The closer in using the TC is better. Paradoxically.

[Shanti]

I suspect that most of what looks like oof is movement blur. I have two DA*300's and one is awful with the TC, the other is quite nice. The IQ is good, there is a slight degradation. It needs good light; the K3 seems to underexpose a bit with the TC. In some circumstances filling the frame with the subject in low light higher iso conditions gives a better shot than a stop less iso and cropping.

The further away the subject the more cropping a DA*300 without TC gives an advantage. The closer in using the TC is better. Paradoxically.

can you explain why 1 DA*300 is not good? then it must be not good without the TC as well? mine from new had to be sent for service as was back focusing,but now its good
any wind or feather movement also makes the bird shots seem OOF as well

[cali92rs]

Because the DOF is so shallow sometimes I think people confuse it with pictures being out of focus.

The shallow DOF is what causes the subject to be out of focus. The sliver of a focus plane can be in front of the bird, behind the bird, on the birds back etc.

[pid]

... in a german forum users got better results in greater distances, if the TC has a +5 AF Correction.

[Cold Iron]

The shallow DOF is what causes the subject to be out of focus. The sliver of a focus plane can be in front of the bird, behind the bird, on the birds back etc.

It is the head and eyes that I consider for focus (usually). Here is an example of the 300 with 1.4tc showing DOF at f/9.



You can see the difference between the wings and tail depth of focus, judging by the legs looks like it front focused more than back focused, nothing is clearly in focus on this shot and there is also motion blur. I kept the picture mainly because it shows just how shallow the DOF is. IIRC this was almost 100 yards away and cropped heavily. Comparing the tail to the wings it can't be more than a couple of inches yet the tail is way outside the DOF compared to the wings.

Several have reported that the DA*300 can be hit or miss with AF and I would have to agree with that on mine. Pretty sure it depends on the copy of course, but when I send my K-3 in for calibration the DA*300 is going with it.

... in a german forum users got better results in greater distances, if the TC has a +5 AF Correction.

I have 2 DA tc's and both require +4 AF Correction. As does another person on here with his. However my K-3 requires a +3 with all lenses so it is +7 on my camera with all lenses and the tc. Stacked strangely enough it is +9. When I feel I can go without a camera for awhile I will send it in for calibration.

[audiobomber]

My DA*300 needed +3 correction when I first received it. I sent it back for calibration with a body and it is spot on now. The HD 1.4x RC focusses accurately with every lens I've tried, no adjustment needed. I am not having any of the focus issues mentioned in this thread. I'm processing hundreds of bird images with this combo from my recent trip to Mexico, and mis-focus is simply not a factor.

Most of the complaints here can be explained by shallow DOF, motion blur and the dodgy focussing system of K-5 family bodies. The K-5 II/s is better than the original K-5, but still not very capable for AF-C and still has the oversized center AF point of all previous Pentax bodies.

My DA*300 is tack sharp all over the image without any calibration but with the TC it needs a +4. The center stays pretty sharp but the edges are somewhat soft with the TC.

[audiobomber]

My DA*300 is tack sharp all over the image without any calibration but with the TC it needs a +4. The center stays pretty sharp but the edges are somewhat soft with the TC.

When I buy a lens that does not have perfectly accurate AF, I either return it to the store for replacement, or Pentax for calibration (I've done both). That's what I would do with your converter. The only time I use AF Adjust is to hold a lens over until it's convenient to send it back. As a result, all of my cameras and lenses work interchangeably, with no tweaking.

[derekkite]

can you explain why 1 DA*300 is not good? then it must be not good without the TC as well? mine from new had to be sent for service as was back focusing,but now its good
any wind or feather movement also makes the bird shots seem OOF as well

Not sure. I'm going to send it in. I can feel the vibrations from the body shutter movement, so there may be some looseness somewhere.

[RockvilleBob]

When I buy a lens that does not have perfectly accurate AF, I either return it to the store for replacement, or Pentax for calibration (I've done both). That's what I would do with your converter. The only time I use AF Adjust is to hold a lens over until it's convenient to send it back. As a result, all of my cameras and lenses work interchangeably, with no tweaking.

This would be the ideal option. I found that perhaps a simple adjustment using FocusTune FocusTune provides as good a result. Especially considering a mix of lens manufacturers - Sigma and Pentax - in my bag.

[audiobomber]

Most of the complaints here can be explained by shallow DOF, motion blur and the dodgy focussing system of K-5 family bodies. The K-5 II/s is better than the original K-5, but still not very capable for AF-C and still has the oversized center AF point of all previous Pentax bodies.

I would add that using SR while panning often results in soft photos.

[thibs]

I would add that using SR while panning often results in soft photos.

Indeed... caught ever time.