Whilst I understand the mentality and agree to a degree on the IQ argument there is also times where a filter protects.

Motor sport is a clear example if your getting pebble dashed on a corner.

or in my case where the camera gets exposed to corosive chlorine I'd rather etched £50 filters than coating stripped £1000 lens

Ofcourse, that goes without saying. In conditions like those I also would use protection.

[awaldram]

Ofcourse, that goes without saying. In conditions like those I also would use protection.

I wasn't trying to say the removal of the UV filter was generally a bad idea .

I've seen some pretty strange aberrations caused by them irrelevant of quality, and my Bigma now goes bare even steamy poolside as the optical damage 86mm filters did outweighed the damage Chlorine may do to this older lens.

I think were all singing from the same hymn sheet

[pgamble]

Hey Paul I had an Hoya Protective MC (not cheap) filter on my lens and removing it made a world of difference.
Night and day.
I have read some posts elsewhere with regards to have a UV or protector on the lens or not and I am now of the belief that you pay a lot of money for a lens only to throw a even say 100 dollar filter on the front of it.
IF you like I can upload some pictures with and without the filter on the lens.


Kwong

Hi Kwong ... I'd really appreciate it if you would.


Many thanks Paul.

[pgamble]

3 images today - first with filter, then without and then with a little PP in LR


All taken on tripod, stabilisation off, AA off, spot AF on anther at end of stamen towards centre of image, 60-250 at 250mm, ISO800, f4 and in this case 1/125th ... yes .. I know I'd said I always shoot over focal length ... but this was quick test in failing evening light :-)


Thoughts ?


Paul

Attached Images

     

---

Last edited by pgamble; 04-25-2014 at 12:48 PM. Reason: added detail

[pgamble]

I took this one in Portsmouth last week in very bright weather. Basically it was very overexposed .. Almost bleached. After toning down, I played with sharpness a lot and then reduced the resultant noise until it looked sort of ok.

If it came out of the camera like this, I wouldn't have been so disappointed .. Again, I tried to focus on the centre stamen of the flower, but if anything it looks like the rear reddish brown petal is most in focus. Before sharpening it all looked a little blurred almost making my eyes strain looking at it. How much of that was a result of the over exposure I don't know .. It did seem easier to get some sharpness / detail once I'd toned down the exposure.

All thoughts on these pictures appreciated.

Paul

[unkipunki]

All thoughts on these pictures appreciated.

These look pretty good at PF resolution. FWIW I like the without filter and without PP flower above. Regarding the focus point differing from expected; do you rely on the red illuminated symbol in the viewfinder for focus point selection? I ask because the actual centre focus on my K3 is a little offset to the right and a bit up (in landscape orientation). I've got used to compensating for that when dealing with critical focus issues. If you are aiming for something as small as a flower stamen a little offset can make a big difference. Oh, I also use Live View 8x and Focus Peaking whenever I have sufficient time.

[stevebrot]

Thoughts ?

I can see why you might want to consider leaving the filter off.


Steve

[Flasher]

Turn on Focus Peaking (Menu 3 - Live View - Focus Peaking).
Set the aperture to f8. Manual focus. ISO 100
AA off, Stab off, Use a cable release. No need for mirror lock up or 2 sec timer as Live view lifts the mirror anyway.

Use Live View and press OK to zoom in. Use the focus peaking to adjust the focus (Max bright spots) - Press the cable release.

That will be the sharpest it can be as you are directly viewing the image on the sensor.

I use unmask sharpening in PS to sharpen the image. Don't oversharpen it. LR should be able to sharpen the image also.

After doing all that I can obtain images just as sharp as any crop sensor Canon out there. The centre will be very sharp but depending how good your lens is the edges may be softer.

If your images are still not sharp then you have camera shake - tripod shake. Make sure you use the lens tripod mount.

I find Focus Peaking Live View works extremely well.

The original of the image attached is a lot sharper, this forums jpg limitations have softened it but it gives you an idea. It was shot as above at f18 1/8sec using a 70-200 Sigma at 160mm on a K-3. The image is also cropped. The city was 10km from my position.

[clackers]

3 images today - first with filter, then without and then with a little PP in LR


All taken on tripod, stabilisation off, AA off, spot AF on anther at end of stamen towards centre of image, 60-250 at 250mm, ISO800, f4 and in this case 1/125th ... yes .. I know I'd said I always shoot over focal length ... but this was quick test in failing evening light :-)


Thoughts ?


Paul

Paul, you've chosen the worst focal length and worst aperture of the lens, according to Photozone testing.

Try 200mm at f8, which will also increase your depth of field.

Don't use AF (which in the dull stamen area seems to have instead confirmed at the distance of areas on the lower left and upper petals).

Try MF with Live View, and LED supplementary lighting on the subject or flash, along with 2s delay if you're not using a remote.

[lm4187]

Quick question. Are you saving RAW or JPG? If JPG, make sure that the noise reduction is off (Menu->Record Mode -> High-ISO NR). The default AUTO setting seems to kick in too quickly and blurs images. This was discovered early on and is discussed elsewhere in this forum.

Otherwise, I can't offer much help. I am still refining my technique; the K-3 is much more demanding of technique than was my K-5.

Cheers,
Lou

[Kwong]

Hi Paul sorry for the delay. top picture with filter and bottom without.

[pgamble]

Hi all


Is the 60-250 really supposed to be 'bad' at 250 at f4 ... or just not quite as good as the reviews suggest for the rest of the focal range ? Interesting and rather surprising stuff below.


I always shoot RAW ... with a jpg copy to the flu card which is just there if someone wants to have a quick look at pictures. I also shoot with no NR, so stabilisation and no AA filter mode. It's not to say any of those things are not useful .. I've just tried to keep things simple until I got the hang of the basics.


Love the ducks :-)


-->


Interesting day with rather mixed feelings.


Went to SRS for 11 and didn't leave until after 2:30. Peter looked after me .... great guy. He did front / back focus tests with the 17-70, 60-250 and 60-250 with 1.4x TC. He then did sharpness tests with each combination. For each lens he then went outside to shoot some real world pictures.


Long story short .. the 17-70 on my K3 is pretty good. We used an AF Tune of +2 to tweak it to it's optimal.


The 60-250 was a challenge. With the chart tests it came up ok ... not special like you'd expect with a lens of it's reputation ... but ok. The outside tests were completely different. Nothing was coming up sharp (just like I'd found). Peter tested with a loan version of the 60-250 they had in shop expecting it to show an issue with the body. It didn't - their 60-250 was equally soft. Peter then tried a DA*300 which he had used a knew was sharp. That came up very well with my K3. He assumed that this meant the body must be ok. He then got out a brand new boxed 60-250 ... and again ... soft. I was gutted and it left both of us very confused.


Peter then got out a Sigma 70-200 F2.8. That wasn't as sharp as the DA*300 but a whole lot better than the 60-250. He also tried the DA*300 with my 1.4xTC ... and whilst it introduced ome softness, it was still pretty good.


So ... 3x 60-250s, all showing very noticeable lack of sharpness .. far less than the 17-70 and the 70-200 and a huge amount less than the DA*300. How can this be ? It's been out ages ... it seems to always be reviewed incredibly well .. I've seen lots of images on this site that appear to show good sharpness ... sometimes painfully good (with and without the 1.4xTC).


Anyway .. having acknowledged it just wasn't right, Peter worked with me to find some sort of alternative.


I've broken the bank and exchanged the 60-250 for the 70-200 and DA*300 (I have to wait for this to be delivered) ... and as I say .. I don't really know how to feel about it.


What I can say however, is first class service from SRS. 3 1/2 hours really in depth and honest trouble shooting on a Saturday ...


Any thoughts gratefully received.


Paul.

[Kwong]

Hi all


Is the 60-250 really supposed to be 'bad' at 250 at f4 ... or just not quite as good as the reviews suggest for the rest of the focal range ? Interesting and rather surprising stuff below.


I always shoot RAW ... with a jpg copy to the flu card which is just there if someone wants to have a quick look at pictures. I also shoot with no NR, so stabilisation and no AA filter mode. It's not to say any of those things are not useful .. I've just tried to keep things simple until I got the hang of the basics.


Love the ducks :-)


-->


Interesting day with rather mixed feelings.


Went to SRS for 11 and didn't leave until after 2:30. Peter looked after me .... great guy. He did front / back focus tests with the 17-70, 60-250 and 60-250 with 1.4x TC. He then did sharpness tests with each combination. For each lens he then went outside to shoot some real world pictures.


Long story short .. the 17-70 on my K3 is pretty good. We used an AF Tune of +2 to tweak it to it's optimal.


The 60-250 was a challenge. With the chart tests it came up ok ... not special like you'd expect with a lens of it's reputation ... but ok. The outside tests were completely different. Nothing was coming up sharp (just like I'd found). Peter tested with a loan version of the 60-250 they had in shop expecting it to show an issue with the body. It didn't - their 60-250 was equally soft. Peter then tried a DA*300 which he had used a knew was sharp. That came up very well with my K3. He assumed that this meant the body must be ok. He then got out a brand new boxed 60-250 ... and again ... soft. I was gutted and it left both of us very confused.


Peter then got out a Sigma 70-200 F2.8. That wasn't as sharp as the DA*300 but a whole lot better than the 60-250. He also tried the DA*300 with my 1.4xTC ... and whilst it introduced ome softness, it was still pretty good.


So ... 3x 60-250s, all showing very noticeable lack of sharpness .. far less than the 17-70 and the 70-200 and a huge amount less than the DA*300. How can this be ? It's been out ages ... it seems to always be reviewed incredibly well .. I've seen lots of images on this site that appear to show good sharpness ... sometimes painfully good (with and without the 1.4xTC).


Anyway .. having acknowledged it just wasn't right, Peter worked with me to find some sort of alternative.


I've broken the bank and exchanged the 60-250 for the 70-200 and DA*300 (I have to wait for this to be delivered) ... and as I say .. I don't really know how to feel about it.


What I can say however, is first class service from SRS. 3 1/2 hours really in depth and honest trouble shooting on a Saturday ...


Any thoughts gratefully received.


Paul.

That is very strange. Curious if you tried the lens on a k5 body. Or something else. You will love the da* 300. Great lens.
The sigma is one I am considering let me know how it works out.

[pgamble]

Still disappointed that I couldn't get a good 60-250 .. three tried in shop and all proved had real sharpness issues.


I now have the 70-200 2.8 Sigma which is good. A lot sharper than the DA*60-250. It's not ideal. It chatters a bit on focusing and isn't as smooth or well built - no bad ... it's actually good, but little things like the collar - I have to remove the Sigma one because it makes the lens so wide it doesn't easily go in the Tamrac.


The DA*300 turned up Friday. I've been out and taken perhaps 30 shots ... all hand held (so a fair bit of camera shake particularly with the blue tit that suddenly flew off.. but it's evident the sharpness is there. Most were taken with the 1.4x HD Rear TC bringing it up to 420mm.


Aside from the odd off screen hangs .. fairly happy ... need lots of practice now.


Thanks for all the suggestions.


Paul.

[PaulR100]

I would highly recommend using a monopod with the 300.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13991676393/

Manfrotto 680B Monopod
manfrotto monopod tilt head 234