|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-03-2010, 11:38 AM
|
| |
Check out the shot below that I took with the lens in question (exp f/4.5 1/500, focal length 16 mm, focused on the fountain). Included are crops of the extreme right and left sides at actual resolution. I expect a little softness in the foreground since I'm focused on the fountain, but, the right side is farther away than the left yet the left side appears to me to be far more *in* focus. Is this symptomatic of de-centering/misalignment?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2010, 08:32 PM
|
| |
Thanks all for the feedback! Yeah, I was maybe half a meter from that brick wall. The Focus and Recompose article, Ash, was very enlightening--forgot my trig! Makes sense. I'll try some very deliberate real world f2.8 shots and the newspaper technique (maybe a little farther away!)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2010, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Hi,
I'm fairly green at digital photography especially with a DSLR. My Pentax K10D is the first I've owned. I bought the best lens I could for it in 2007--the 16-50 DA*. Lately, I've reviewed a poor shot here and there on the computer and haven't been able to blame myself for it. So I started researching issues with this lens, primarily reading this forum, which brought my attention to the image quality issues this lens has had. Its an early copy of the lens, serial number 9010776.
I've taken a number of test shots of a brick wall at multiple focal lengths and apertures. Some of the results were painful viewing. The images look quite obviously poor at the extremes (wide angle, f/2.8) and I suspect that my lens is a bad copy but I really need an expectation reset from more experienced photographers respecting image quality. How soft is acceptably soft at the extremes? Is my lens a not-so-hot copy or a REALLY bad copy. Could I prevail upon someone for their opinion?
Attached images are 16mm @ f/2.8, 3.5, 5.6 and 50mm @ f/2.8, 5.6
Much obliged!
Jason
|
