Hi everybody,

I would like to open up a thread dedicated to one topic:

DA lens on Full Frame: a sticky test shots thread.

This thread shall be dedicated to test shots of a DA lens mounted to a full frame body (e.g., a film camera body). By test shot, I mean shots dedicated to evaluate the performance. Shots of ordinary subjects aren't suitable to this task, normally, and should not be posted. So, these are the rules:

• K mount lens dedicated to the APS-C form factor is used.
• Image is taken full frame 36mm x 24mm.
• Lens hood was removed.
• And ideally, no filter is mounted.
• The aperture used is specified (note that film cameras don't record EXIF...).
• Sample image shows the entire field of view.
• Sample image(s) show(s) corner, border and center performance at 10MP-100% (multiple crops, or single not-resized image).
• The subject is such that resolution and vignetting at the borders can be compared to the center.

The idea behind this thread is obvious: To compile enough data to assess the spectrum of available lenses for a forthcoming full frame DSLR in K mount.

#################################################

Table of results as obtained in this thread (updated regularly):

SMC Pentax-DA primes...

• DA 14mm F2.8: - (clawhammer)
• DA 15mm F4.0: - (Zav)
• DA 21mm F3.2 Limited: - (Boris Liberman)
• DA 35mm F2.4 AL: +++ (aurele ;like FA35/2.0 and no vignetting) (frank)
• DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro: 0 (ryno), + (@ 1.15 crop)
• DA 40mm F2.8 Limited: +
• DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM: +++ (aurele)
• DA 70mm F2.4 Limited: +
• D FA Macro 100mm F2.8 WR: +++ (officially specified FF by Pentax)
• DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM: +++? (common belief, but is it true?)
• DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM: ++ (officially rated "designed for FF" by Pentax patent US7715116)

SMC Pentax-DA zooms...

• DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye ED [IF]: FE, see #59, #61, #94. 10mm: heavy vignette / 14mm: almost no vignette / 17mm ++ (Reps, froeschle, Gooshin)
• DA 12-24mm F4 ED AL [IF]: - (below 16mm, xitek.com), o (at 18mm, architorture), + (at 20mm, architorture), ++ (at 24mm, architorture)
• DA 16-45mm F4: - (below 21mm, Nesster)
• DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM: - (xitek.com)
• DA 17-70mm F4 AL [IF] SDM: - (KjetilH)
• DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL: - (at 18mm, Spongefingers; below 23mm, xitek.com)
• DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II: missing
• DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF]: - (xitek.com)
• DA 50-200mm ED: -
• DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM: - (elho_cid)
• DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM: ++ (officially rated "designed for FF" by Pentax patent US7489452) probably good on full frame but evaluation still missing; the rating is +++ with a baffle modification, + without)
• DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED: 0 (+, ++ at tele end, viking79)

Sigma K mount DC...

• Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC: -
• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC: - (below 14mm, Gooshin)
• ...

Tamron K mount Di-II...

• ...

Overall rating scale:
+++: no significant difference between APS-C and FF corners
++: difference but usable at full aperture with a small loss in corner IQ only
+: usable staring at f/4~f/5.6, with no or a small loss in corner IQ only
o: usable at f/11 or with big loss in corner IQ only
-: not usable

[falconeye]

Done.

Thanks. The comment, as it is, is fine for inclusion in the OP. No need for special code.

@Adam : I am sorry to realize a bug in the forum configuration: I am no longer able to edit my older posts in this thread, incl. the OP. This is very unfortunate. May I kindly ask you to help? (ie., enable EDIT, pls. don't modify my OP).

[Barry Pearson]

I hope this thread is still active. This post is the reason I joined Pentax Forums!

I put my DA and DA* lenses on a Pentax Z-1p 35mm camera, and shot 3 films in all. I've uploaded 99 scans to my website for all to see. They are 4976px by 3300px JPEGs, and so are of the order of 4 MB each.

I photographed a brick wall in about one third of the photos, and a simple test target for the other two-thirds. Nearly half of the photos used a 1.4x teleconverter. I've superimposed an APS-C-sized rectangle onto each photo to make comparisons of edge and corner quality easier.

Here is the link to the set of pages describing the tests and providing the photos. There are 3 descriptive pages plus one page per lens. The 6 (Pentax) lenses are: DA 10-17mm fisheye; DA 12-24mm; DA 17-70mm; DA* 55mm; DA* 60-250mm; DA* 300mm. Their pages give a very brief summary of my thoughts on how useful they would be on such a camera.

This is still work-in-progress. I may add more analysis to those pages, and perhaps process some of the scans to see if their failings (if any) can be overcome with post-processing. But in the meantime I feel that others may want to examine the scans and draw their own conclusions and post them here. Or ask me to expand on my own views on those pages.

I made some (fairly obvious) errors in a few of the tests, such as camera shake, bad focusing, etc. It is unlikely that I will re-do any tests. This was a one-off exercise mainly for my own purposes.

[gazonk]

I hope this thread is still active. This post is the reason I joined Pentax Forums!

I put my DA and DA* lenses on a Pentax Z-1p 35mm camera, and shot 3 films in all. I've uploaded 99 scans to my website for all to see. They are 4976px by 3300px JPEGs, and so are of the order of 4 MB each.

I photographed a brick wall in about one third of the photos, and a simple test target for the other two-thirds. Nearly half of the photos used a 1.4x teleconverter. I've superimposed an APS-C-sized rectangle onto each photo to make comparisons of edge and corner quality easier.

Here is the link to the set of pages describing the tests and providing the photos. There are 3 descriptive pages plus one page per lens. The 6 (Pentax) lenses are: DA 10-17mm fisheye; DA 12-24mm; DA 17-70mm; DA* 55mm; DA* 60-250mm; DA* 300mm. Their pages give a very brief summary of my thoughts on how useful they would be on such a camera.

This is still work-in-progress. I may add more analysis to those pages, and perhaps process some of the scans to see if their failings (if any) can be overcome with post-processing. But in the meantime I feel that others may want to examine the scans and draw their own conclusions and post them here. Or ask me to expand on my own views on those pages.

I made some (fairly obvious) errors in a few of the tests, such as camera shake, bad focusing, etc. It is unlikely that I will re-do any tests. This was a one-off exercise mainly for my own purposes.

Thanks Barry! I've have a look at all, but after a quick look at the DA10-17 shots I'd like to point out that the only problem is the hood. Here's a guy doing surgery on his equivalent Tokina lens ;-)
Tokina 10-17 - DIY hood shaving - Canon Digital Photography Forums

[Barry Pearson]

Thanks Barry! I've have a look at all, but after a quick look at the DA10-17 shots I'd like to point out that the only problem is the hood. Here's a guy doing surgery on his equivalent Tokina lens ;-)
Tokina 10-17 - DIY hood shaving - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Aaaaaarrrggh!

Thank you for that (very fast) response. I've updated my page for the DA 10-17mm fisheye lens to link to your reply and to that description.

I wouldn't try that myself. But I might pay an expert to do it for me.

[aurele]

Thanks Barry! I've have a look at all, but after a quick look at the DA10-17 shots I'd like to point out that the only problem is the hood. Here's a guy doing surgery on his equivalent Tokina lens ;-)
Tokina 10-17 - DIY hood shaving - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Tokina sell the 10-17 FE with a APS version and a FF version. the latter don't have lens hood

[falconeye]

Here is the link to the set of pages describing the tests and providing the photos.

Barry, thank you very much for your tests.

It contains many useful information. Btw, I do agree to your conclusion about the 60-250. Moreover, I think it is an example why I think corner sharpness matters more than vignetting. Vignetting, if not 100%, can be cured in post to some degree.

[Barry Pearson]

Barry, thank you very much for your tests.

It contains many useful information. Btw, I do agree to your conclusion about the 60-250. Moreover, I think it is an example why I think corner sharpness matters more than vignetting. Vignetting, if not 100%, can be cured in post to some degree.

Half of what I published duplicated what others had done. (I wanted to check for myself!)

However, I think my tests using a 1.4x Teleconverter may be an important extension to this topic. I couldn't find such tests elsewhere. (Perhaps they exist but I missed them?) I wanted to know what would happen, because I'm sure that if Pentax supply such a Teleconverter I will buy it, and if Pentax supply an FF camera I will often use that Teleconverter with that camera, especially for the longer lenses. That means especially with my DA* 60-250mm f/4 and my DA* 300mm f/4.

If Pentax launched a 420mm f/5.6 lens, we would want to know if it was an FF lens. But that is what we get with a 1.4x Teleconverter plus a 300mm f/4 lens. And the 60-250mm becomes an 84-350mm f/5.6 lens, which sounds like a very useful lens on an FF camera.

A 1.4x Teleconverter works by expanding the image circle. If it expands the whole image circle, rather than just the centre of it, it "uncrops" the lens by the corresponding amount. A lens that was originally a 1.5-crop lens should become about a 1.1-crop lens. A lens that was nearly an FF lens should become a full FF lens. I think the above 85-350mm f/5.6 (60-250mm plus Teleconverter) will be a useful FF lens. Perhaps still a bit soft in the corners at 60mm (now 85mm), but good at longer lengths.

I suspect that if Pentax supply an FF camera, their 1.4x Teleconverter (if any) will play a role in many people's decisions. Perhaps Pentax themselves will promote it. (And I would like to know how the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, which I don't have, behaves with a 1.4x Teleconverter. Will it be anything like an FF lens?) Unfortunately, Teleconverters tend not to work so well at wider focal lengths, so this will not be a general solution across all lenses.

[falconeye]

I think my tests using a 1.4x Teleconverter may be an important extension to this topic. I couldn't find such tests elsewhere.

A few such tests are found at photozone.de for the better of Nikon and Canon tele lenses.

The problem is that you must measure entire systems (camera, converter, lens) to conclude anything. E.g., cropping may provide better or worse quality than a tele converter does, depending on the camera's pixel pitch and converter's optical formula. Therefore, any "generic" take at the topic isn't worth much. Esp. as Pentax forthcoming TC cannot be tested yet. Or a possibly forthcoming FF camera from them...

Besides this, it is well known that a TC makes a FF camera behave like an APSC camera, provided the TC has very good optical quality. Personally, I think TCs add too much CA etc.

Another side remark: A tele converter can improve the performance of the AF system (with fast enough lenses), wrt to cropping. I've recently followed a thread which suggested that cropping a Nikon D7100 provides worse quality than using a TC with a Nikon D300 (they have about the same AF system and both methods delivered the same #MP). I think the TC can make an AF system perform more accurately.

So, its a complex topic overall. And probably beyond the scope of this thread.

[Digitalis]

after a quick look at the DA10-17 shots I'd like to point out that the only problem is the hood

The sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 has a similar issue however @14mm and above the hood ceases to be an issue when looking through the viewfinder on my Pentax ME and LX. I am unwilling to shave the hood of this particular lens because its flare tolerance leaves much to be desired at it is.

this is an example for the sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 I found on he internet taken with a sony A900:


the person who reviewed this lens noted there is slight fall off at the corners -3 @16mm on the A900 but this is not beyond correction. But other than that, the lens is produces usable images.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[robthebloke]

Pentax SMC DA 50mm f1.8 @ f1.8, camera used: P30T. Unable to try out different apertures due to the limitations of the P30T.

[azerak]

The DA 50mm 1.8 looks ok when used on full frame. Can we conclude that it can actually be used for full frame?

[robthebloke]

Well, almost. Most of the photos I got back actually look pretty good (albeit locked at f1.8), but there is one photo that bugs me:



I'm not sure if that's an artefact of the bokeh (being locked at f1.8), or a limitation of the corners when focussed to infinity. I'm awaiting delivery of a battery for my Z-1p, so I'll probably take it out and see what happens when stopped down a bit (which is what I'd normally do for a shot like that anyway). As i say though, that's the only image that's come out weird. The rest of the images look pretty good (although I must admit manually focussing the DA50 f1.8 on film was not the most enjoyable experience! Again, another reason why I'm keen to try it out on an autofocus body....).

\edit

Distortion is caused by focussing beyond infinity. The lens is a full frame lens.

[Jean Poitiers]

Bonjour,

Just FYI that I noticed ...

Here's the link : Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens 22177 B&H Photo Video

Quote :

" ... Product Highlights

• Very Fast f/1.8 Maximum Aperture
• Excellent Low-Light Lens
• Pleasing Bokeh (Out-of-Focus Areas)
• SP Coating Repels Dust, Water, Grease
• For APS-C & Full-Frame K-Mount Cameras ..." (Emphasis added & end quote)

Salut, J

EDIT of 29 Jan. 2014 ... went back to this link and there's been a change ... "Full Frame" has been removed ... wonder why?! J

[robthebloke]

I've just got another roll of film back from thee developers using the DA 50mm f1.8, and I think I've figured out the cause of the distortion. Be careful when using this lens on fullframe - it focuses beyond infinity - which is the cause of the nastiness seen above. If you keep the focussing within limits, it's a fine lens for film.