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]

What's negative is when the FF pushers tell people not to buy lenses that won't work for FF [...] Coming here and telling people not to buy some of best lenses around because they won't work well on FF, now that's foolish.

There are no FF pushers in this thread. This thread is dedicated to fact collecting. Which is hard work, btw.

Nobody here tells to buy or not to buy anything.

But this really isn't the forum to use tone or attitude like you did. Ben tried to hint that at you in a nice way. Please, get it. With your few number of posts, we'll forgive you but you should behave as the guest you are.

If you cannot contribute to this thread, then please, stay away from it.

[Alan 2]

Originally Posted by Alan 2
What's negative is when the FF pushers tell people not to buy lenses that won't work for FF [...] Coming here and telling people not to buy some of best lenses around because they won't work well on FF, now that's foolish.

There are no FF pushers in this thread. This thread is dedicated to fact collecting. Which is hard work, btw.

Nobody here tells to buy or not to buy anything.

But this really isn't the forum to use tone or attitude like you did. Ben tried to hint that at you in a nice way. Please, get it. With your few number of posts, we'll forgive you but you should behave as the guest you are.

If you cannot contribute to this thread, then please, stay away from it.

Well okay, that's a nice way of taking things out of context. If you read the whole post instead of cutting and pasting a few snippets there's nothing negative about it. It's just common sense. Having said that I'll leave the thread alone.

[Gooshin]

as per request,


Sigma 10-20 on a pentax Super Program

this is at 10mm and wide open (since i dont have aperture control with that camera)




the vignetting does go away in the viewfinder at around 14mm (again wide open)

which is intresting considering how the DA14 performs on a FF...

[Spongefingers]

I didn't see an example of the DA 18-55, so here's one:


SMC DA 18-55 AL at 18mm, Pentax MZ-5n, Fuji Superia 400
I don't remember the f-stop, it may have been around f4.

The vignetting's pretty nasty, but looks interesting. Naturally, the imaging circle expands further out, but I didn't take any on this film - which I took a few months ago. I might take a range of samples on another film if anyone's interested.

[falconeye]

I didn't see an example of the DA 18-55, so here's one: I might take a range of samples on another film if anyone's interested.

Thanks, Spongefingers. I updated the summary table.

It would be interesting to have a sample photo at a focal length where vignetting is less obvious (if it exists). You did remove the lens hood, did you?

Nice "majestic" cat

[Spongefingers]

The cat's name is Henry, he lives across the road from us. I honestly don't remember if the lens hood was on. It was just a rough example shot. When I look through the film viewfinder, I can distinctly see black corners at 18mm with the lens cap off.
I will dedicate 2/3 of a roll of HP5 to a test. I'll shoot the shots against a brick wall or a wall chart. I'll try these combinations:

18mm: --- 3.5 4 5.6 8 11 16
24mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
35mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
55mm: ---------- 5.6 8 11 16

I don't think I will be able to test the resolution particularly well, as my scanner (Epson V100 Photo) makes pretty smudgy film scans. But I will try my best to fulfill your test criteria!
Any thoughts before I start? Do you think f/22 would be worth trying too?

I also noticed you added my data on the first post, but the lens is not the 18-55 AL II. I haven't used that one. Is this because you know of its vignetting on APS-C (like the original 18-55) so you presume it is identical, or because you know the lens construction is the same?

You may want to add "Lens must have no filter(s) fitted" to the test criteria too. just to be on the safe side.

[falconeye]

I will dedicate 2/3 of a roll of HP5 to a test. I'll shoot the shots against a brick wall or a wall chart. I'll try these combinations:

18mm: --- 3.5 4 5.6 8 11 16
24mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
35mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
55mm: ---------- 5.6 8 11 16

I don't think I will be able to test the resolution particularly well, as my scanner (Epson V100 Photo) makes pretty smudgy film scans. But I will try my best to fulfill your test criteria!
Any thoughts before I start?

You have already found out that the 18-55 produces full vignetting, at least at 18mm. So, a more thorough test is most interesting at focal length where it doesn't vignette too much. Otherwise, we would give it a "-" anyway, right? Your prepared choice of tests is great. Maybe, select those which are most interesting in the end. A pitty that you have no other lens to test And thanks for your participation in this experiment.

As for the scanner. Meanwhile I have studied some of my test films (see above) with a microscope. Holy crap!! The B&W film actually outperforms both the Nikon Coolscans (even with my multi-pass trick) and the K20D. I'll post photos as soon as I can take photographs of my microscope...

Regarding some of your remarks: I removed the 18-55 AL II. I wasn't sure which one you used. I also added a "Lens must have no filter(s) fitted" remark. Actually, a 35mm lens should be able to be fitted with a filter to fully qualify as FF capable

[Lowell Goudge]

WHile I have not looked, have any of you put a posting of the performance in the lens review data base?

There is a LOT of great data here. YOu each have taken the time to test and evaluate the perfrormance of the lens on a FF camera. Why not put the results where they really need to go?

Feel free to blast me for this rant if you have already done the postings

[falconeye]

WHile I have not looked, have any of you put a posting of the performance in the lens review data base?

There is a LOT of great data here. You each have taken the time to test and evaluate the perfrormance of the lens on a FF camera. Why not put the results where they really need to go?

Lowell, this is a good point. Actually, I already had put a review in the lens review database for the lenses I gave a serious test myself. The review was short: Final verdict plus link to the corresponding post here. I think I did it for DA40, DA70 and DA300. While I could do this for my own tests, I of course cannot post reviews done by others.

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell, this is a good point. Actually, I already had put a review in the lens review database for the lenses I gave a serious test myself. The review was short: Final verdict plus link to the corresponding post here. I think I did it for DA40, DA70 and DA300. While I could do this for my own tests, I of course cannot post reviews done by others.

It's good to hear at least you have posted links to your shots.

If others do the same, and this also goes when people post things here about the image etc. the database becomes really useful

[Isaac314]

Hi everyone! Just stuck the 55-300mm on my MX and i can confirm that there is no visible vignetting, at least to me, even stopped down to f/22

I took some shots and i will post them when i get this developed (which might take a long time).

One thing, to make me seem even more stupid then i already appear, how the hell do i change the aperture on a DA lens? seems to be stuck on f/22. do i get a fork and jimmy the metal pin on the left side? or am i getting my hopes high using the MX? it would be great to get this lens working on the my film camera.

another question, doesn't FF use much more glass and should therefore cost more, or is it just incidental to the design of the lens?

[falconeye]

how the hell do i change the aperture on a DA lens? seems to be stuck on f/22. [...] another question, doesn't FF use much more glass and should therefore cost more, or is it just incidental to the design of the lens?

Hi Isaac,

I fear that the MX doesn't operate the aperture lever. Only bodies which feature automatic aperture mode, I guess. Maybe, it is possible to fix/tape the aperture lever to stay fully open. I don't know.

Yes, FF glass can use more glass and cost more. But as soon as the focal length starts to be larger than the FF image circle (43mm), the difference starts to vanish.

[Isaac314]

Just like i thought! Thanks, i will try a piece of sellotape and at least then i can use it.

I think its safe to assumer the 55-300 is a full frame lens, even if we dont have any tests.

[Reps]

Checked it out almost a year ago under awful conditions: living room lit by ca. 100W tungsten and shot a wall with a painting- but the wall was too short for definite conclusions and dark corners and furniture spoiled it :-(
Will choose daytime target and reshoot.
My initial findings @F8 (or maybe it was 5.6- for confirmation have to reshoot anyway):

10mm: heavy vignette, nicely usable with 1.4x crop factor;
14mm: almost no vignetting (or maybe none- bad scene as I told);
17mm: no visible vignetting nor corner degradation compared to dSLR;

After seeing this thread I was surprised why I haven't attached fisheye to my film body for regular shots although I know how it behaves- must save it in my to-do list and slip DA1017 into film bag :-)

And one more thing- remember the FOV difference... it is almost impossible to hide Your feet with SLR and FE :-)
After next test I also upload the images.
Best and happy experimenting, JR

[falconeye]

I think its safe to assumer the 55-300 is a full frame lens, even if we dont have any tests.

10mm: heavy vignette, nicely usable with 1.4x crop factor;
14mm: almost no vignetting (or maybe none- bad scene as I told);
17mm: no visible vignetting nor corner degradation compared to dSLR; [...] it is almost impossible to hide Your feet with SLR and FE :-)

I updated the intial post accordingly. Thanks for all the contributions.

And a new lesson: always clean shoes before shooting FE on SLR