[ultraviolet]

cheapo point-and-shoot lens

Nice one.
+1

[zosxavius]

Maybe you want to look at the vignetting results of this cheapo point-and-shoot lens for reference (check those grey pictures under "falloff"):
Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II
Wouldn't want one of these. Obviously too weak and too badly vignetting to be called a FF lens.

If you compare that to the DA40XS "crop" lens, well...

But it only costs $2000! What a deal!

[Impartial]

Maybe you want to look at the vignetting results of this cheapo point-and-shoot lens for reference (check those grey pictures under "falloff"):
Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II

This actually relates to a point I have wondered about for some time -- how many of the old optical designs for 35mm film actually meet the expectations (for corner sharpness and light falloff, especially) that we have now for lenses designed for digital? If this Canon L-series doesn't . . .

[eddie1960]

well an 85 that is soft at the corners and edges used to be a desirable thing. the 85 being a classic portrait lens. heck they made deliberately soft lenses for this purpose that were highly desirable for portrait shooters

for example

SMC Pentax-F 85mm F2.8 Soft Reviews - F Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
SMC Pentax-FA 85mm F2.8 Soft Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
SMC Pentax 85mm F2.2 Soft Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Smolk]

Maybe you want to look at the vignetting results of this cheapo point-and-shoot lens for reference (check those grey pictures under "falloff"):
Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II

That test exaggerates the fall-off. If you look at the images at 1.2 also in that review, you'll notice it is sharper in the edges than the DA40XS.

[Cyberex]

I love all the 40/2.8 by pentax!
Good shots!!!!

[fikkser]

Maybe you want to look at the vignetting results of this cheapo point-and-shoot lens for reference (check those grey pictures under "falloff"):
Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II
Wouldn't want one of these. Obviously too weak and too badly vignetting to be called a FF lens.

If you compare that to the DA40XS "crop" lens, well...

OK. Now there's a real test with 40 xs on a 5d mk3 from ricehigh. Does the corner look good enough to you? If it's normal to you, congratulations.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/5Ds/40mm_Pancake/IMG_1039.jpg Look at the lower right corner. Notice that this is taken at about f5,6 (manually fixed aperture).

This is not acceptable for a modern lens. You are wrong, corner sharpness of an 85 1,2 @ 1,2 and 1,4 is not expected to be perfect. But a normal prime f2,8-5,6 should perform flawlessly. Again, you are wrong. It's too bad in the corners to be used on FF without cropping. And you'd need to crop down the image to about APS-C for the corners to be good. :-)

That ken rockwell test shows that the 85 1,2 got much better corners at 1,2 than the xs 40 got at f5,6... http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/85mm-f12/sharpness/12-corner-IMG_9498.jpg f1,2 in the right corner. :-)

[ihasa]

OK. Now there's a real test with 40 xs on a 5d mk3 from ricehigh. Does the corner look good enough to you? If it's normal to you, congratulations.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/5Ds/40mm_Pancake/IMG_1039.jpg Look at the lower right corner. Notice that this is taken at about f5,6 (manually fixed aperture).

This is not acceptable for a modern lens. You are wrong, corner sharpness of an 85 1,2 @ 1,2 and 1,4 is not expected to be perfect. But a normal prime f2,8-5,6 should perform flawlessly. Again, you are wrong. It's too bad in the corners to be used on FF without cropping. And you'd need to crop down the image to about APS-C for the corners to be good. :-)

That ken rockwell test shows that the 85 1,2 got much better corners at 1,2 than the xs 40 got at f5,6... http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/85mm-f12/sharpness/12-corner-IMG_9498.jpg f1,2 in the right corner. :-)

Of course the lens is not designed for FF, and has never been claimed as such, but it is a bonus that it would be usable (indeed excellent, by the look it) on FF for portraits etc where corners aren't an issue.

[aurele]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...e/IMG_1039.jpg Look at the lower right corner. Notice that this is taken at about f5,6 (manually fixed aperture).

i think the fall off is mostly due to the fact that it barely cover FF. I say that because the fall off appear to be non-progressive at all.

But a normal prime f2,8-5,6 should perform flawlessly. Again, you are wrong. It's too bad in the corners to be used on FF without cropping

The fact that Pentax called it "DA" reflect the fact it is not designed at first for FF.

And you'd need to crop down the image to about APS-C for the corners to be good. :-)

Maybe you're exagerating a bit.

That ken rockwell test shows that the 85 1,2 got much better corners at 1,2 than the xs 40 got at f5,6.

for a 2k$ lens i hope it's good wide open !

[Joe Nation]

...40 xs on a 5d mk3...

As in, an APS-C Pentax lens on a full-frame Canon body? No wonder it doesn't work. The lens has a 45.46mm register distance while the body has a 44mm register distance; granted 1.5mm isn't much, but it's probably enough to alter the optical performance to some degree.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood...

[ihasa]

As in, an APS-C Pentax lens on a full-frame Canon body? No wonder it doesn't work. The lens has a 45.46mm register distance while the body has a 44mm register distance; granted 1.5mm isn't much, but it's probably enough to alter the optical performance to some degree.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood...

I would imagine he would have used an appropriate adapter

[fikkser]

I'm only trying to go against the current of the stream (thread). It seems most people are convinced it does cover FF. I think they're wrong, it's clearly usable on FF where the corners are unimportant.

beholder3 tried to use the canon 85 1,2 as an argument for the da 40 XS being as good as the 85 on FF. Implying the 40 is a ff lens because the canon has similar corner sharpness.

[Joe Nation]

I would imagine he would have used an appropriate adapter

No doubt with a piece of glass to add to the distortion.

[Scootatheschool1990]

Tested the new DA40XS lens on film camera last Sat just to see if the lens works okay on FF film camera. Here is the setup:






I finished the whole roll in one hour around my place, all are just quick snaps. And it's after 6pm just around the time when the Sun was going down. Sky was pretty doll too, so please don't judge too much on the photo quality. I just wanted to test if the lens had any problem working on FF film cameras.
Here is the whole roll, 36.8 shots (the last shot got a black bar on the right 'cause film finished already):




Looking at the scanned results, I'd say the lens works pretty well on FF film camera

I'd post all the 36.8 shots below, no cropping or vignetting adjustment on any photo, except some level and saturation adjustment (the scanned results are way too saturated )

------------------------------------

These two are the first two snaps from our window, first one was shot at F8, the second was wide open at F2.8, you can see there is just a little bit vignetting on the wide open photo, not very obvious at all:






Thanks to these two fellow Pentaxians who took the short walk together with me:





The rest of the whole roll film:


































































Thanks to our Penatx friends who took the short walk with me, and sorry for the funny color, can't help from my side

love the pentax spirit in these photos. everyone pentax!

[i_trax]

Nice! Hey Frank, any places "over there" that sell the little plug that goes in the MZ-S remote socket? If so, PM me so I can buy one!

did you manage to get this sorted?
i purchased a while ago the Pentax TS-110 which I believe is the original remote for MZ-S

I will be cutting the plug and resoldering 2.5mm jack so can use with my DSLR's