Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-21-2012, 06:49 PM   #61
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
Why does the :bigthumbsup: emoticon work in the reply you posted but not in my original post?

05-21-2012, 07:06 PM   #62
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Why does the :bigthumbsup: emoticon work in the reply you posted but not in my original post?
I am not sure.
05-21-2012, 09:13 PM   #63
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Many prime lens designs, except retrofocus wide angles,
have their roots going back for a century
(more like glass plates than film).
Some traditional lens designs, such as the double Gauss design, are hard to improve upon as the basis for an optical design, unless you involve expensive exotic glass.

Nikon's latest 85mm lens just copies the optical design from the predecessor. It appears they could not improve it with reasonable means.

In Adam's comparison the FA 77/1.8 is sharper @ f/1.8 than the DA 70/2.4 is at f/2.4.
Disclaimer: I have not checked whether this could be due to a problem with Adam's test.

While the FA 77/1.8 has PF issues I wonder to what extend these could be addressed with a "for digital"-redesign without destroying the FA 77/1.8's rendering quality that many love.

I do not believe that the FA 77/1.8 design/technology is outdated. Maybe I'm wrong and tweaks could improve it without causing the "pixie dust" to trickle out, but I'm skeptical.

Last edited by Class A; 05-21-2012 at 09:41 PM.
05-21-2012, 09:30 PM   #64
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
:bigthumbsup: :hysterical: :laugh:

05-22-2012, 05:58 AM   #65
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 100
The newer DA designs use more aspheric elements than the FA. Not saying FA has none (since I don't know, definitively), just that the compact DA designs necessarily include them.

The "old" designs are still highly relevant, IMO, and I do not see how MTF can be degraded from one camera to the next if all we're talking about is the lens itself. There is something about the MTF test that introduces sensor performance as a factor. In this case, the "rating" really should be a lens/camera pair rating. This is subtly stated on PZ.
05-22-2012, 09:56 AM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Asha Quote
I do not see how MTF can be degraded from one camera to the next if all we're talking about is the lens itself. There is something about the MTF test that introduces sensor performance as a factor. In this case, the "rating" really should be a lens/camera pair rating. This is subtly stated on PZ.
Right. A moderately good lens could appear excellent on a low-density sensor,
but show up less well on a more dense sensor
whose closer pixel spacing challenges the lp/mm resolution of that lens.
05-22-2012, 10:05 AM   #67
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
An easy way to see it is high resolution cameras magnifies everything.
It shows and allows you to get the highest definition possable but then it
does exactly the same thing with any flaws of any given lens. You gotta take the rough with the smooth.
05-23-2012, 06:18 AM   #68
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
... a more dense sensor whose closer pixel spacing challenges the lp/mm resolution of that lens.
Ideally, lens tests specifying results with the unit "lp/mm" (or based on "lp/mm") should yield the same results independently of the camera that was used.

This unit should refer to the lens resolution only and should hence be independent of the pixel pitch of the sensor. Only where a low pixel-pitch sensor is outresolved by the lens, a higher pixel pitch sensor should yield higher resolution numbers for the lens, but everywhere else (corners, higher f-ratios) the two measurements should ideally agree.


Last edited by Class A; 05-23-2012 at 07:43 AM.
05-23-2012, 06:33 AM   #69
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
What I seem to have noticed over the years, is that I remember most of photozones nikon test were carried out using the 10milion pixel D200. There were a couple of lenses that actualy outperformed the camera and went past the resolution limits. These same lenses when tested on the D300 where scratching the surface of the resolution limits.
This is the point I decided That DSLRs are now outperforming the lenses with ease.
Ive yet to see a lens get even close to the resolution limits of a 16milion pixel camera.
The more pixels though, does seem to have a strange efect I dont understand as yet.
Because they often do perform better slightly and show more resolution than on the lower pixel count. Its still not enough to reach the resolution limits though. Im 100% convinced you dont get more quality from more pixels. just bigger files. And that quality itself lies soley on the lens now.
05-23-2012, 06:44 AM   #70
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
When the airy disc of a lens has scale approaching the pixel size on the sensor there can be interference etc and 16million pixels on APS-C seems to be about the maximum regardless of how good the sensors are due to optical considerations.

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Last edited by bossa; 05-23-2012 at 07:23 AM.
05-23-2012, 07:12 AM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Ideally, lens tests specifying results with the unit "lp/mm" should yield the same results independently of the camera that was used.
Imatest, as used by Photozone, is far from that ideal, although higher pixel-count sensors do bring it closer.
05-23-2012, 07:31 AM   #72
New Member




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Flushing,NY
Posts: 10
It sounds like a pretty good lens, but too expensive for me!
05-23-2012, 07:36 AM   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,614
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
When the airy disc of a lens has scale approaching the pixel size on the sensor there can be interference etc and 16million pixels on APS-C seems to be about the maximum regardless of how good the sensors are due to optical considerations.
As the link you posted shows, that depends on the aperture being used.
05-23-2012, 06:39 PM   #74
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
Also consider that 31mm is 4mm shorter than the 35/2.4, without loosing MTF. The 31mm is more comparable to Sigma 30/1.4 and well it's not even a close game: Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX DC (Pentax K) Review / Test Report - Analysis
Not to take anything away from the mighty 31mm, but it seems like you're comparing the Sigma 30mm tested on the K10D vs the Pentax 31mm tested on the K-5.

If you look at both the 30 and 31 tested on the K10D, you'll see that at even wide open at f1.4, the 30mm is already a tiny bit sharper in the center than the 31mm at f1.8. Very impressive sharpness for f1.4. The 30mm maintains its center advantage, and edges out the 31mm for maximum sharpness at f4.

Now the 31mm has a clear advantage at the borders, so it's all a matter of trade offs. I'm glad that both lenses are out there, since some people will value maximum center sharpness at wide apertures, while others will prefer more even sharpness across the frame.
05-23-2012, 06:58 PM   #75
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
The tone of this thread is odd. It got a review of 4.5/5 (optical quality), 4.5/5 (mechanical Quality), 3/5 (price/performance) and :bigthumbsup: but many are acting like it got rated as a Coke bottle glass. :Hysterical:

Last edited by Blue; 05-23-2012 at 09:49 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
31mm, f/1.8, f1.8, fa, fa31mm, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, quality, review, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photozone Reviews Tamron 70-200 2.8 HOT! HOT! HOT! JHD Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 02-03-2011 09:11 AM
For Sale - Sold: FA31mm/1.8 Limited (Worldwide) LuzArt Sold Items 2 09-27-2010 12:20 PM
should I trade in DA*16-50mm for a FA31mm ltd? mokey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 09-24-2010 01:27 PM
People Portraiture via the FA31mm [9 imgs] A Modest Mouse Post Your Photos! 2 07-27-2010 03:24 PM
More Photozone reviews! feronovak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 05-04-2007 05:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top