[ogl]

ps.. I adore my copy of the 43, it is noticeably sharp across the frame pre infinity from f/2.8 onwards, razor sharp from f/4 and it does return colours & contrast with loads of impact. All this does is add more ammunition to the FA or DA argument

The same with mine. FA43 is MUCH better at K-5 than at K200D in terms of resolution. Even f1.9 is outstanding. It was soft at K200D.

[mecrox]

I've always found photozone a sane and helpful site in a sea of mad blokes on the internet and I'm grateful to it. I've also found that their conclusions are about right for the Pentax lenses I own. The difficulties start immediately you try to translate their findings into the photographs you take and then see on your monitor or print. Yes, the DA 15mm has weak borders and isn't any great shakes at wide apertures. No, this makes no difference to some of the glorious images this lens can produce when it is used carefully and at its optimum settings. So photozone is simply a guide to some basic quality parameters, and that's all. I've always been under the impression that the chap who runs the site understands this as well as or better than any of us. Some things, whether a lens or a rug, have a weakness or fault - the stitch of Allah - so intimately bound up with their strengths that the two cannot be separated. If you major on only one of them you miss the point.

All that said, where I live buying the three FA Limiteds would set me back a cool $3948 USD (£2497 GBP). For that fairly massive outlay I would expect the best, not only in terms of image quality but in terms of build quality, Q&A and after-sales service. For that reason, I have a fairly hard time convincing myself that a Pentax K5 and the FA Limiteds is a better option than a Nikon D7000 plus three Zeiss primes, again where I live and taking after-sales service and the like into account (effectively, there pretty well isn't any for Pentax here). The outlay would be fairly similar in either case. If you really want to hit the high-end, I'm not sure Pentax is really the right choice. Was it ever, for SLRs or DSLRs? Perhaps we are pushing Pentax further than they ever intended to go.

[Blue]

Blue and you wrote Kirakawa.

His name is Hirakawa Jun, family name first, given name last in the Japanese tradition.

Actually I didn't go back and look. I was even quoted in post 53 by Jay.

His name is Hirakawa Jun. He retired recently in 2010.

Actually, he was let go by the Hoya boys. He is about 50. Ricoh has hired some people back. We will see if he is one. However, that doesn't change his quote nor the papers he wrote about the 43 and 77.

[creampuff]

What's the big ruckus about the FA 43mm Limited? I've owned two copies of this lens, one in black and one in silver, both made in Japan. The older copy in silver performs a lot better than the newer one in black, so I can say with certainty there are definite sample variations in different production batches. I personally put little faith in Photozone's results but if Pentax lemmings want to blindly believe and trust what Photozone has to say, so be it.

Just to show how much of a dog my MIJ copy was, here are some actual photos as proof. I challenge all FA43mm Limited users to shoot a subject with high specular reflection or contrast and see if they got PF as bad as mine. For the benefit of those who don't have this lens, this lens has what I'd call a split personality, delivering quite different rendition when stopped down from about f4 and at wider apertures. MTF graphs alone don't tell the whole story about a lens and as quirky as the FA 43mm Limited can be, I still won't sell it because it has delivered stunning images for me. Unless you've tried this lens, you won't know how lovely the colors it can render and the unique 3D quality it can deliver. Bottom line, test your lenses in person before you buy, don't merely rely on what some website has to say because they are only testing ONE lens.

Normal


Crop

---

Last edited by creampuff; 05-21-2012 at 04:48 AM.

[selar]

So are these photos from the older good one, or the newer not so good one?

[selar]

the papers he wrote about the 43 and 77

Where can I see these papers?

[creampuff]

So are these photos from the older good one, or the newer not so good one?

These are from the newer black MIJ one. I managed to get a brand new silver MIJ one later. The silver one had an earlier serial number and didn't exhibit bad behavior! I also got to test a recent MIV copy lately and it was definitely pretty good, so I guess I had a dud MIJ copy.

As I always maintain, there will always be sample variations because lenses are made in batches. Heck I tested 6 brand new copies of the FA 50mm f/1.4, 3 brand new copies of the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 SLII and 3 copies of the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar and they all showed small differences. I've owned the DA 50-200mm three times, the first was average, second was sharper and my current on is the sharpest of the lot. So those who say their lens is just so-so, I wouldn't rule out that they probably might have got a poor copy.

---

Last edited by creampuff; 05-21-2012 at 05:23 AM.

[liukaitc]

What's the big ruckus about the FA 43mm Limited? I've owned two copies of this lens, one in black and one in silver, both made in Japan. The older copy in silver performs a lot better than the newer one in black, so I can say with certainty there are definite sample variations in different production batches. I personally put little faith in Photozone's results but if Pentax lemmings want to blindly believe and trust what Photozone has to say, so be it.

Just to show how much of a dog my MIJ copy was, here are some actual photos as proof. I challenge all FA43mm Limited users to shoot a subject with high specular reflection or contrast and see if they got PF as bad as mine. For the benefit of those who don't have this lens, this lens has what I'd call a split personality, delivering quite different rendition when stopped down from about f4 and at wider apertures. MTF graphs alone don't tell the whole story about a lens and as quirky as the FA 43mm Limited can be, I still won't sell it because it has delivered stunning images for me. Unless you've tried this lens, you won't know how lovely the colors it can render and the unique 3D quality it can deliver. Bottom line, test your lenses in person before you buy, don't merely rely on what some website has to say because they are only testing ONE lens.

Normal


Crop

according to photozone, it is only soft on corner. it is very sharp at center right from f1.9.
the sample you provide are only showing the dead center.
maybe some one can show the 100%crop of corner to see if photozone is right.
from my experience with 16-50 and 50-135
the resolution chart from photozone are pretty accurate.

[creampuff]

according to photozone, it is only soft on corner. it is very sharp at center right from f1.9.
the sample you provide are only showing the dead center.
maybe some one can show the 100%crop of corner to see if photozone is right.
from my experience with 16-50 and 50-135
the resolution chart from photozone are pretty accurate.

Seriously, who cares if Photozone is right or not? I don't. It is normal for all lenses to be softer in the corners compared to the centre and as a user of the FA 43mm Limited, I've never had issues with the corners at all.

What people should be fussing about over the FA 43mm shouldn't be about sharpness but PF... another bad example from my rogue 43mm...

[Blue]

Where can I see these papers?

Voe scanned one of them. He has the Japanese and English version on his flickr site.

1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This is the page where he discusses MTF values relative to actual photo capture. Pay attention to this passage. He then goes on to explain.

The Limited Lenses have achieved a level of aberration correction unattained by earlier concepts. That is to say, without giving priority to resolving power, MTF and other numerical evaluations, they attain a level of correction in actual photo capture that remains in your mind. That is because currently the subject plane is the target of this numerical evaluation, and thought not to be a suitable evaluation of the depiction of a solid object. Certainly, we think evaluation of the object depiction by the numerical value method should be established urgently, but for the time being, that comes after the design

[Cambo]

Wow, overreaction much? Calling him an idiot for doing his job? Klaus' task is to use image analysis tools to objectively obtain quantifiable results. He took the test photos, pushed it through the same analysis software as every other lens, and these are the numbers that the lens and camera provided. Any "magical rendering" is the subjective opinion of the viewer, and cannot be presented as a benchmark. What do you want him to do, throw out all tests and just fill the page with handwavy opinions?

If you would kindly explain and provide an objective, repeatable benchmark to quantify "magic" I'm sure he would be happy to do so. If not, I suggest you stop throwing around personal insults.

Have a look at some of the shots taken with this lens - film or digital - it has an elusive quality to it that defies measurement.

Photozone does provide objective reviews. But their bottom lines become subjective. Compare the reviews for, say, the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f2 to the review of the FA 43mm Ltd. Throughout, the 43mm is very competitive and is marginally better in some aspects. The Z(F) 35 has a solid 4, the 43mm a less than stellar 2.5. Am I missing something here?

this explains some of what I've seen on his site - and a general bias against Pentax and for certain other brands. His reviews of the other limiteds had been silly as well. Of the 77 limited, he said 'Optically it doesn't offer much beyond the mainstream in this class'...what??? He gave the FA* 24 F2 a 2 out of 5 stars optically..."The Pentax SMC-FA* 24mm f/2 AL [IF] is an interesting lens but not a really stellar performer as you may expect from its FA* designation." A failing grade for that lens...? 40%? Absolute nonsense.

Lost me right there...he was COMPLETELY wrong on that lens.

And yet he gives the Canon 24-105 dog of a lens 3.5 optically...my friend has pictures she took of the Taj Mahal with that thing that makes it look like Picasso designed it...there is SO much distortion it makes you queasy looking at some of the shots.

Lots of other stuff I could mention. Not a site I trust, and I'm entitled to my opinion thanks, harsh though it may be.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Dirtistasty2]

I actually agree with their review on the 43mm. Awesome magicalness in the center, corners not so much. I sold my 43mm MIJ in favor of the 40mm pancake and the pancake serves my needs much better.

[mikeSF]

new post from Klaus...

Posted Today, 07:48 PM

I just updated the FA 43 results on the K10D...

Frankly, I think that neither lens sample is good.
The first sample is pretty terrible at f/1.9 actually. The 2nd one is very fine in the center but much softer outside.

Possibly I should test another sample then.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

[zeitlos]

I'm currently struggling with my FA43 as well...
I bought it just a while ago and immediately fell in love with it, since I really like the portraits it produces. Then just a few days ago I found myself "shocked" by the bokeh it produced in certain circumstances.
The next day I tried to redo the "bokeh-shooting" with a bunch of other lenses to have a valid comparison (DA21, FA77, Sigma 85 1.4).
Unfortunately, it didn't take me much to reproduce that really "busy" bokeh when shooting with the FA43. The FA77 and the Sigma 85 1.4 did a better job.

For the testshots, check out this link: FA43: Kann einem so ein Bokeh mit JEDER Linse passieren? • Pentaxians

The comparison starts on page three.

Maybe the new DA50 1.8 is worth buying in case it produces a nicer bokeh?

[creampuff]

I'm currently struggling with my FA43 as well...
I bought it just a while ago and immediately fell in love with it, since I really like the portraits it produces. Then just a few days ago I found myself "shocked" by the bokeh it produced in certain circumstances.
The next day I tried to redo the "bokeh-shooting" with a bunch of other lenses to have a valid comparison (DA21, FA77, Sigma 85 1.4).
Unfortunately, it didn't take me much to reproduce that really "busy" bokeh when shooting with the FA43. The FA77 and the Sigma 85 1.4 did a better job.

For the testshots, check out this link: FA43: Kann einem so ein Bokeh mit JEDER Linse passieren? • Pentaxians

The comparison starts on page three.

Maybe the new DA50 1.8 is worth buying in case it produces a nicer bokeh?

Imo it is pretty meaningless to compare three lenses of different FOV giving different DOF effects. The 85mm and 77mm lenses will easily throw the backgroud oof because they deliver the look and effect of a tele on APS-C.