[twitch]

I thnk the FA50/1.4 has good bokeh, and the K50/1.2 is sublime.

[Pål Jensen]

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.

Well, the 85 and the 77 will give exactly the same DOF regardless of what camera they are mounted on.

[Blue]

Well, the 85 and the 77 will give exactly the same DOF regardless of what camera they are mounted on.

Focal length, aperture and sensor size/film size effect dof if the camera and subject are kept in the same spot.

[ogl]

Klaus will retest FA43 with another sample.

[selar]

[gofour3]

Wrong. FA31 is better at K-5 than at K10D. Even 18-55 is better.

The FA31 is also a lens designed for FF film cameras, so the Photozone tests on a DSLR are also irrelevant. The fact that it faired better that the FA43 is just luck.

Like I said find a test from when the FA31 or FA43 were released and that is the one you should believe.

Phil.

[ogl]

The FA31 is also a lens designed for FF film cameras, so the Photozone tests on a DSLR are also irrelevant. The fact that it faired better that the FA43 is just luck.

Protect your opinion. The luck is just quality of lens.

Just ask and thousand of Pentaxians heap you up with 100% crops from A, M and K lenses at K-5.
Good film lenses are still good at DSLR. Mediocre lenses are still mediocre.

[selar]

Luck is right. Anyone tried claiming warranty service for PF from a non DA lens? Mind telling us how you went?

[Blue]

Klaus will retest FA43 with another sample.

It will have to be someone in the European Union. It would be good if someone with a early serial number of a silver version and a late MIJ version could link up with him.

[zeitlos]

It will have to be someone in the European Union. It would be good if someone with a early serial number of a silver version and a late MIJ version could link up with him.

I'm from Germany. I do have a silver version of the FA43.
Klaus already got back to me. Seems like he has already found a lens to redo the test.
Let's see whether the results will be different this time.

[robgo2]

Looking at this "updated" version of the FA 43 review, the DA 40 kills it in border sharpness at all apertures. I just don't know that I believe that the lens could act that much different on two different camera bodies. I mean, how could the FA 43's mtf score drop between the K10 and the K5? At the very worst, you should get the same number (within the range of measurement).

Based on this review (which I don't really buy), the DA 40 is the better lens between the two.

Pentax SMC DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited - Review / Lab Test - Analysis

Anyone who reads the user lens reviews on this site will have to be struck by two things: The overwhelmingly high ratings accorded to the FA43 and the number of people who got rid of their DA40s after seeing what the FA43 delivers. I think this says far more about the relative quality of the two lenses than any laboratory test.

Rob

[twitch]

I think border sharpness is over rated in tests vs. general use and that accounts for a good part of the difference between testers ratings and users subjective reviews. Sigma 30 and FA*24 would be the clearest examples of this.

I'd be surprised if a different FA43 copy will test much better if at all though.

[DSims]

Wow, this has been an interesting thread! It's almost as if one side is portrayed as the "overly emotionally attached people" while the other sees itself as scientifically objective, but they're only objective within a (necessarily) narrow field of view. They can't see much outside of that field of view, so anyone who does is "clearly not objective."


In any case, I find Photozone to be quite useful. I still think the main problem with the review is the low numerical rating at the end - I don't think it's justified. The observations Klaus made are representative of what I and many others have seen with this lens. Granted, there may be some better copies, but I think it's mainly the interpretation of these results that's at fault. All but a few quality lenses give significantly better results when stopped down by about 1/3 or 2/3 stops. This is just another of those lenses. Reviewers tend to emphasize wide-open results, then jump right over this critical range and stop down by a stop or more for the next test. To his credit, Klaus doesn't completely do this, but I think he and a few readers have still failed to interpret these results well.


The best reviews should make observations like these:

DA*55/1.4 - "The only current production Pentax lens that gives outstanding image quality and sharpness at or close to f/1.4. This is why it commands the higher price. However, bokeh is harsh in some situations."

FA43/1.9 Ltd - "Unmatched color rendition, and good enough bokeh in most cases. Noticeably better image quality and sharpness than the FA50/1.4 when used at equivalent apertures between f/1.9 and f/2.8."

FA50/1.4 - "Possibly the best bokeh of the three. However, lacks the image quality and sharpness of the other two throughout the first two stops near wide-open. Images tend to lack the same "notice me" sharpness or "3D-ish" quality of the other two."



Don't forget, Klaus works hard on his reviews, but many Pentax users have much more experience with these lenses than he does. Characteristics like image sharpness near the outside of the frame may matter for some photos, but usually goes unnoticed. At the same time, the characteristics mentioned above will be noticed, even if unconsciously by some viewers (which is usually a good thing). And I dare say that in most situations where edge sharpness is critical one would stop down anyway (such as when using a copy stand or taking most landscape pictures).


We shouldn't say this lens is something that it's not, but we certainly shouldn't miss its defining characteristics either.

[Blue]

Wow, this has been an interesting thread! It's almost as if one side is portrayed as the "overly emotionally attached people" while the other sees itself as scientifically objective, but they're only objective within a (necessarily) narrow field of view. They can't see much outside of that field of view, so anyone who does is "clearly not objective."


In any case, I find Photozone to be quite useful. I still think the main problem with the review is the low numerical rating at the end - I don't think it's justified. The observations Klaus made are representative of what I and many others have seen with this lens. Granted, there may be some better copies, but I think it's mainly the interpretation of these results that's at fault. All but a few quality lenses give significantly better results when stopped down by about 1/3 or 2/3 stops. This is just another of those lenses. Reviewers tend to emphasize wide-open results, then jump right over this critical range and stop down by a stop or more for the next test. To his credit, Klaus doesn't completely do this, but I think he and a few readers have still failed to interpret these results well.


The best reviews should make observations like these:

DA*55/1.4 - "The only current production Pentax lens that gives outstanding image quality and sharpness at or close to f/1.4. This is why it commands the higher price. However, bokeh is harsh in some situations."

FA43/1.9 Ltd - "Unmatched color rendition, and good enough bokeh in most cases. Noticeably better image quality and sharpness than the FA50/1.4 when used at equivalent apertures between f/1.9 and f/2.8."

FA50/1.4 - "Possibly the best bokeh of the three. However, lacks the image quality and sharpness of the other two throughout the first two stops near wide-open. Images tend to lack the same "notice me" sharpness or "3D-ish" quality of the other two."



Don't forget, Klaus works hard on his reviews, but many Pentax users have much more experience with these lenses than he does. Characteristics like image sharpness near the outside of the frame may matter for some photos, but usually goes unnoticed. At the same time, the characteristics mentioned above will be noticed, even if unconsciously by some viewers (which is usually a good thing). And I dare say that in most situations where edge sharpness is critical one would stop down anyway (such as when using a copy stand or taking most landscape pictures).


We shouldn't say this lens is something that it's not, but we certainly shouldn't miss its defining characteristics either.

[selar]

Here are some reasons why designed for film lenses may not work to their full potential on digital sensors:

"Each individual photosite (pixel) in a digital sensor literally sits at the bottom of a well with a tiny micro-lens on top of it. As light passes through a lens, it crosses over and begins to spread out again in order to focus on the sensor plane. In the center of the image frame, the light therefore strikes the sensor head on, but as we get further out from the center of the sensor the angle of incidence becomes more oblique. This means that light doesn't have a straight shot at a photosite near the edge of the frame, being partly blocked by the walls surrounding it. This results in diffraction at the edges of the photosite, which in turn produces light falloff and a form of chromatic aberration that appears as "purple fringing" along high contrast edges. Light strikes film at an angle near the edges too, but since film is a flat medium rather than a three-dimensional structure as is a digital sensor, the effect is rarely noticeable.
Fringing and light falloff are worse with full frame sensors since the edges are naturally further from the center. They are also much more common with wide angle lenses due to their large angle of view. Some lenses marked as digital have optical designs that help to minimize this problem by adding lens elements to straighten the light path out to a degree as it emerges from the rear element." from Just What is a "Digital Lens"? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light