[DSims]

The late 60s and early 70s Pontiac GTO is a work of art. They don't make them like they used to.

Oh, come on, get over it! All the American manufacturers made great cars in the late 60's and early 70's, not just the GTO!

Really, this is a great post with wonderful examples. This is why I have both my K-5 and my K200D.


BTW, the GTO would be one of my first choices from this (or any) era, just as long as I didn't have to pay for it at today's prices! My first car was a 1968 Dodge Coronet 500 (383) I had from 1980 until 1993, when temporary insanity hit me and I sold it!

---

Last edited by DSims; 05-24-2012 at 11:54 PM.

[Rondec]

p.s. I still use the K10D, although I'm sure the K-5 is a wonderful camera, I don't need the video or CMOS sensor. I love the CCD's unbeatable 100 ISO. Now that's living in the past, right?

I didn't follow all of your comments. The FA 43 just isn't that old a lens -- not compared to designs of the FA 50, for instance, or most of the other 50 mm designs for other camera makers. I mean, it was released in 1997, using very modern techniques for lens design.

The question in my mind is whether this is a bad copy of the lens or if the borders really do suck below f4. I hope it is just a bad copy. It is a fairly expensive lens and I can understand having border sharpness wide open, but this performance is pretty abysmal.

As to your comment about the K10 versus the K5, the K5 is better at iso 100 than the K10, in my opinion. The images are just a lot more flexible, for what its worth, as compared to the K10.

[builttospill]

I agree with you. I don't think the FA Limiteds are old at all, that was my point. I don't need to play the "keeping up with the neighbors" game just because they bought a newer car, or lens , or K-5...

Rondec, my comments were directed toward the "wake up, it's 2012" attitude. I use the tools I feel get the job done best. My equipments suits my needs and my clients needs. I prefer the use, look and outcome of an older lens design (FA vs. DA Limited) and that's okay. Although I do miss quick shift! I don't think my head is in the sand because I've owned and used new and "old", FA and DA, PC and Apple, etc. and found what I prefer. I'm not just blindly choosing things because of online reviews from places like Photozone. Real use and personal experience is much more important to me.

As mentioned the K-5 is a great camera and it's DR is superb. I wasn't trashing it, but my last comment was more in jest for a little fun, as I see so many threads on this forum asking if cameras like the K10D and K20D are obsolete.

[builttospill]

Oh, come on, get over it! All the American manufacturers made great cars in the late 60's and early 70's, not just the GTO!

Really, this is a great post with wonderful examples. This is why I have both my K-5 and my K200D.

BTW, the GTO would be one of my first choices from this (or any) era, just as long as I didn't have to pay for it at today's prices! My first car was a 1968 Dodge Coronet 500 (383) I had from 1980 until 1993, when temporary insanity hit me and I sold it!

Nice. I used to have a Riviera, but it was totaled in a crash. It smoked all the cars my buddies put up against it like their 5.0s, souped-up Integras, 240s and 300Zs. My dream car is a 1970 Chevelle SS 454, more so than any other car. Today's prices include the cost of gas too, right, because if I owned this car I'm pretty sure I'd get no more than 4-6 MPG at best?

I used the GTO specifically in my example because of its history and roots in Australia.

[selar]

I used the GTO specifically in my example because of its history and roots in Australia

Appreciate your effort to bring an Australian point of reference. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, though, I have not seen a Monaro on the road, (both the old and the new) for sometime now, atleast a year. I live in a neighbourhood thats crazy about cars. I believe the astronomical rise in fuel prices has grounded these and other gas guzzlers. I remember a neighbour a few houses away had a new Monaro, I looked in his driveway today and saw a Camry!

I have nothing against old things, well atleast the well built old things, the old trash just goes in the trash. I have a few few takumars, a spotmatic, I drive an old jeep from 96. I keep them because they are still useful now and then and they are well built old things and would cost too much to replace. I've even started a lens club for the Viv S1 Macro! But I don't really believe they are better than, say a DA70 Limited or a DA 35/2.4. The DA35/2.4 is not well built, but its the top ranking Pentax lens on DXO!

Nothing wrong with holding on to old things for nostalgia's sake, just don't expect lenses designed in a dfferent era for a different photographic medium to still be the best suited for the purpose. There is a reason after all that you let out your modern house for rent, and live in your older home - maintenance costs!

[philippe]

Agreed... you don't value art by determining how technically perfect the paint brushes were.

bossa, you are absolutely right, till a certain extend...
It's like playing the piano, how good the pianist might be, on a crappy instrument, his talent in nuancing will not really be heard. But on the other hand, his performance might be better than the one by a lesser musician on a superior instrument...
I happen to have the FA 43 and the FA 50 1.4, but, sorry for the 50 mm lovers, no doubt the FA 43 is the best by nuances...
And yes, it's all a matter of personal appreciation, that's why testing (lenses) is so delicate, nuances can hardly be measured. And at the end, the final interpretation of the testing results will be subjective, if you want it or not.

And, oh man, what a fine built the FA 43 has (that's subjective too)!

[bossa]

Being a guitarist I understand your reference but ART is not mainly judged on "technical excellence" whereas craft tends to be. The worst instruments can sometimes add character where none exists ..if nothing else.

[DSims]

Nice. I used to have a Riviera, but it was totaled in a crash. It smoked all the cars my buddies put up against it like their 5.0s, souped-up Integras, 240s and 300Zs. My dream car is a 1970 Chevelle SS 454, more so than any other car. Today's prices include the cost of gas too, right, because if I owned this car I'm pretty sure I'd get no more than 4-6 MPG at best?

Nice! (except for totaling it) - it may have looked unassuming, but I'm sure it did smoke them! Sounds like it had a 455 in it.

My 383 was still fast, but the owner before me put in a 2.73 rear differential. That wasn't all bad, however - it got 15 MPG in my everyday driving (not just HWY) - at least until it had about 150K to 170K miles on it. Many people still get that today. I drove it from 50K to 195K and never had to do any major work on it. Looked and was original, but still beat most other cars on the road. While today cars go 200K routinely, don't you dare sit on the trunk or the hood like I often did! So no, they don't make them like they used to.

[Designosophy]

I think that the most important takeaway from this discussion, which reminds me of the argument of digital vs analog (tubes and LPs) in the audiophile arena, is that experience is what matters most. Excellent tech specs don't entail pleasing performance, but they shouldn't be ignored. Poor tech specs don't entail ugly performance, but can help understanding performance.

[jackseh]

.

FWIW, I posted a question to Klaus on photozone:
Originally posted by me: Klaus, how do you account for the MTF numbers being *lower* on the edge on the 16MP sensor than they were on the 10MP sensor? (Sample variation?) On a related note, where was the copy you tested manufactured?

Thanks!

Looking at the 00145XX serial number on the black FA 43 he photographed on the review page, it looks like he used one of the last MIJ batch that came with an MZ camera?

Maybe that is the batch to avoid?

His numbers just don't add up, somehow. Very intriguing results...


j

[jackseh]

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.

by the way, not that it really matters much... this distortion chart in his new k-5 review still says "24-april-2007" and "k10d"

the results are indeed bad; I would have expected it to beat, or atleast match, the DA 40 at f2.8, given that both lense are designed by the same person and the DA 40 was originally taken from an even older film era optical design !!

[Blue]

by the way, not that it really matters much... this distortion chart in his new k-5 review still says "24-april-2007" and "k10d"

the results are indeed bad; I would have expected it to beat, or atleast match, the DA 40 at f2.8, given that both lense are designed by the same person and the DA 40 was originally taken from an even older film era optical design !!

Actually, he started out with the M 40/2.8 design but reworked the elements, especially the rear element. Plus, it got Ghostless Coating like all limited lenses. That said, the DA 40/2.8 limited is an old design (3 years newer than the FA 31 and 7 years newer than the 43)

[gtl]

Just explored AF adjust on my K5, WOW. What a difference. Probably a dumb suggestion but adjust AF before saying that your copy of lens is soft. When ever I hear that the FA43mm is soft, I think of the pair of frog pictures by pcarfan in the lens review section.

SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[mikeSF]

funny, i bought the lens after looking at his frog pics in there.

[vrrattko]

mike, that frog picture was one of the selling points for me too