Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2012, 03:24 PM   #31
Senior Member
Vindemiatrix's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: las vegas
Posts: 209
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cyclone3d Quote
Are you using a lense hood? If not, I would make sure to use one as it should help a lot in bright situations.

On my FA 50 1.4, I use a lense hood even when indoors. It helps the "sharpness" quite a bit.

My guess is that light coming in at different angles is what is causing the unsharp look.

Basically, pretty much any lense will produce better pics if used with a hood. The only real exception would be if it is a macro lense with a very recessed front element so that the lens housing itself acts as a hood.

No I never remove my lenses hoods.. I love the one on this lens. I love the size and weight of the lens and the hood will never come off .. gives it coolness factor haha

11-29-2012, 03:45 PM   #32
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 460
Much more so than the the lack of sharpness, it's the extreme purple fringing in that f/1.4 shot that would really bother me. If this is typical for this lens, I'm glad I didn't shell out the dough for it.
11-29-2012, 04:11 PM   #33
Senior Member
Vindemiatrix's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: las vegas
Posts: 209
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ikarus Quote
Much more so than the the lack of sharpness, it's the extreme purple fringing in that f/1.4 shot that would really bother me. If this is typical for this lens, I'm glad I didn't shell out the dough for it.
The fringin doesn't bother me given this is bad light. The d fa 100 wr also has realllyy bad fringing in sunlight. I can bring the lens to the shadow and have a nice sharp picture with the 100 wr, not so with this not wide open anyways.
11-29-2012, 05:28 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 422
QuoteOriginally posted by Vindemiatrix Quote
No I never remove my lenses hoods.. I love the one on this lens. I love the size and weight of the lens and the hood will never come off .. gives it coolness factor haha
QuoteOriginally posted by Vindemiatrix Quote
The fringin doesn't bother me given this is bad light. The d fa 100 wr also has realllyy bad fringing in sunlight. I can bring the lens to the shadow and have a nice sharp picture with the 100 wr, not so with this not wide open anyways.
I would say it is a poor example of the lens then.. Either that or the FA 50mm 1.4 is a way better lens.

edit: After looking at sample pics from dpreview, I would be inclined to say that your camera is front focusing with that lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/112365/sample-30?inal...review-samples


Last edited by cyclone3d; 11-29-2012 at 05:37 PM.
11-29-2012, 08:57 PM   #35
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
I thought I would post a couple pics with my DA*55 to help you with a comparison. I know this isn't the best subject for testing, but it is my standard for testing all the lenses I buy to compare. These are all cropped ~50% and tripod mounted. I know the highlights are blown a bit, but I like to see how the detail holds in both direct sun and in the shadows. If you look at the detail in the shadows even at f1.4 it isn't that bad - yes much better at 2.2, and great from 2.8 on.

You can click on the photos for a larger view:

f1.4


f2.2


f2.8


f3.5


This is my second copy of the lens. The first back focused so much that even a +10 adjustment wouldn't make it sharp. This copy - these images here - are with no AF adjustment at all.

Last edited by photolady95; 04-17-2016 at 02:07 AM.
11-30-2012, 12:56 AM   #36
Senior Member
Vindemiatrix's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: las vegas
Posts: 209
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
I thought I would post a couple pics with my DA*55 to help you with a comparison. I know this isn't the best subject for testing, but it is my standard for testing all the lenses I buy to compare. These are all cropped ~50% and tripod mounted. I know the highlights are blown a bit, but I like to see how the detail holds in both direct sun and in the shadows. If you look at the detail in the shadows even at f1.4 it isn't that bad - yes much better at 2.2, and great from 2.8 on.

You can click on the photos for a larger view:

f1.4


f2.2


f2.8


f3.5


This is my second copy of the lens. The first back focused so much that even a +10 adjustment wouldn't make it sharp. This copy - these images here - are with no AF adjustment at all.

I think yours looks pretty neat at 1.4 and almost no pf. i have that similar wood texture in my yard, im gonna try and something similar tomorrow. Ijust hate that now is out of stock so i don't know how long it'll take for a replacement :/
11-30-2012, 10:29 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 422
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
I thought I would post a couple pics with my DA*55 to help you with a comparison. I know this isn't the best subject for testing, but it is my standard for testing all the lenses I buy to compare. These are all cropped ~50% and tripod mounted. I know the highlights are blown a bit, but I like to see how the detail holds in both direct sun and in the shadows. If you look at the detail in the shadows even at f1.4 it isn't that bad - yes much better at 2.2, and great from 2.8 on.

You can click on the photos for a larger view:

f1.4


f2.2


f2.8


f3.5


This is my second copy of the lens. The first back focused so much that even a +10 adjustment wouldn't make it sharp. This copy - these images here - are with no AF adjustment at all.
The f1.4 shot looks to be a bit front-focused. Looks to me like at the very top of the picture, the roof (forward of the front wall) of the bird house is in better focus than the front wall of the bird house.
11-30-2012, 11:32 AM   #38
Senior Member
Vindemiatrix's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: las vegas
Posts: 209
Original Poster
more test

I think the lens performs better in better light conditions, here are some test from today

First is the full image at 1.4, then 100% crops at 1.4, 1.6 and 2.2, and a full image at 2.8.
Then is a full image at 1.4, a 50% unprocessed crop and a 50% crop that I added some sharpeness and contrast, I pp all of my pictures so I don't think I am returning the lens, as long as light is forgiving is not bad in my eyes.

Attached Images
               
11-30-2012, 03:40 PM   #39
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Your results look very similar to mine in this last set.

This is the first time I had a lens this fast. When shooting it wide open, with such a shallow depth of field, that when shooting hand held I caught myself moving forward or aft ever so slightly that my object would get out of focus. For me, if I am going to be shooting this lens at wider than f2,8 I had better be on a tripod,

This is a fantastic lens, but can be kind of frustrating until you learn the quirks of using it (speaking for myself of course).
11-30-2012, 04:20 PM   #40
Senior Member
Vindemiatrix's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: las vegas
Posts: 209
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
Your results look very similar to mine in this last set.

This is the first time I had a lens this fast. When shooting it wide open, with such a shallow depth of field, that when shooting hand held I caught myself moving forward or aft ever so slightly that my object would get out of focus. For me, if I am going to be shooting this lens at wider than f2,8 I had better be on a tripod,

This is a fantastic lens, but can be kind of frustrating until you learn the quirks of using it (speaking for myself of course).
I agree, at the end such a shallow depth of field is only practical in very few situations. I had fast lenses before on my canon, and a few fast manual lenses, going through my photos of those lenses wide open they behave about the same. Because this lens is supossed to be a better quality lens I expected better. I like the other aspects of the lens colors come out great.. gotta give myself sometime to get used to it.
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!
adjustment, copy, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Da* 55 1.4 Julie Sold Items 8 06-25-2012 04:49 PM
OOF comparison (FA43, A50/1.2, K50/1.4, FA50/1.7, DA*55, FA77,FA*85) dgaies Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 99 05-15-2011 05:43 AM
First shots from the new DA* 55 1.4 jsherman999 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 02-22-2009 12:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:21 AM. | 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