Why not bring back the legendary glass?

**Digitalis** · 03-04-2013, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by goubejp

FA 400 f5.6

That lens has a purple fringing problem, similar to the M42 400mm f/5.6

Last edited by Digitalis; 03-04-2013 at 09:37 PM.

twitch · 03-04-2013, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Alizarine

Can't they just update the FA*24 to D FA*24 and make it WR too?

I hope not, it is not a very good lens and needs a re-design, it is no where near FA limited quality. It's not sharp enough where it should be, and the bokeh is just plain bad. This is the opposite of the FA limiteds. Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length.

**Digitalis** · 03-04-2013, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length.

I agree, the DA15mm f/4 has problems competing against my sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 at 15mm. Lenses wider than 28mm have always been problematic for lens makers in general - pentax isn't alone here. However on the 645D the 25mm f/4 actually is quite an impressive piece of glass that competes favourably against competing medium format ultra wide lenses from Leica, Schneider and Mamiya. On the 645D the lens is a 19.5mm equivalent, on full frame 645 it is a 15mm lens in 35mm terms, IMHO pentax can make a wide angle lens worth a damn - What consumers are willing to pay for it is holding them back.

chesebert · 03-04-2013, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I hope not, it is not a very good lens and needs a re-design, it is no where near FA limited quality. It's not sharp enough where it should be, and the bokeh is just plain bad. This is the opposite of the FA limiteds. Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length.

Did you get a bad copy of FA*24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy?

On mine, center is very sharp wide open with corners peaking at around f5.6-f8. Sure, there are CA and PF here and there, but they are easily removed (if I remember to) in LR. Too bad there is no profile for this lens in Camera Raw.

twitch · 03-04-2013, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by chesebert

Did you get a bad copy of FA*24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy?

On mine, center is very sharp wide open with corners peaking at around f5.6-f8. Sure, there are CA and PF here and there, but they are easily removed (if I remember to) in LR. Too bad there is no profile for this lens in Camera Raw.

I really didn't like the bokeh at all, had this disturbing double image kind of quality to it, nothing like a FA31.

**Digitalis** · 03-04-2013, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by chesebert

Did you get a bad copy of FA*24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy?

I have a copy of the FA*24mm f/2 somewhere, it was a decent lens on film - but something seems to have gotten lost in the translation to digital.

Alizarine · 03-04-2013, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

I have a copy of the FA*24mm f/2 somewhere, it was a decent lens on film - but something seems to have gotten lost in the translation to digital.

I hope you still have it with you. Would like to see an old shot from film (so as not to make another one now) and a new one in digital if you have time or if it isn't much of a bother. There's a seller locally who's offering it up for quite a good price but I'm doubtful since I already have the (legacy but newer, and anyway good enough) Sigma 24 2.8. 24mm is one of the most sought-of WAs in APS-C nowadays.

Originally posted by twitch

This is the opposite of the FA limiteds.

Hmm, how bad is it against the FA31? Or if you've tried out the DA (L) 35 f2.4 (on IQ alone, never mind the FL)

chesebert · 03-04-2013, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I really didn't like the bokeh at all, had this disturbing double image kind of quality to it, nothing like a FA31.

Nothing is like FA31.

I also don't see why bokeh is so bad compared to other limiteds. This one was shot at f4.0 ISO1600, IIRC

chesebert · 03-04-2013, 11:20 PM

double post

**Digitalis** · 03-04-2013, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by chesebert

I also don't see why bokeh is so bad compared to other limiteds. This one was shot at f4.0 ISO1600, IIRC

You can see the dark centred bokeh circles on specular highlights - which is why the FA*24mm f/2 produces such harsh bokeh. As I recall the Japanese call it "neisen bokeh" - meaning double lined blur. The Ideal bokeh disc has a evenly lit centre which gradually darkens towards the edge.The FA*24mm f/2 it works the other way around slightly darker centre - with bright green/magenta fringed edges.

Originally posted by chesebert

Nothing is like FA31

Quite right, the only lenses that are somewhat better than the FA31 have red dots on them and cost three times more.

chesebert · 03-05-2013, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

You can see the dark centred bokeh circles on specular highlights - which is why the FA*24mm f/2 produces such harsh bokeh. As I recall the Japanese call it "neisen bokeh" - meaning double lined blur. The Ideal bokeh disc has a evenly lit centre which gradually darkens towards the edge.The FA*24mm f/2 it works the other way around slightly darker centre - with bright green/magenta fringed edges.

Quite right, the only lenses that are somewhat better than the FA31 have red dots on them and cost three times more.

I see. Great, now I can longer be satisifed by my copy of FA*24

Here is FA31 at f4.0 with similar half body shot

goubejp · 03-05-2013, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

That lens has a purple fringing problem, similar to the M42 400mm f/5.6

I think you may make a confusion between the M42, which was available later as Pentax A 400 F5.6 (which I have owned) with the same optical formula, and no ED glasses, and the FA version, with a new optical design including ED elements.

twitch · 03-05-2013, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by chesebert

Did you get a bad copy of FA*24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy?

Here's an example of what I didn't like, a crop (about 60% of the frame) of a FA*24 shot

sTi · 03-05-2013, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by twitch

Here's an example of what I didn't like, a crop (about 60% of the frame) of a FA*24 shot

Smooth bokeh was obviously no consideration in the design of this lens...

Sadly, the same is true for its digital successor (field-of-view wise), the DA 15, as great as it is otherwise...

**Digitalis** · 03-05-2013, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by sTi

Sadly, the same is true for its digital successor (field-of-view wise), the DA 15, as great as it is otherwise...

I wouldn't write the bokeh of the DA15 ED ASPH Limited off that easily, granted you do have to be really close to your subject and stop i the lens down a bit to get some really smooth effects, but it certainly has potential:

Pentax K7- Pentax DA15mm f/4 ED ASPH Limited 1/640th f/5.6 ISO 200

03-04-2013, 10:29 PM	#80
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by chesebert Did you get a bad copy of FA24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy? On mine, center is very sharp wide open with corners peaking at around f5.6-f8. Sure, there are CA and PF here and there, but they are easily removed (if I remember to) in LR. Too bad there is no profile for this lens in Camera Raw. I really didn't like the bokeh at all, had this disturbing double image kind of quality to it, nothing like a FA31. Last edited by twitch; 03-04-2013 at 10:36 PM.*

03-04-2013, 11:06 PM	#83
chesebert Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 360	Originally posted by twitch I really didn't like the bokeh at all, had this disturbing double image kind of quality to it, nothing like a FA31. Nothing is like FA31. I also don't see why bokeh is so bad compared to other limiteds. This one was shot at f4.0 ISO1600, IIRC Last edited by chesebert; 03-04-2013 at 11:23 PM.

03-05-2013, 01:41 AM	#88
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by chesebert Did you get a bad copy of FA24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy? Here's an example of what I didn't like, a crop (about 60% of the frame) of a FA24 shot Last edited by twitch; 03-05-2013 at 02:19 AM.

03-05-2013, 03:46 AM	#90
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by sTi Sadly, the same is true for its digital successor (field-of-view wise), the DA 15, as great as it is otherwise... I wouldn't write the bokeh of the DA15 ED ASPH Limited off that easily, granted you do have to be really close to your subject and stop i the lens down a bit to get some really smooth effects, but it certainly has potential: Pentax K7- Pentax DA15mm f/4 ED ASPH Limited 1/640th f/5.6 ISO 200 Last edited by Digitalis; 03-05-2013 at 04:02 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Computers and Cameras - or Bring Back Remote Assistant	Northern Soul	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	04-10-2012 09:23 PM
Bring Back Boring Banks (NYT op-ed)	jolepp	General Talk	3	01-05-2012 09:30 AM
Do you use the in camera color settings? why or why not?	SlickYamaha	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	08-13-2011 09:36 PM
85mm glass...why so expensive? (Not work-safe)	PollitowuzHere	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	83	09-26-2009 09:22 AM
Say no to pixel peeping - Bring back the latent image!	ChrisPlatt	General Talk	6	09-06-2009 06:22 AM

03-04-2013, 05:26 AM	#76
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by goubejp FA 400 f5.6 That lens has a purple fringing problem, similar to the M42 400mm f/5.6 Last edited by Digitalis; 03-04-2013 at 09:37 PM.

03-04-2013, 03:56 PM	#77
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Alizarine Can't they just update the FA24 to D FA24 and make it WR too? I hope not, it is not a very good lens and needs a re-design, it is no where near FA limited quality. It's not sharp enough where it should be, and the bokeh is just plain bad. This is the opposite of the FA limiteds. Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length.

03-04-2013, 09:41 PM	#78
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by twitch Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length. I agree, the DA15mm f/4 has problems competing against my sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 at 15mm. Lenses wider than 28mm have always been problematic for lens makers in general - pentax isn't alone here. However on the 645D the 25mm f/4 actually is quite an impressive piece of glass that competes favourably against competing medium format ultra wide lenses from Leica, Schneider and Mamiya. On the 645D the lens is a 19.5mm equivalent, on full frame 645 it is a 15mm lens in 35mm terms, IMHO pentax can make a wide angle lens worth a damn - What consumers are willing to pay for it is holding them back.

03-04-2013, 10:16 PM	#79
chesebert Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 360	Originally posted by twitch I hope not, it is not a very good lens and needs a re-design, it is no where near FA limited quality. It's not sharp enough where it should be, and the bokeh is just plain bad. This is the opposite of the FA limiteds. Mind you I don't think the DA21 is very good either, seems Pentax has trouble designing good lenses around this focal length. Did you get a bad copy of FA*24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy? On mine, center is very sharp wide open with corners peaking at around f5.6-f8. Sure, there are CA and PF here and there, but they are easily removed (if I remember to) in LR. Too bad there is no profile for this lens in Camera Raw.

03-04-2013, 10:41 PM	#81
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by chesebert Did you get a bad copy of FA24? Can you post some shots taken by your copy? I have a copy of the FA24mm f/2 somewhere, it was a decent lens on film - but something seems to have gotten lost in the translation to digital.

03-04-2013, 10:58 PM	#82
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Digitalis I have a copy of the FA*24mm f/2 somewhere, it was a decent lens on film - but something seems to have gotten lost in the translation to digital. I hope you still have it with you. Would like to see an old shot from film (so as not to make another one now) and a new one in digital if you have time or if it isn't much of a bother. There's a seller locally who's offering it up for quite a good price but I'm doubtful since I already have the (legacy but newer, and anyway good enough) Sigma 24 2.8. 24mm is one of the most sought-of WAs in APS-C nowadays. Originally posted by twitch This is the opposite of the FA limiteds. Hmm, how bad is it against the FA31? Or if you've tried out the DA (L) 35 f2.4 (on IQ alone, never mind the FL)

03-04-2013, 11:20 PM	#84
chesebert Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 360	double post

03-04-2013, 11:44 PM	#85
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by chesebert I also don't see why bokeh is so bad compared to other limiteds. This one was shot at f4.0 ISO1600, IIRC You can see the dark centred bokeh circles on specular highlights - which is why the FA24mm f/2 produces such harsh bokeh. As I recall the Japanese call it "neisen bokeh" - meaning double lined blur. The Ideal bokeh disc has a evenly lit centre which gradually darkens towards the edge.The FA24mm f/2 it works the other way around slightly darker centre - with bright green/magenta fringed edges. Originally posted by chesebert Nothing is like FA31 Quite right, the only lenses that are somewhat better than the FA31 have red dots on them and cost three times more.

03-05-2013, 12:02 AM	#86
chesebert Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 360	Originally posted by Digitalis You can see the dark centred bokeh circles on specular highlights - which is why the FA24mm f/2 produces such harsh bokeh. As I recall the Japanese call it "neisen bokeh" - meaning double lined blur. The Ideal bokeh disc has a evenly lit centre which gradually darkens towards the edge.The FA24mm f/2 it works the other way around slightly darker centre - with bright green/magenta fringed edges. Quite right, the only lenses that are somewhat better than the FA31 have red dots on them and cost three times more. I see. Great, now I can longer be satisifed by my copy of FA*24 Here is FA31 at f4.0 with similar half body shot

03-05-2013, 12:51 AM	#87
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	Originally posted by Digitalis That lens has a purple fringing problem, similar to the M42 400mm f/5.6 I think you may make a confusion between the M42, which was available later as Pentax A 400 F5.6 (which I have owned) with the same optical formula, and no ED glasses, and the FA version, with a new optical design including ED elements.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2013, 02:59 AM	#89
sTi Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 98	Originally posted by twitch Here's an example of what I didn't like, a crop (about 60% of the frame) of a FA*24 shot Smooth bokeh was obviously no consideration in the design of this lens... Sadly, the same is true for its digital successor (field-of-view wise), the DA 15, as great as it is otherwise...