Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-18-2014, 06:48 PM   #91
Veteran Member
K McCall's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 808
I'm a little hesitant to wade into these waters, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the OP's copy of the 31 really is a "bad" copy, right? I mean, I have a FA 77 that I've never been happy with. High-contrast edges of things far away just look terrible with that lens, even stopped down. The OP's photos look like mine from the FA 77. My DA 70 performs better, so I just tend to use it instead. I happened to have my FA 31 on my camera today when I ran out the door, so while I was at the playground with my daughter, I took a few shots at f/1.8 of bare trees against the sky, and my photos did not look like the OP's. Of course that's hardly scientific, but my point is that there is a margin of error for lenses to meet spec, and it might just be that the OP got one on the far end for his FA 31, as I seemed to have for the FA 77.

That doesn't mean that all FA 31 lenses will produce the same problems (same for the FA 77). And for what it's worth, it was a shot taken with the FA 77 that I saw on Flickr many years ago that convinced me to go with Pentax over other brands. My own experiences with the FA 31 have convinced me that it would be one of the last lenses to ever leave my arsenal. Thankfully we all get to make up our own minds!

Edited because I hit post too soon.

03-18-2014, 07:02 PM   #92
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Original Poster
shall we try this again...

QuoteOriginally posted by K McCall Quote
I'm a little hesitant to wade into these waters, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the OP's copy of the 31 really is a "bad" copy, right? I mean, I have a FA 77 that I've never been happy with. High-contrast edges of things far away just look terrible with that lens, even stopped down. The OP's photos look like mine from the FA 77. My DA 70 performs better, so I just tend to use it instead. I happened to have my FA 31 on my camera today when I ran out the door, so while I was at the playground with my daughter, I took a few shots at f/1.8 of bare trees against the sky, and my photos did not look like the OP's. Of course that's hardly scientific, but my point is that there is a margin of error for lenses to meet spec, and it might just be that the OP got one on the far end for his FA 31, as I seemed to have for the FA 77.

That doesn't mean that all FA 31 lenses will produce the same problems (same for the FA 77). And for what it's worth, it was a shot taken with the FA 77 that I saw on Flickr many years ago that convinced me to go with Pentax over other brands. My own experiences with the FA 31 have convinced me that it would be one of the last lenses to ever leave my arsenal. Thankfully we all get to make up our own minds!

Edited because I hit post too soon.
Interesting because, see I've the 77 and the 43 and have never felt the same way (nonplussed) about them at all. For that matter in fact, I never felt the same way about my M 35 2.0 that I mentioned. Perhaps I've a lemon indeed.

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 07:31 PM ----------

This, for example, is one of the few close-focus shots I have posted shot with my FA31 at a wide aperture (this was @ 2.0).... but there's a fair amount of PP in this shot. I'm searching for the original.




---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 07:34 PM ----------

(just looking at the full-size version on Flickr I can see there's quite a bit of sharpening done on the eyes.... no doubt because they didn't seem sharp enough to me, but it is not a back or front focus issue in this shot)

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 07:58 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
Hopefully no one takes this as being disrespectful, but...
. You guys don't know how old the OP's copy is, if it is made in Vietnam, etc. Nobody knows if the OP bought it used, in which case the previous owner could have dropped it.
. Leica lenses cost several thousands of dollars. There's been people who have compared good copies of the FA31 to Leitz and thought the Pentax was just as good. But if Pentaxians aren't paying Leica money for a Leica-quality design, obviously something's gotta give... in this case, QC might be one of such things. But we won't know until we know the history of that lens.
I answered all these above, just for the record. It was brand new in late 2012, AIV, never been dropped.

Last edited by Eyewanders; 03-18-2014 at 07:26 PM.
03-18-2014, 08:28 PM   #93
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
No matter what anyone says, I like the way 31mm renders... but some people only look at pixels. Shot at f2.8

Last edited by Nuff; 09-16-2014 at 10:39 PM.
03-18-2014, 09:56 PM   #94
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Deimos Quote
There is something off with the OP's 31.

31 MIJ @ 1.8 (handheld in a moving taxi)



This lens is a gem. Some may have bad copies, poorly calibrated AF or may not enjoy the FL but for me it doesn't get much better. I wouldn't call this lens "average" in any way, for me it was well worth the money.
Hey Deimos - nice shot and THAT is the kind of resolving I EXPECTED of this lens!!
Now this again is not a fair comparison, but is certainly real-world worthy.

Shot on a K5 as well, *Not* in a moving taxi, 1/200sec, f/2.0, iso400, plenty-o-daylight. Auto-tone, med-contrast curve and face-sharpen presets in LR. It's not a bad image by any means, but yours is what I would expect, (and consequently very akin to what my RiochGR delivers readily)

Name:  fa31test bonnie-1.jpg
Views: 534
Size:  125.0 KB

03-18-2014, 11:37 PM   #95
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,777
@chicken

Cheers. I think your image above looks pretty good, there is some good detail and it looks sharp but not bitingly so. Maybe the big difference is in our processing? Could I have just added a bit more sharpness, clarity, etc to mine? Also have you tried AF adjust? Luckily my 31 is dead on but my 77 requires (more than) +10...
03-19-2014, 12:18 AM   #96
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Deimos Quote
@chicken

Cheers. I think your image above looks pretty good, there is some good detail and it looks sharp but not bitingly so. Maybe the big difference is in our processing? Could I have just added a bit more sharpness, clarity, etc to mine? Also have you tried AF adjust? Luckily my 31 is dead on but my 77 requires (more than) +10...
I have, yeah, a number of times but I see similar results using MF which I'm used to using anyhow with the older glass and film bodies. My 77 can find a clogged pore if it's anywhere in frame.
03-19-2014, 12:42 AM   #97
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Original Poster
Popped out another go... granted I'm working with just the jpg, but a spread like this is just uncanny. I feel like I'm looking to resolve detail that just isn't quite there. This is tweaked much more - the contrast is literally at -100 and the clarity is pushed all the way up.

I might just have to resort to sourcing another 31 to a/b against.. But boy is that an expensive project. And before anyone lays in with the pixel peep talk, this is not technical to me. Rather this thread is the culmination of real world can't-put-my-finger-on-it lackluster feelings about the results I've gotten from this thing. I looked back through my stream and there is just 6 images over the course of a year and a half that I've ran with long enough to put up.


Name:  bonnie sharp 31-1-2.jpg
Views: 521
Size:  143.9 KB

---------- Post added 03-19-14 at 01:14 AM ----------

To further illustrate, it isn't that I don't like the above image. It's fine but I can't seem to get the detail out of the 31 I expect... Truth be told I may have processed to get the more muted look of the above the detail *had* been there but that's neither here nor there. My other glass finds it...

A shot with the M50/1.2 (@f/2.2 I believe)



A shot with the FA43 @ 2.8 ... ridiculous detail which I'd not expect from the 31, but i'd ask it to at least try...



So all of this said - if the lens is de-centered, what can be done and at what cost to me would anyone reckon? It's been out of the 1 year warranty since October. Sure wish it hadn't taken this long to finally realize something might be amiss.


Last edited by Eyewanders; 03-19-2014 at 01:15 AM.
03-19-2014, 01:35 AM   #98
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,777
Hmm, I see what you are saying. Not sure how to handle a decentered lens if that is what it is. Maybe someone like Erik Henderson?
03-19-2014, 02:16 AM   #99
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
Another from my FA31:


Pentax K5IIs - SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited @ f/1.8

QuoteOriginally posted by Parry Quote
Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f1.8 Electric which was less than a tenth of the price has superior optical performance.
You are comparing a 50mm lens to a retrofocus wide angle 31mm lens with some pretty exotic glass types and an GMO aspherical lens in it - That is not a proper comparison. My SCMP-K 50mm f/1.2 can beat the Carl Zeiss jena - the 50mm f/1.2 lens doesn't suffer much from PF, which is surprising considering its speed.

here is another image, with default LR5 sharpening applied - but no other corrections applied at f/1.8


Inset 100% crop - Pentax K5IIs FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited @ f/1.8 - default LR sharpening applied.

Last edited by Digitalis; 03-19-2014 at 02:50 AM.
03-19-2014, 04:46 AM   #100
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 606
I'm comparing a 50 quid lens with a thousand quid one.

Had non Pentax fanboy people look at it, all say it's a dog.
03-19-2014, 04:54 AM   #101
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,324
I guess some people just didn't get the message.
03-19-2014, 05:44 AM - 1 Like   #102
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
I will just say a couple of things. I do think the OP's lens isn't performing as well as it should. I also think that this is a lens that performs quite well stopped down, although you need to plan to remove purple fringing on it, because it can get pretty bad.

The reason to get this lens is for out of focus rendering, more than anything else. Sharpness is good, but bokeh is really smooth. I don't shoot wide open much -- usually stopped down to f2.8, but most lenses perform best stopped down a bit from wide open. There is nothing wrong with getting a wider angle lens and then stopping down. That's the only way that I use my DA 15 limited...

As to what the lens is worth, who knows? Life is too short to shoot with gear that you don't like, so if your lens isn't performing, sell it and use something else.
03-19-2014, 07:44 AM - 1 Like   #103
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Both the OPs and chickentenders images don't appear to be up to scratch....in the case of chickentenders image I can't find anything sharp anywhere in the frame, that's often motion blur...

In terms of cost...
compared with the Sigma 35 1.4, the 31 stacks up quite nicely, not as centre sharp better edge to edge sharpness, much lower CA which should lead to better microconstrast...

The Asunama is famous for it's "funky" bokeh, not usually a positive thing in a lens
Asanuma 28mm F2.8 - funky bokeh part II: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The 31 on the other hand is famous for it's bokeh.
Neither or the images above approach what klaus at photo zone would call excellent... if that was truly the best I could do, I'd send it off to Pentax for calibration, possibly with the camera. But I have to also note, none of the images shown by the OP really show what the lens can do.

I don't know about where you live, but if I phone up the girl at Pentax today and send her the lens, in a week I'll have an estimate and in two weeks I'll have it back, checked out and cleaned, if nothing is wrong, for 25 bucks. My 21 only cost me $200 and it was dropped and needed new parts. Sometimes I think we should have a section here on what to do if your lens isn't performing up to spec... it's high end sensitive equipment, you just cannot buy it and forget it like it was a hammer. Getting the best use requires proper maintenance, but getting the best use also requires good technique. The big problem with evaluating pictures in a thread like this is it can be pretty hard to tell what's going on. What "should" be is irrelevant, if your gear isn't working up to scratch, get it serviced.

From my experience I know, my frustration level is not always a problem with faulty equipment... sometimes the problem is the little shortcuts I think I can get away with.
03-19-2014, 08:07 AM   #104
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,324
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
31.......better edge to edge sharpness,
It seems that a lot of Sigma lenses are anywhere from very soft to extremely soft at the border and corners.
03-19-2014, 08:12 AM   #105
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Both the OPs and chickentenders images don't appear to be up to scratch....in the case of chickentenders image I can't find anything sharp anywhere in the frame, that's often motion blur...

In terms of cost...
compared with the Sigma 35 1.4, the 31 stacks up quite nicely, not as centre sharp better edge to edge sharpness, much lower CA which should lead to better microconstrast...

The Asunama is famous for it's "funky" bokeh, not usually a positive thing in a lens
Asanuma 28mm F2.8 - funky bokeh part II: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The 31 on the other hand is famous for it's bokeh.
Neither or the images above approach what klaus at photo zone would call excellent... if that was truly the best I could do, I'd send it off to Pentax for calibration, possibly with the camera. But I have to also note, none of the images shown by the OP really show what the lens can do.

I don't know about where you live, but if I phone up the girl at Pentax today and send her the lens, in a week I'll have an estimate and in two weeks I'll have it back, checked out and cleaned, if nothing is wrong, for 25 bucks. My 21 only cost me $200 and it was dropped and needed new parts. Sometimes I think we should have a section here on what to do if your lens isn't performing up to spec... it's high end sensitive equipment, you just cannot buy it and forget it like it was a hammer. Getting the best use requires proper maintenance, but getting the best use also requires good technique. The big problem with evaluating pictures in a thread like this is it can be pretty hard to tell what's going on. What "should" be is irrelevant, if your gear isn't working up to scratch, get it serviced.

From my experience I know, my frustration level is not always a problem with faulty equipment... sometimes the problem is the little shortcuts I think I can get away with.
Thanks for that - and by the by Chickentender and the OP are the same fella.
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!
28mm, 31mm, asanuma, bit, crop, discussion, f/1.8, f1.8, f2.8, f4, figure, flickr, focus, folks, k-mount, lens, lenses, look, pentax lens, photo, pixel, sharpness, shot, sizes, slr lens, terms, worry
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Tom the Terrified Turkey......... Bob Harris Post Your Photos! 17 06-28-2018 09:43 AM
M 50/1.7 and A 50/1.7 hybrid comparisons utak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 05-31-2016 10:17 AM
I'm sure I'm missing something (green button) loco Pentax K-30 & K-50 31 09-02-2013 05:35 AM
Nature I'm not fat, I'm just fluffy! Julie Post Your Photos! 5 03-06-2013 10:11 AM
lens comparisons - what am I missing? WMBP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 09-08-2009 11:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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