[audiobomber]

Oddly I think a lens can be too sharp, is that possible, for portrait work. While I can use the macro for portraits I prefer the look of the portraits I get from my DA 70/2.4. Different lenses for different application I guess.

Tom G

The D FA 100mm macro is my sharpest lens. For portraits I use it wide open, which softens the look and shows great bokeh.
Thereafter, in order of sharpness:
FA 35mm f2
FA 50
DA 40mm Ltd
FA 28mm
DA 16-45mm
DA 15mm Ltd

The Limiteds have extra punchy colour and contrast, which gives the illusion of higher resolution.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 09-08-2014 at 10:44 AM.

[Nicolas06]

My sharpest lenses are the DFA 100 macro, followed closely by the DA* 300. However, the difference between these lenses any my other prime lenses are not significant enough to be noticed in practical output. My zooms are a little less sharp, but even here the differences are surprisingly minor. In any case, all my lenses are sharp enough for displaying on web or making up to 24" prints.

I think sharpness is most useful, and of course most noticeable, in larger prints. Curiously, I have not sold any large prints with my two sharpest lenses; but I've sold four 36" prints taken, respectively, with the K 28 f3.5, the K 50 f1.2, the DA 12-24 and the DA 15. In short, virtually any Pentax prime lens under 135mm is going to be sharp enough; and many of the AF constant aperture zooms will be as well.

That's true but with this principle you can consider most internet review as useless... even worse than useless: counter productive. If you want a good lens you go look for reviews, you see that sharpness if a key factor and you basically optimize on the wrong metric.

The most funny... Many are after sharp lenses... And the thing that bring the most increase in sharpness to my photos is using a K3 instead of K5... Difference is much more visible than between lenses as soon as you go past the kit lens.

[PALADIN85020]

Many are after sharp lenses... And the thing that bring the most increase in sharpness to my photos is using a K3 instead of K5... Difference is much more visible than between lenses as soon as you go past the kit lens.

That's a very good point. The resolving power of the camera has a lot to do with it. I also noticed a big jump in resolution when using the K-3 over the K-5 - shedding the moire filter and getting a larger 24mp picture makes a noticeable difference. At the same time, certain lenses do show superiority over others, regardless of the camera.

John

[danixmen]

Pentax FA50 f2.8 macro and Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro
Both are equally sharpest

[lytrytyr]

That funy from your source (lenstip) I mean the FA43 is sharper all arround on the center at all appertures. That interresting to see that the border catch up for the DA20-40 at 40mm f/8 or even f/5.6... But usually the center performance is really more important than border performance.

That depends very much on the kind of photography you want.

The Pentax DA Limited philosophy emphasizes evenness of performance across the image.
In that regard, it's good to see the DA Limited zoom match the pancakes.

If sharpness if important, one should have a K3 anyway ! And the tests should be done on K3.

Actually, if center performance is what's important, then the tests should be done on a Q!

But back in the real world, they're done on the latest camera that the tester has available.
And unfortunately, Pentax is not such a priority for those guys that they'll rush to buy a K3.

Shapness is not just lp/mm. It is also contrast & micro constrast & color rendering.

It appears that you might still not be understanding the earlier post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/272273-shar...ml#post2933720
One more time: "Sharpness" as reported by the Lenstip resolution tests is the maximal lp/mm (spatial frequency) at 50% contrast.

[audiobomber]

The Pentax DA Limited philosophy emphasizes evenness of performance across the image.

The DA 15mm does not follow that philosophy. It is center sharp, but quite soft in the corners, even stopped down. It has other qualities though.

[lytrytyr]

The DA 15mm does not follow that philosophy. It is center sharp, but quite soft in the corners, even stopped down.

That's an extreme case, where physics trumps philosophy.
The hybrid aspheric element in that lens also compromises the build quality expectations for the Limited lenses.

[Nicolas06]

That depends very much on the kind of photography you want.

The Pentax DA Limited philosophy emphasizes evenness of performance across the image.
In that regard, it's good to see the DA Limited zoom match the pancakes.


Actually, if center performance is what's important, then the tests should be done on a Q!

But back in the real world, they're done on the latest camera that the tester has available.
And unfortunately, Pentax is not such a priority for those guys that they'll rush to buy a K3.


It appears that you might still not be understanding the earlier post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/272273-shar...ml#post2933720
One more time: "Sharpness" as reported by the Lenstip resolution tests is the maximal lp/mm (spatial frequency) at 50% contrast.

lytyrtyr argument to sell the DA20-40 lens:

- hey guys it can match at f/8 the border performance of FA43 ! The border performance suck wide open but f/8 is good !!!
- the center performance is not on the same level as most primes but who care? If we wanted center sharpness we all would buy a Pentax Q!
- Anyway that how ltd are designed: to have very even sharpness between border and center. Well except it is not the case for the DA20-40, DA15, DA21, FA43 & FA77 !
- The real definition of sharpness that count if the one of lenstip... You know the one that show that overall the DA20-40 performance is quite weak until f/8!

[lytrytyr]

lytyrtyr argument to sell the DA20-40 lens:

?????? Men of straw.

[northcoastgreg]

Sharpness is not just lp/mm. It is also contrast & micro contrast & color rendering. One lens with more contrast will exhibit it more.

It appears that you might still not be understanding the earlier post Sharpest Pentax lens in your bag? One more time: "Sharpness" as reported by the Lenstip resolution tests is the maximal lp/mm (spatial frequency) at 50% contrast.

However one chooses to define and test sharpness, the question remains: is there a 100% correlation between a given test (following a given definition of sharpness) and what we actually perceive? The DA 18-55 is a "sharper" lens (i.e., it would score higher on a resolution test) than the DA 10-17; yet the DA 10-17 produces images that look sharper to human perception (because the lens is much contrastier, with considerably better color rendition).

Another example of this is the lenstip review of the DA 17-70, where the reviewer gripes that the DA 17-70 is not much sharper than the DA 18-55. That may be true, but images from the DA 17-70 certainly look "better," and even "sharper," than images from the DA 18-55. More curiously, they look better and sharper even at web resolution, where sharpness differences should not even be perceivable.

That's true but with this principle you can consider most internet review as useless... even worse than useless: counter productive. If you want a good lens you go look for reviews, you see that sharpness if a key factor and you basically optimize on the wrong metric.

But is there really any other metric that can be used? Is it possible that most metrics are "useless" (or, more plausibly, "problematic" or "potentially misleading") and that the only way to judge a lens is to evaluate the images it produces with one's own eyes?

[Nicolas06]

However one chooses to define and test sharpness, the question remains: is there a 100% correlation between a given test (following a given definition of sharpness) and what we actually perceive? The DA 18-55 is a "sharper" lens (i.e., it would score higher on a resolution test) than the DA 10-17; yet the DA 10-17 produces images that look sharper to human perception (because the lens is much contrastier, with considerably better color rendition).

Another example of this is the lenstip review of the DA 17-70, where the reviewer gripes that the DA 17-70 is not much sharper than the DA 18-55. That may be true, but images from the DA 17-70 certainly look "better," and even "sharper," than images from the DA 18-55. More curiously, they look better and sharper even at web resolution, where sharpness differences should not even be perceivable.



But is there really any other metric that can be used? Is it possible that most metrics are "useless" (or, more plausibly, "problematic" or "potentially misleading") and that the only way to judge a lens is to evaluate the images it produces with one's own eyes?

How the typical review is done:
- One page to describe the lens physically
- A big sharpness chart test at all appertures on center, border, sometime even extreme borders... At several focal lens for zooms.
- Test on typical optical aberations like chromatics aberations, vigneting, geometrical aberations. All theses are automatically corrected by tools like DxO and except if pretty severe you'll not even notice it in practice.
- Some reviewers include 1-3 shoots aiming to test flare and extrapolate the flare performance from that.
- Some reviewers do say something on autofocus performance but that not all.
- There typically a few samples shoot that more often than not look bad. The subject is uninterresting, there no corrections done in post processing so you can see how bad the lens is, but not what to expect from it in practice. If you are in bad luck the day of the outdoor shoots was simply cloudy and the image look bad, because the lighting is bad.

Honestly theses tests are still interresting but you have to cross check with forums, with review like what we have on Pentax Forum and read a bunch of comments, by looking at real examples shoots (if possible from good photographers).

Honestly, I have this FA77 I decided to buy. It is because I wanted something really good and I decided to invest. Oh my god! This lens is sooo great. The contrast is fantastic, the bokeh is really realy smooth and nice. The 3D pop is easy to get in good ligtht (and that not something you get nearly as often from other lenses I tested (my other lenses are DA17-70, DA50-135, DA15, DA21, DA35, FA50). But if it was only from review like photozone and lenstip, this just look like an overpriced lens that uninterresting.

When you read article on how the FA ltd where designed, Pentax lens designer explain that perfectly corrected lenses perform well on tests charts but lack spice in practice. They made many tries with different levels of optical correction and used the advice of many professionnal photographers on what looked best in practice. In the end the chart result are good, but not perfect... But oh man... The photos are just georgous. There this pixie dust ! That very difficult to trust it and check without trying yourself. I did see many of very fine shoot on FA ltd lens club through at level other lenses fail to provide... But even that not easy, there more chance the photographer know his stuff when he has such kind exotic lens anyway.

I remember at the begining 2 year agos, I would not see at all what this kind of lens would provide. Now If I had to choose again, for sure I would not even try the already good DA70... And I would buy FA43 instead of FA50!

[reeftool]

The one lens that seems to always turn out some incredibly crisp and sharp photos is my M135/3.5. None of my Pentax lenses would qualify as "soft". Stopped down a little, even the 18-55 is a very good performer. My Takumar 55/1.8 is extremely sharp also, even wide open and is much of the reason my wife hides whenever I have the camera out. Sometimes being sharp isn't very flattering.

[Madaboutpix]

Sharpest lens in my bag? Well, if I were to rank the four lenses I currently own, all of them Pentax smc DAs, according to their perceived peak-sharpness, I suppose the cup would go to the DA35 Macro Limited. Reasonably sharp already wide-open, particularly in the centre, it becomes what I would call tack-sharp across the frame at apertures F4 to F5.6, and must be the sharpest lens I've ever shot. It is followed (surprise, surprise!) by the DA15 Limited, which is slightly soft in the corners at F4, but sharpens up nicely across the frame between F8 and F13. My DA55-300 is more than reasonably sharp even at 300mm (where many consumer zooms suck) when stopped down a little, to anything between F7.2 and F11. And, finally, my copy of the DA18-55 WR kit lens, while no sharpness demon, has given me more than usable images even at wide-angle, when stopped down to F8 or F11.

Generally, most images I consider my sharpest, have been focused at fairly close to mid quarters, which is little surprise either, given that, as much as I am aware of, lenses are usually not optimized for infinity.

All four are sharp enough for what I do, and none of them falls apart even on my K-3, although none of them can dream of outperforming its sensor either.

However, isn't sharpness just a "bourgeois concept", as Henri Cartier-Bresson stated in his famous quotation? Well, I guess the point he was trying to make is not so much that he didn't like images to be sharp where it matters, but rather that sharpness, or nth-degree sharpness for that matter, says little about the aesthetic value of a photograph. In fact, some of the images I cherish most are blurred tracking shots.

Would I love to shoot Zeiss Otus-quality lenses? Certainly, and emphatically so, but in this life at least, there's no way I could afford them. And if you're already at a sharpness count of, say, 8.5 or 9 out of 10, does 10 out of 10 make that much of a difference? That said, I sure appreciate what the 24MP sensor of the K-3 is capable of, and will always try to couple it with as serious glass as I can ...

[standalowen]

I'm replacing stolen stuff. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I like the hd da 35mm macro, a inexpensive walk-around hd da 55-300 WR.
Here's my problem. The 100 hd da wr macro(leaning to the most),77mm fa ltd,da 70 ltd.
And a 2.0x teleconverter?? Please tell me what is the best one,for my New Prestige K-3,which is on the way.

[lytrytyr]

Here's my problem. The 100 hd da wr macro(leaning to the most),77mm fa ltd,da 70 ltd.
Please tell me what is the best one,for my New Prestige K-3,which is on the way.

There's no absolute "best" one. It's your choice, depending on what you want to do photographically.

I went with the DA 70, because I wanted a small travel/street lens with fast focusing,
and because I like its subtle rendering.

The macro is obviously good for macro (except with manual extension tubes: no aperture ring!),
although you may need focus stacking software
to handle the very shallow depth of field in the macro range.
(The DA 35 Macro will give you more depth of field.)
Like all macros, the AF may be slow unless you prefocus with the Quick-Shift.

The FA 77 has its vocal devotees,
but unless you can enjoy the benefit of its undoubted strengths in a pictorialist style of photography,
you may be frustrated with its purple fringing, slower focus (compared to the DA 70),
and lack of Quick-Shift.