[Blacknight659]

Hello everyone.

I recently purchased a SMC F 100mm f2.8 Macro. WOW... Colors, contrast, sharpness are wonderful. I am looking at other sample images of the F series and to my eye, it seems they produce a unique color rendition not found after this line up.

I see a tendency to produce more saturated colors and a bit of an exaggeration towards warm tones. I am in love with the rendition and wanted to hear from those of you using this series. Are you finding the same results?

Thanks!

[luftfluss]

I don't know how uniform the colors are across the F line. I did note that my F 35-70, when compared to the kit 18-55, had somewhat cooler greens and warm tones like red definitely popped. IMO a pleasing rendition. I never thought to compare it to my F50/1.7, though.

[Na Horuk]

Hm, interesting. Maybe the lens coatings were tweaked a little afterwards? The DA and DFA probably have coatings optimized for digital. And the lenses with HD or Aerobright might be even more different in that department.
Then again, it could also have to do with WB and the light quality. But I think I read some longtime Pentaxians that claimed the F series was top notch in optics. Because of that, they don't even mind the loud AF

[pasorro]

My F 100 2.8 macro and my F* 300 4.5 are by far my favourite lenses. Colour rendition is wow.

[Dipsoid]

My Takumar F-zoom 70-210 produces insanely saturated colors, with warm colors looking especially beautiful. It's color rendition is far from natural, but much more interesting than the slightly cold and drab rendition from my 18-135. It reminds me of my old Minolta glass.

[paulh]

There is something special about the F-series color and rendering. I have the F35-70, F80-200, and even the F35-80 is nice.
F35-80 on an *ist D:

[luftfluss]

Hm, interesting. Maybe the lens coatings were tweaked a little afterwards? The DA and DFA probably have coatings optimized for digital. And the lenses with HD or Aerobright might be even more different in that department.
Then again, it could also have to do with WB and the light quality. But I think I read some longtime Pentaxians that claimed the F series was top notch in optics. Because of that, they don't even mind the loud AF

Oh, I'm sure that the SMC coatings have not been a static formulation over the years. There's been improvements, and there have probably been "reduced-cost" formulae for inexpensive lenses and premium coatings for premium lenses - and they are all "SMC". The 18-55 certainly did better when there was a strong light source in the frame when compared to the F 35-70.

Of course, with software, we can approximate any color rendering we want, if we know how. But I'm the type of person who needs the lens to lead me by the hand - I'm no good at advanced colormongering.

Here's with the F50/1.7, wide open:

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Blacknight659]

Oh, I'm sure that the SMC coatings have not been a static formulation over the years. There's been improvements, and there have probably been "reduced-cost" formulae for inexpensive lenses and premium coatings for premium lenses - and they are all "SMC". The 18-55 certainly did better when there was a strong light source in the frame when compared to the F 35-70.

Of course, with software, we can approximate any color rendering we want, if we know how. But I'm the type of person who needs the lens to lead me by the hand - I'm no good at advanced colormongering.

Here's with the F50/1.7, wide open:

I am in the same boat, I need the glass to do most of the work. I only want to enhance what I captured.

[LennyBloke]

I agree that there are certain lenses that have a special appeal in their colours - I'm not sure it is distinct to the F series alone but they do have a few lenses that from personal use I prefer over other series. The F series 100/2.8 Macro, 50/2.8 Macro and 300/4.5 are among my favourites, but the FA*24/2.0 has colours that really stand out from any lens for me. The K28/2.0 and the A100/2.8 are 2 that also have a special look to their colouring from MF series

[Blacknight659]

I agree that there are certain lenses that have a special appeal in their colours - I'm not sure it is distinct to the F series alone but they do have a few lenses that from personal use I prefer over other series. The F series 100/2.8 Macro, 50/2.8 Macro and 300/4.5 are among my favourites, but the FA*24/2.0 has colours that really stand out from any lens for me. The K28/2.0 and the A100/2.8 are 2 that also have a special look to their colouring from MF series

I am happy to hear others see the same! I personally like the examples I am seeing from the F 100 macro and the F 50 1.7 lens. Really a nice way to render colors and warm tones. I think it resembles the M 50 1.7 and A 50 1.7 coloring, but only in subtle ways. I think in some situations, the legacy rendering is more pleasing than the DA line.

[paulh]

I agree about the similarity to the M and A-series lenses' rendering. Taken last week (before the polar vortex plowed through here) with the F35-70 on a K100D:

[northcoastgreg]

I am looking at other sample images of the F series and to my eye, it seems they produce a unique color rendition not found after this line up.

I've noticed this as well, particularly in the zooms. The F 70-210 particularly stands out in this respect. To my eye, many Pentax lenses seem to have a slight bias toward the magenta and purple in their rendering of blues, whereas the F lenses seem to have a slight bias toward aqua.

Here's a shot from the F 85mm f2.8 Soft:

Maybe the lens coatings were tweaked a little afterwards?

Pentax at some point attempted to attain greater consistency of color rendering among their lenses (this probably began with the M series). If you go back to the m43 Taks or the original K series K-mount lenses, color rendering is all over the place. I have four K series lenses and they all render color very differently. My four M series lenses are more consistent (although my M 20/4 is a bit of an outlier in this respect). The A and F series lenses seem to demonstrate an even greater consistency. I read somewhere that attaining greater consistency among lenses using different types and numbers of glass elements involves combining various layers of coatings in different ways --- essentially "tweaking" them, if you will.

Of course, with software, we can approximate any color rendering we want, if we know how. But I'm the type of person who needs the lens to lead me by the hand - I'm no good at advanced colormongering.

I've been doing PP for over 15 years, and I've found that there are real limitations to relying on software to get the exact colors one might want. While it's easy to change blue to purple or yellow to orange, changing from, say, "Tamron" blue to "Pentax" blue is much harder, if not impossible. When you change blue to purple via software, you don't transition between every possible color tone between blue and purple. Many tones are excluded, and if you want one of those excluded tones, you're not going to get it out of software. Lenses have different color renderings because of subtle color casts. Such color casts will determine the exact data set that the sensor records. Software can only extrapolate from a given data set, so different data sets will yield slightly different results, even after "colormongering." If I find that a particular lens consistently fails to provide the color I want, even after post-processing, I get rid of it.

[luftfluss]

I've been doing PP for over 15 years, and I've found that there are real limitations to relying on software to get the exact colors one might want. While it's easy to change blue to purple or yellow to orange, changing from, say, "Tamron" blue to "Pentax" blue is much harder, if not impossible. When you change blue to purple via software, you don't transition between every possible color tone between blue and purple. Many tones are excluded, and if you want one of those excluded tones, you're not going to get it out of software. Lenses have different color renderings because of subtle color casts. Such color casts will determine the exact data set that the sensor records. Software can only extrapolate from a given data set, so different data sets will yield slightly different results, even after "colormongering." If I find that a particular lens consistently fails to provide the color I want, even after post-processing, I get rid of it.

Yeah, that's why I said "approximate". Sometimes that's good enough for a schmoe like me but not for more sensitive palettes such as yours.

Interestingly, I also like the color rendering of the Sigma Super Wide and Mini Wide. Both are slightly cooler and perhaps more neutral than similar-era Pentax, but have good microcontrast - another one of those optical qualities than can be somewhat approximated in PP, but IMO never quite works as well.

[luftfluss]

I am happy to hear others see the same! I personally like the examples I am seeing from the F 100 macro and the F 50 1.7 lens. Really a nice way to render colors and warm tones. I think it resembles the M 50 1.7 and A 50 1.7 coloring, but only in subtle ways. I think in some situations, the legacy rendering is more pleasing than the DA line.

I often prefer "legacy rendering" to "modern rendering", which to my eye is occasionally harsh. But I also appreciate the bold color and contrast of lenses like the DA21, which does a great job handling various lighting situations, like bright sun in or just out of the frame, and also has enough microcontrast that it provides tonal separation even on dull, cloudy days.

[Driline]

F* 300 4.5 are by far my favourite lenses. Colour rendition is wow.

The best lens Pentax has ever made in my honest opinion