Full frame lenses on aps-c, any +/-

**UncleVanya** · 12-25-2016, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by pres589

I respectfully disagree with the 15 vs 21 Ltd discussion above and invite anyone that hasn't used the 15mm Limited to try one once they are familiar with their crop Pentax DSLR.

Honestly, if this lens didn't exist, I would be less interested in the Pentax APS-C platform as it exists today. Love my SMC DA 15 Ltd.

I love my da 15. (SMC) and I agree it isn't a one trick pony.

---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 12:03 AM ----------

Originally posted by normhead

FF lenses will be much more useful, if you ever buy a k-1.

My FA 28-200 is a terrible lens even on APS_c (it's an FF film era lens.) Yet my 18-135 on my K-3 is one of my favourite lenses. It would seem, its easier to produce a decent lens for APS-c at a much better price than you can for full frame. My 28-105 has a range of 77mm. My 18-135 has a range of 117mm, yet they are both about the same size, weight and cost. At least for walk around variable aperture zooms, there are much better values in APS_c.

How odd. My dad had an FA 28-200 that was rather ok on apsc (k-50). I suspect high degree of variation in this lens.

Also the fa43 was a friends favorite lens on apsc - he loved the 43 and sold me his 31 because he simple loved the 43 that much more.

robthebloke · 12-25-2016, 10:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pres589

I respectfully disagree with the 15 vs 21 Ltd discussion above and invite anyone that hasn't used the 15mm Limited to try one once they are familiar with their crop Pentax DSLR.

Honestly, if this lens didn't exist, I would be less interested in the Pentax APS-C platform as it exists today. Love my SMC DA 15 Ltd.

Read again what I posted above. The 15, 21, and 35 limiteds are 3 of my favourite lenses of all time. There isn't really an equivalent of the 15 on FF right now, and it's a lens I miss most. Make no mistake, the 15 is a fantastic lens. The 21 is more versatile - it can do portraits, it can do landscapes, it can focus closely, you can have bokeh if you want it. But if landscapes are your thing, the 15 at f8 is mind blowing. But I think you will have to admit it's not great for portraits, and the bokeh is a bit meh, but I'm not for one minute saying either is a bad lens. They're different lenses. The 15 does what it does brilliantly. You could argue the 21 is a little compromised in some regards, but it is a very good walk around lens that has a lot of versatility. If I was forced to only use 1 lens for a holiday, I'd probably take the 21. If I was allowed two, it would be the 15 and 35 macro. Both have their place, both are very good, but they do have different characteristics.

---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 05:52 AM ----------

Originally posted by Des

Bit harsh Rob. I find the 43 a knockout for portraits, flowers, pets, etc on the K-3 - provided you don't have difficult/contrasting lighting. It has that 3D quality that the FA Limiteds are known for. I don't have the DA 40, so I can't compare. But generally I think the DA lenses tend to have better control of flare and CA. Even the humble DA 35 f2.4 gives fairly reliable consistent results - just without the excitement of the FAs.

Yeah alright, probably a bit harsh. The DA40 is one of the best click-and-forget lenses I've ever used. It doesn't matter what the aperture is set to, where your focussing, what the lighting conditions are, it nails it. The only thing that makes the images it produces bad, is you the photographer. The bokeh is pleasing, it's sharp, contrast and colour are all there. It's pretty good.

With the FA43 though, you need to know how that lens behaves. Certain focus distances, with certain apertures, in certain light, can produce slightly strange bokeh (the DA21 has a similar issue). Sometimes the images are a bit dull, flat, and uninspiring. Every so often, the planets align, and you end up with something amazing. I will honestly say (and this is just my opinion), that 9 times out of 10, the DA40 will give better results. However that 1 in 10 time the FA43 wins, is probably the photo you'll want a print of.

But that situation is reversed on the K-1. If you are a pixel peeper, then you might not like the 43, but for me the 43 magic happens in that bit of the image the k-3 can't see (some people hate the corners and edges of the 43, but I love them!). The 40 on the K-1 doesn't seem to scale imho. The magic happens in the central apsc portion, but then you're left with uninspiring edges and corners.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the 3D pop from the 31, 77, and 40 will always show through on apsc. The 3D pop on the 43 will always show through on the K-1, but only occasionally on apsc (because it's trimmed out the bit of the frame with the pop in)

Timd · 12-26-2016, 10:55 AM

While FF lenses on aps-c use the 'sweet spot' of the lens, and thus have less middle to edge variation, the resultant image is magnified more relative to FF to create the same size print out. Hence focus accuracy needs to be better.

Now all this is trying to compare different systems while trying to fix some of the variables. But it does explain why legacy lenses may not be so great on APS-C..

Another observation. While the hood of a FF lens on APS-C might be too wide, what about the hood on a zoom. It can't be perfect for both wide and tele! A lens is always a compromise of conflicting requirements.

emalvick · 12-26-2016, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Weren't they all full frame before 2003? Seems there's only been about 13 years of APS-C lenses out of, what is it? 75-80 years.

I meant ff camera not lenses.

**Mr. Ed** · 12-26-2016, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by pjv

This question fits the criteria for either " Ask Ricoh Imaging Support " or " Product Suggestions And Feedback " methinks Mr. Ed.

Yes you are probably right. But I do get nearly instant feedback this way

Unregistered User 8 · 12-26-2016, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Ed

Yes you are probably right. But I do get nearly instant feedback this way

None of us can make the lens hoods though, Ricoh might start if you plant the seed !!

**Mr. Ed** · 12-26-2016, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by pjv

None of us can make the lens hoods though, Ricoh might start if you plant the seed !!

You could be correct again but as Robthebloke pointed out to me, these lens have built in hoods. What I imagined to be not too tough is really unreasonable.

**lithedreamer** · 12-26-2016, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Ed

You could be correct again but as Robthebloke pointed out to me, these lens have built in hoods. What I imagined to be not too tough is really unreasonable.

What makes this unreasonable? These lenses have filter threads, too.

**UncleVanya** · 12-26-2016, 08:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by lithedreamer

What makes this unreasonable? These lenses have filter threads, too.

I have a set of pictures I can post later. The DA 70 hood fits the FA 77 and works well on it.

**UncleVanya** · 12-27-2016, 07:50 AM - **1 Like**

Here is a link to the pictures of the FA 77 wearing the DA 70 hood. Also there are some sky shots to establish vignetting impact (none seemingly). The pics were shot on my k-3.

FA 77 w/DA 70 Hood | Flickr

**Quartermaster James** · 12-27-2016, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by emalvick

I meant ff camera not lenses.

Again, weren't they all FF before 2003?

pschlute · 12-28-2016, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Again, weren't they all FF before 2003?

I think he is well aware that Pentax SLR cameras were FF in the film-only era. His original response suggested looking in the galleries for pictures taken with a FF lens as most of those will have been taken on a aps-c size sensor, as we have not had a digital FF camera for very long.

How many pictures in the galleries were shot on film ? Not a significant proportion I expect.

**Rondec** · 12-28-2016, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Again, weren't they all FF before 2003?

I think, as pschlute says, that his comment was in reference to online galleries. There are folks who scan in film and upload it, but it certainly is harder to tell what lens and camera they are shooting, as there isn't often an intact exif, unless they specifically go in and edit it. It is a little harder to tell, as well what a lens's behavior on digital will be based on a scanned in film image.

emalvick · 12-28-2016, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Again, weren't they all FF before 2003?

Yes... But were they? two can play the smart ass game.

FYI, this thread was about digital, but if you want to talk about film, no they were not all FF, of course those non-FF images are probably even rarer here.

**Quartermaster James** · 12-28-2016, 10:29 PM - **1 Like**

Well, shucks! Y'all forgot what the joking face means? Sorry to have played the ass.

---------- Post added Dec 28th, 2016 at 08:34 PM ----------

Originally posted by emalvick

Yes... But were they? two can play the smart ass game.

FYI, this thread was about digital, but if you want to talk about film, no they were not all FF, of course those non-FF images are probably even rarer here.

I disagree. I think this thread was about using FF lenses on APS-C cameras, and the bulk of Pentax FF lenses available are pre-digital.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Full frame lenses on APS-C bodies	weaponx525	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	37	02-13-2017 04:53 PM
Pentax 150-450mm review on full frame and APS-C	Alex-Nelson	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	08-15-2016 01:49 AM
What happens when you put an aps-c lens on full frame(K-1)?	fstop18	Pentax Full Frame	8	04-13-2016 08:34 AM
Full Frame simulation on aps-c camera via ...	Pentaxtic	Pentax Full Frame	16	01-15-2014 05:06 PM
Lens hoods on full frame, APS-C...	nater	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	08-04-2010 08:50 AM

12-25-2016, 09:59 PM	#31
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,385	Originally posted by pres589 I respectfully disagree with the 15 vs 21 Ltd discussion above and invite anyone that hasn't used the 15mm Limited to try one once they are familiar with their crop Pentax DSLR. Honestly, if this lens didn't exist, I would be less interested in the Pentax APS-C platform as it exists today. Love my SMC DA 15 Ltd. I love my da 15. (SMC) and I agree it isn't a one trick pony. ---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 12:03 AM ---------- Originally posted by normhead FF lenses will be much more useful, if you ever buy a k-1. My FA 28-200 is a terrible lens even on APS_c (it's an FF film era lens.) Yet my 18-135 on my K-3 is one of my favourite lenses. It would seem, its easier to produce a decent lens for APS-c at a much better price than you can for full frame. My 28-105 has a range of 77mm. My 18-135 has a range of 117mm, yet they are both about the same size, weight and cost. At least for walk around variable aperture zooms, there are much better values in APS_c. How odd. My dad had an FA 28-200 that was rather ok on apsc (k-50). I suspect high degree of variation in this lens. Also the fa43 was a friends favorite lens on apsc - he loved the 43 and sold me his 31 because he simple loved the 43 that much more.

12-25-2016, 10:27 PM - 1 Like	#32
robthebloke Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 844	Originally posted by pres589 I respectfully disagree with the 15 vs 21 Ltd discussion above and invite anyone that hasn't used the 15mm Limited to try one once they are familiar with their crop Pentax DSLR. Honestly, if this lens didn't exist, I would be less interested in the Pentax APS-C platform as it exists today. Love my SMC DA 15 Ltd. Read again what I posted above. The 15, 21, and 35 limiteds are 3 of my favourite lenses of all time. There isn't really an equivalent of the 15 on FF right now, and it's a lens I miss most. Make no mistake, the 15 is a fantastic lens. The 21 is more versatile - it can do portraits, it can do landscapes, it can focus closely, you can have bokeh if you want it. But if landscapes are your thing, the 15 at f8 is mind blowing. But I think you will have to admit it's not great for portraits, and the bokeh is a bit meh, but I'm not for one minute saying either is a bad lens. They're different lenses. The 15 does what it does brilliantly. You could argue the 21 is a little compromised in some regards, but it is a very good walk around lens that has a lot of versatility. If I was forced to only use 1 lens for a holiday, I'd probably take the 21. If I was allowed two, it would be the 15 and 35 macro. Both have their place, both are very good, but they do have different characteristics. ---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 05:52 AM ---------- Originally posted by Des Bit harsh Rob. I find the 43 a knockout for portraits, flowers, pets, etc on the K-3 - provided you don't have difficult/contrasting lighting. It has that 3D quality that the FA Limiteds are known for. I don't have the DA 40, so I can't compare. But generally I think the DA lenses tend to have better control of flare and CA. Even the humble DA 35 f2.4 gives fairly reliable consistent results - just without the excitement of the FAs. Yeah alright, probably a bit harsh. The DA40 is one of the best click-and-forget lenses I've ever used. It doesn't matter what the aperture is set to, where your focussing, what the lighting conditions are, it nails it. The only thing that makes the images it produces bad, is you the photographer. The bokeh is pleasing, it's sharp, contrast and colour are all there. It's pretty good. With the FA43 though, you need to know how that lens behaves. Certain focus distances, with certain apertures, in certain light, can produce slightly strange bokeh (the DA21 has a similar issue). Sometimes the images are a bit dull, flat, and uninspiring. Every so often, the planets align, and you end up with something amazing. I will honestly say (and this is just my opinion), that 9 times out of 10, the DA40 will give better results. However that 1 in 10 time the FA43 wins, is probably the photo you'll want a print of. But that situation is reversed on the K-1. If you are a pixel peeper, then you might not like the 43, but for me the 43 magic happens in that bit of the image the k-3 can't see (some people hate the corners and edges of the 43, but I love them!). The 40 on the K-1 doesn't seem to scale imho. The magic happens in the central apsc portion, but then you're left with uninspiring edges and corners. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the 3D pop from the 31, 77, and 40 will always show through on apsc. The 3D pop on the 43 will always show through on the K-1, but only occasionally on apsc (because it's trimmed out the bit of the frame with the pop in)

12-26-2016, 10:55 AM	#33
Timd Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Cape Town, SA Posts: 262	While FF lenses on aps-c use the 'sweet spot' of the lens, and thus have less middle to edge variation, the resultant image is magnified more relative to FF to create the same size print out. Hence focus accuracy needs to be better. Now all this is trying to compare different systems while trying to fix some of the variables. But it does explain why legacy lenses may not be so great on APS-C.. Another observation. While the hood of a FF lens on APS-C might be too wide, what about the hood on a zoom. It can't be perfect for both wide and tele! A lens is always a compromise of conflicting requirements.

12-26-2016, 11:47 AM	#34
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Originally posted by Quartermaster James Weren't they all full frame before 2003? Seems there's only been about 13 years of APS-C lenses out of, what is it? 75-80 years. I meant ff camera not lenses.

12-26-2016, 06:52 PM	#35
Mr. Ed Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 563	Originally posted by pjv This question fits the criteria for either " Ask Ricoh Imaging Support " or " Product Suggestions And Feedback " methinks Mr. Ed. Yes you are probably right. But I do get nearly instant feedback this way

12-26-2016, 07:18 PM	#36
Unregistered User 8 Closed Account Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,694	Originally posted by Mr. Ed Yes you are probably right. But I do get nearly instant feedback this way None of us can make the lens hoods though, Ricoh might start if you plant the seed !!

12-26-2016, 07:49 PM	#37
Mr. Ed Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 563	Originally posted by pjv None of us can make the lens hoods though, Ricoh might start if you plant the seed !! You could be correct again but as Robthebloke pointed out to me, these lens have built in hoods. What I imagined to be not too tough is really unreasonable.

12-26-2016, 07:53 PM	#38
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799	Originally posted by Mr. Ed You could be correct again but as Robthebloke pointed out to me, these lens have built in hoods. What I imagined to be not too tough is really unreasonable. What makes this unreasonable? These lenses have filter threads, too.

12-26-2016, 08:14 PM - 1 Like	#39
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,385	Originally posted by lithedreamer What makes this unreasonable? These lenses have filter threads, too. I have a set of pictures I can post later. The DA 70 hood fits the FA 77 and works well on it.

12-27-2016, 07:50 AM - 1 Like	#40
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,385	Here is a link to the pictures of the FA 77 wearing the DA 70 hood. Also there are some sky shots to establish vignetting impact (none seemingly). The pics were shot on my k-3. FA 77 w/DA 70 Hood \| Flickr

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2016, 07:40 PM	#41
Quartermaster James Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 653	Originally posted by emalvick I meant ff camera not lenses. Again, weren't they all FF before 2003?

12-28-2016, 01:09 AM	#42
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,188	Originally posted by Quartermaster James Again, weren't they all FF before 2003? I think he is well aware that Pentax SLR cameras were FF in the film-only era. His original response suggested looking in the galleries for pictures taken with a FF lens as most of those will have been taken on a aps-c size sensor, as we have not had a digital FF camera for very long. How many pictures in the galleries were shot on film ? Not a significant proportion I expect.

12-28-2016, 03:37 AM	#43
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Quartermaster James Again, weren't they all FF before 2003? I think, as pschlute says, that his comment was in reference to online galleries. There are folks who scan in film and upload it, but it certainly is harder to tell what lens and camera they are shooting, as there isn't often an intact exif, unless they specifically go in and edit it. It is a little harder to tell, as well what a lens's behavior on digital will be based on a scanned in film image.

12-28-2016, 08:50 AM	#44
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Originally posted by Quartermaster James Again, weren't they all FF before 2003? Yes... But were they? two can play the smart ass game. FYI, this thread was about digital, but if you want to talk about film, no they were not all FF, of course those non-FF images are probably even rarer here.

12-28-2016, 10:29 PM - 1 Like	#45
Quartermaster James Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 653	Well, shucks! Y'all forgot what the joking face means? Sorry to have played the ass. ---------- Post added Dec 28th, 2016 at 08:34 PM ---------- Originally posted by emalvick Yes... But were they? two can play the smart ass game. FYI, this thread was about digital, but if you want to talk about film, no they were not all FF, of course those non-FF images are probably even rarer here. I disagree. I think this thread was about using FF lenses on APS-C cameras, and the bulk of Pentax FF lenses available are pre-digital.