[mikesbike]

Here's another example with my own FA43 @f4 vs HD DA 40 set to 40mm at the same f4

Ok- here is where I got the impression that the image on the left was from the FA 43mm and the one on the right from the HD DA 20-40mm which was set at 40mm and f/4. I also understand why the lighting changed, which does make it harder to make comparisons. Since you have made it clear which lens is which, some of the background leaves that are in good lighting taken with the DA 20-40mm lens appear to be sharper than the same leaves taken with the FA 43mm lens. Maybe even that extra 3mm of the prime lens might make some difference here for background bokeh blur. Even so, I do think it would be more meaningful to compare the DA HD 40mm set at f/4 than is the case with a wide-open zoom lens at full length.

I do agree with that the DA 20-40mm LTD is a fine and very useful zoom lens, with WR and silent AF to boot.

I very much enjoy your input here and the photographic work you have presented.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-05-2019 at 10:04 AM.

[Johnny2shoes]

Just to be clear, with Li's portrait shot in his video, you do realise forward and back focusing issues and Fine Adjustments do not at all come into play here? It's just your talk of mentioning front or back focusing with cactus sharpy metaphors (lol) etc, that's all OVF stuff and not relevant at all with Live View (or using the phone to focus via app which is same difference). For Li, he has 3 choices really for focus for that shot. He uses phone app and Face Detection (which is Live View), he uses phone app (Live View) and sel point, or he uses manual focus, checks his phone app in Live View and tilts his face towards a place he thinks he's in focus. I bet he is using either method 1 or 2, and as such all front and back focus issues that you're talking about are not relevant, it's CDAF he's using which either means good focus or way off, not 'slightly off' focus that you would typically suffer using PDAF. It's just a lot of people don't know that any Fine Adjustments you make in camera to a lens is NOT applicable in Live View (and hence phone app). Fine Adjustments and front and back focusing issues are only applicable to PDAF, not CDAF which is what Li was doing. I know my stuff too All this talk of front and back focusing, it doesn't come into play at all in this particular test because Li was not using OVF/PDAF to focus. Try using Live View AF and when you miss focus it's grabbed something else entirely, its a huge misfocus, not slight like what yer suggesting with Li.
This is why I think his focus is fine and on point, it is the lens we're seeing here, and I say it with more confidence because his teddy bear and landcape tests also have the same amount of softness at f2 as his portrait work, yet he would have to be a real monkey to screw up either AF or MF in those tests. We could for example just scrap the portrait section entirely and just accept that there is a massive difference on the teddy bears nose between the two lenses at f2. Not trying to be a douche here, just explaining how I see it. I see 3/3 examples showing the HD with increased substantial sharpness (at a cost of CA), sounds like you see 2/3, but overall we're in agreement, the HD is sharper wide open.

Having said that... my oh my... the review section here at PF is filled with mixed reviews when it comes to sharpness of lenses wide open. I have been around these parts long enough to say (and I'm sad to say it) but there are a lot of people who shoot images and consistently don't nail focus. 9/10 shots are not in focus wide open, it's actually difficult stuff and I have had my fair share 'wtf' moments with lenses as well. At one point I owned a Samyang 85/1.4, I owned it for about 2 weeks before nailing 1.4 shots. I was starting to think it was a soft copy or a naff lens, but then one day I take a shot and I'm like.. 'wow... ok... it is super sharp, it's just incredibly difficult to nail it.' The DoF is so utterly thin on a 85/1.4 that using the OVF to gauge accuracy is insufficient, the focus screen too poor to provide adequate focus feedback. You can rotate the barrel for seemingly a long time before seeing any change happen through the OVF, do the same in Live View mode and with magnification and its a different story altogether. Case n point, this link u gave me here; HD Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 on K1-II - PentaxForums.com the final image at f2 with the butterfly, it's not soft, its misfocus. You also see an image of him shooting into the mirror and using the OVF, always a worrying sign for someone reviewing sharpness and what not. Never ever measure the sharpness of a lens via the OVF, it's a gambling! Where possible use Live View, tripod and Manual focus with magnification, that should be what you do first when getting a new lens to test sharpness, its a base line you can then compare how the OVF is handling and if it's close or not (and move onto focus charts if need be).

In regards to edge sharpness, try and develop mini brenizer shots as a skill set. Take one shot first with subject in centre and then quickly take a second shot quickly to the left or right to gain additional framing and when it comes to an easy stitch you can reframe and crop as you like and voila! You have your off centre sharp portrait.
Really however I think you'll find you can go quite a bit off centre before things get really bad. I don't tend to do a lot of f1.9 group portrait shots, typically I am stopping down but its not the edge sharpness that concerns me, its the fact that it is really unlikely that they are all standing on the same focal plane, and for a f1.9 shot to be pulled off successfully in this regard you're relying on luck more than skill.

Here's a FA77 at f2.5;

Click the link and zoom about if you like, you'll see that they're all doing pretty well, even the guys on the edge, they do also appear to be pretty much on the same focal plane. The FA43 is very much of the same calibre imo.

Here's a F2.2 version with the FA77 again;



Face Detection used and it picked up the girl on the left. Despite being near an edge she is crisp. Her friend in the middle is slightly further back than the rest so is a teeny tiny bit soft, and the girl on the right is doing ok as well. Point being how far to the edge for a portrait do you want? Typically some bordering around them is welcome, and so I would not worry too much about it.

Here's an example of f4.5 being used with the HD DA 20-40 on the K-1 (yes I use it FF mode, it's fantastic on the K-1!). I saw the gents and could see they were not all on the same focal plane, so I tried to stop down and get them all semi decent focused, but the chap on the left is still pushing it a bit;




Anyway, tangent finished.

There was a time when the HD 35/2 first became released, I'm sure it retailed for cheaper than the FA35 on B&H haha. It's actually $349USD right now? Not too bad... I agree that $679 is too much, FA43 prolly better deal to spend the extra coin on.

I like flare too, Li didn't do a comprehensive video. Where's the star burst tests? flare comparisons, etc etc. Typical Li (I do love him really, good entertainer).

I think a lot of lenses can shine better on crop in terms of sharpness, because the edge isn't really the edge yet in some ways. But then you're missing so much in terms of DoF punch and additional framing. It's what's going on OUT of the focus areas that gets lost in translation so much in reviews. I shoot lensbaby lenses too, the twists and twirls in teh bokeh are so much better than on crop due to the additional framing. FA ltds are a little like that too... just without petzval stuff

There's a reason my friends jaw hit the ground when I took the FA31 off his K3 and put it on my K1. He had never seen the depth punch like that, nor realise it's true width and potential. The lenses were always intended for FF sensor, the crop mounts are just not deriving what the designer was intending. It may be IQ is superior on crop, but it's lost it's lovely magic surrounding. Have you ever applied Lens Correction to a FA Ltd in LR? It's a sad result indeed. They're not supposed to be corrected, and a crop sensor natively corrects whether it likes it or not.

FA77 and FA43 wide open are sharp for me, examples to prove (click links, zoom to the eyes);

FA77;


FA43;


If your copies are not sharp wide open, take them back, for the price they cost they should damn well be sharp wide open. If you're using OVF to focus, there's your problem, its garbage. Focus using Live View, it's more accurate and has none of that front and back focusing issues. All of these shots (and many more) were taken using Face Detection, no retakes necessary, take the shot and move on. No shame in using the tech in the camera that does the job better and quicker and more reliable than some of the other tech options in the camera. It's obvious I'm not going to use Face Detection to shoot a bird in a tree

Portrait (Face Detection Only) | Flickr

But in all seriousness, I am glad you like the FA35. I think the HD 35/2 from what I have seen is worth the extra $$ if yer buying one from scratch and don't already own a FA35, and that's all really. But I think the FA35 vs FA31 argument is a silly one, the 31 wipes the floor in almost every way, but at a price... and that price I think is too steep... until I get yer secret contact at Pentax and do some dirty under the table deals...

I think we've reviewed cameraville's video ad nauseam, but to be clear my points addressed some things you said and it's coming across like you've missed my point on them, rather than disagreement on the same point.

1 I have the fa35. The cactus is not a metaphor. It's literal. I shot center spot of a small bulb the size of the center spot of my tiny cactus 1m away. It always focused a point behind the center spot, just a hair in front. The image had that bulb look slightly out of focus up to f4 when I stopped testing.

2.When I manually focused I got critical sharpness.

3. It looked like the same effect on Li's vid. You claimed he couldn't misfocus so many shots of AF. You are mistaken.. I own the lens and that's what this lens does, AF misfocus, consistently. In 10+ test focuses. Your comments on the irelevance of my attempts to correct these, are neither here nor there and quite confusing as to what point you're trying to make - know what I'm doing and know how these work, but the consistency of the focus point of the fa35 on a tripod was the point. Also you don't have this lens and can't speak for the behaviour of it. I can tell it picks a focus spot - not the one i wanted (center spot) and it stuck with it til i changed ligthing conditions, in a difficult focus situation, 1mm to 2mm protruding spike on a bulbous cactus (Lis had same position, same light, so same slightly different focus point between the 2 lenses). Cdfa with slight ghosting could affect which contrary point if focused on on a bulbous subject like a head.

You're saying that can't be. I'm saying from personal, not watching YouTube, experience, it happens. When this lens/camera decides what it wants to focus on with an unmoving subject it consistently focuses on that point. Sometimes that point is on and sometimes it's not. But the Same point at all apertures to f4. I'm saying that it is possible Li's fa35smc picked a different focal point to the hd35. That's what it looks like to me.

And that aside i get sharp focus on my fa35 smc regardless of Li's result. Sometimes I need to MF when that focus point is about 1mm to 2mm from 1m or so away and the subject is bulbous. Which is quite reasonable.

His still life puppy is more telling where he is behind the camera and there is almost no difference bar the specular highlight on the nose of the plush pooch. The bigger difference between the 2 lenses is edge contrast in his landscape which creates clearer perceptual sharpness. That's what I think the HD has over the smc but it loses that colourful flare I demoed with the ricoh examples I linked.

Beyond this I'm gonna leave the cameraville discussion aside and move on from now.

The 77 is a great lens. Love the OOF in the images =)

[BruceBanner]

Ok- here is where I got the impression that the image on the left was from the FA 43mm and the one on the right from the HD DA 20-40mm which was set at 40mm and f/4. I also understand why the lighting changed, which does make it harder to make comparisons. Since you have made it clear which lens is which, some of the background leaves that are in good lighting taken with the DA 20-40mm lens appear to be sharper than the same leaves taken with the FA 43mm lens. Maybe even that extra 3mm of the prime lens might make some difference here for background bokeh blur. Even so, I do think it would be more meaningful to compare the DA HD 40mm set at f/4 than is the case with a wide-open zoom lens at full length.

I do agree with that the DA 20-40mm LTD is a fine and very useful zoom lens, with WR and silent AF to boot.

I very much enjoy your input here and the photographic work you have presented.

It would make more sense, but I don't have a 40mm prime anymore, but when I did I also tested it against the 43 and sold it for similar reasons. I will be the first to suggest the image is far from fair, but it is what it is and if anything can also be a good example of a prime vs a zoom and what differences in bokeh you would get. The lighting did change, but not massively so, study the image, there are plenty areas still roughly the same for shadow coverage. Furthermore, if I am in Av mode and have the same ev compensation and the sun patches have changed location, they should still expose the same or close to it (perhaps a 0.3ev difference), what yer seeing more is how a lens can let more or less light in at f4 compared to the other is more likely what's happening. The focus is the same, so if some leaves with the 20-40 seem sharper it's purely because its not producing the oof as nicely as the fa43.

I'm glad some of what I am saying is being helpful here lol.

---------- Post added 11-06-19 at 07:17 AM ----------

I think we've reviewed cameraville's video ad nauseam, but to be clear my points addressed some things you said and it's coming across like you've missed my point on them, rather than disagreement on the same point.

1 I have the fa35. The cactus is not a metaphor. It's literal. I shot center spot of a small bulb the size of the center spot of my tiny cactus 1m away. It always focused a point behind the center spot, just a hair in front. The image had that bulb look slightly out of focus up to f4 when I stopped testing.

2.When I manually focused I got critical sharpness.

3. It looked like the same effect on Li's vid. You claimed he couldn't misfocus so many shots of AF. You are mistaken.. I own the lens and that's what this lens does, AF misfocus, consistently. In 10+ test focuses. Your comments on the irelevance of my attempts to correct these, are neither here nor there and quite confusing as to what point you're trying to make - know what I'm doing and know how these work, but the consistency of the focus point of the fa35 on a tripod was the point. Also you don't have this lens and can't speak for the behaviour of it. I can tell it picks a focus spot - not the one i wanted (center spot) and it stuck with it til i changed ligthing conditions, in a difficult focus situation, 1mm to 2mm protruding spike on a bulbous cactus (Lis had same position, same light, so same slightly different focus point between the 2 lenses). Cdfa with slight ghosting could affect which contrary point if focused on on a bulbous subject like a head.

You're saying that can't be. I'm saying from personal, not watching YouTube, experience, it happens. When this lens/camera decides what it wants to focus on with an unmoving subject it consistently focuses on that point. Sometimes that point is on and sometimes it's not. But the Same point at all apertures to f4. I'm saying that it is possible Li's fa35smc picked a different focal point to the hd35. That's what it looks like to me.

And that aside i get sharp focus on my fa35 smc regardless of Li's result. Sometimes I need to MF when that focus point is about 1mm to 2mm from 1m or so away and the subject is bulbous. Which is quite reasonable.

His still life puppy is more telling where he is behind the camera and there is almost no difference bar the specular highlight on the nose of the plush pooch. The bigger difference between the 2 lenses is edge contrast in his landscape which creates clearer perceptual sharpness. That's what I think the HD has over the smc but it loses that colourful flare I demoed with the ricoh examples I linked.

Beyond this I'm gonna leave the cameraville discussion aside and move on from now.

The 77 is a great lens. Love the OOF in the images =)

Ok so just to clarify something that might have been badly explained by me.

The K-1 (and other Pentax cameras) focus using two methods, Phase Detection Auto Focus (PDAF) and Contrast Detection Auto Focus (CDAF).

PDAF is only used when focusing via the OVF (view finder).

CDAF is only used when using Live View (or the phone app, which is the same as it uses Live View to focus, noticed how with the phone app you can't have the Live View on the camera working at the same time when focusing on the phone app, it toggles the Live View to the phone).

All Fine Adjustments done in the camera are absolutely and purely only applicable to the PDAF (ovf/viewfinder). My FA 77 and 43 can need +5 and +10 to focus properly, but those values are utterly not taken into account when using the Live View screen or phone app. Issues pertaining to Front and Back focusing are not present when using CDAF.

I do not doubt for one minute your cactus focus issues with your FA, what I'm only saying is that experience is not relevant in this specific context because it's not that AF system at play in Li's test.

Because Li is using Phone app to focus for his portait he is using CDAF, and front and back focusing issues does not come into play. It is possible to not get focus, but typically it is not a little bit off under this system, it is wildly off. It's hard to focus using CDAF (via Face Detection or SEL point in Live View) and obtain focus and have things slightly off, it's just something that doesn't occur much. Distance factors in more with CDAF and it's inaccurate (due to large SEL points) when trying to lock onto something far away, but from a few metres away its very accurate. It's why when testing lenses to begin with (to see if you have a good copy or decentred etc) it's wise to use Live View and Manual focus to judge sharpness, then you can move onto PDAF and Fine Adjustments to push the camera into obtaining the same level of focus/sharpness that you were getting under Live View.

Glad you like the FA77 shots, the aim was not to showcase work but to show that edge sharpness is actually ok on the FA43 and 77, I just have less images to show from the FA43 at wide open apertures in group settings so I threw in some 77 ones.

[y0chang]

It all depends on what you mean by bokeh in the first place. I had a friend visit my place from overseas. He owns a K3 and FA31 and let me have a quick go of the 31 on my K-1;



His jaw nearly hit the floor, for him his 31 was performing more like a 43 on his crop sensor, he wasn't getting this kind of pronounced depth and 3d punch, and you need it more on a FF camera to gain that additional width.

The first time I shot with the 31mm on full frame it was like a light came on. It was just stunning. Its a medium format look on a full frame sensor. Its just so unbelievably smooth in rendering the transitions that you can't see a foreground, subject, and background. Instead its this space that the subject inhabits. That is the magic-pixie dust for me, and that is why its my favorite lens on full-frame.

[BruceBanner]

The first time I shot with the 31mm on full frame it was like a light came on. It was just stunning. Its a medium format look on a full frame sensor. Its just so unbelievably smooth in rendering the transitions that you can't see a foreground, subject, and background. Instead its this space that the subject inhabits. That is the magic-pixie dust for me, and that is why its my favorite lens on full-frame.

[Johnny2shoes]

Ok so I got the 43 too. They let me take it down stairs to try outside the building and the 43 did a thing. Actually all the lenses did different things, but the 43 did a thing that was equal to and unique unto its own, worthy to not necesarily compete with the others but be a case of choice of rendering/aesthetic.

Anywho thanks for all your help guys =).