[stevebrot]

This aspect did not show up in previous lab tests, as these were done on APS-C bodies.

Have you reviewed the FA 31 on the K-1 for this site? Your findings along with examples (corrected vs. uncorrected) would be helpful.


Steve

[clackers]

1 I am no photography expert, I'm just some one who posts a lot

2 was this always true, even with film?

if not, why would this be given that the FA limiteds were developed for the " full frame " 35 film negative

Full frame or film lenses just vignette, Aslyfox, that's just how it is.

APS-C cameras truly get the best 50 percent of a lens' performance.

The FA31 vignettes, the new DFA 28-105 kit lens vignettes, the $4000 Zeiss 55mm Otus vignettes.

[aslyfox]

Full frame or film lenses just vignette, Aslyfox, that's just how it is.

APS-C cameras truly get the best 50 percent of a lens' performance.

The FA31 vignettes, the new DFA 28-105 kit lens vignettes, the $4000 Zeiss 55mm Otus vignettes.

ok I can understand that I think

but the original comment referred to it doing it with full frame sensor camera bodies:

. . . when used on the K-1 or other FF body. . . . .

which the FA lenses were developed for [ as opposed to a DA lens being developed for the smaller ASP-C sensor ] so I thought the problem would not be as bad

just mark me even more

[pres589]

Remember that Internet-shared brick wall shots and pixel peeping like we have available to us today was not really a thing when the FA Ltd's where developed. I think folks accepted more vignetting then, or at least were less likely to complain about it on forums that would harm lens sales & reputations.


I feel like film & "real" prints hide some imperfections a bit and people are less likely to be concerned with something like vignetting on an otherwise nice photograph. I know I will accept IQ in my film shooting that I would not be so happy with if I took the shot with my Pentax DSLR.

[clackers]

ok I can understand that I think

but the original comment referred to it doing it with full frame sensor camera bodies

Those full frame lenses plus plenty more vignette on full frame sensor bodies as well as film cameras.

That's life. Vignetting is something a good review will measure, for the sake of full frame body owners mainly.

[richard0170]

All this talk of vignetting is starting to stray off point a little. However to go even further off point, I have been wondering why, when they were first introduced, were APSc and FF digital sensors made in a 2:3 ratio rather than 3:4. The surface area and resolution can be the same. 3:4 fits paper sizes better and is a more natural balance. Corner sharpness would be improved and there would be less vignetting, with no change in lens design necessary.
It seems an easy win was lost at the time.

[Serkevan]

All this talk of vignetting is starting to stray off point a little. However to go even further off point, I have been wondering why, when they were first introduced, were APSc and FF digital sensors made in a 2:3 ratio rather than 3:4. The surface area and resolution can be the same. 3:4 fits paper sizes better and is a more natural balance. Corner sharpness would be improved and there would be less vignetting, with no change in lens design necessary.
It seems an easy win was lost at the time.

I, in fact, end up cropping most photos to either 5:7 ratios (when printing) or 16:9 - for use as wallpapers.

---

Last edited by Serkevan; 03-03-2021 at 05:49 AM.

[RobinHuismann]

I don't think HD improves a lot. The old 31mm is far good enough.