Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-02-2021, 07:11 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,543
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
We need to set up a comparison sometime Pete. The 300 @ 300 paces and the 400 @400.
Definitely Gub

---------- Post added 3rd Jun 2021 at 02:13 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
One can buy a new, faster etc Porsche.... however.... that does not seem to impact the classic Porsche market for the better earlier models. Same with Pentax lenses to a great degree. Much the same with women too...... the flashy young ones are ..... well.... desirable..... but... time spent with a classic is often more enjoyable/fullfilling!
Indubitably !

06-02-2021, 07:53 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,594
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Fairytales. Even FA glass was designed before digital sensors were available, the glass was really good for the time, today it performs well and is rare. The 5.6/400 shows typical purple fringing and is not at the same level as newer designs for digital sensors which in turn are not available for Pentax. I am not talking bad about your favorite lenses, but don’t tell me fairytales about 20 or 30 year old designs.
Your point is taken. I bought an F*300/4.5 rather than a DA*300/4 (or the FA*300/4.5, come to that) for the simple reasons that it was lighter, had a built-in retractable hood and a more than adequate tripod mounting foot. Optical performance was less of an issue when the only Pentax DSLRs had APS-C format sensors. I haven’t seen a direct comparison of the three 300s (four, if you include the FA*300/2.8), but, as the optical formulae for the F* and FA* were identical I assume their performances were likewise.

My point is that the DA* may perform better with a digital sensor, but by how much and in what way are the questions. I haven’t noticed anything particularly objectionable with the F*300, but then I don’t have a DA*300 to compare it with.
06-02-2021, 08:12 PM - 1 Like   #18
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,922
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
Optical performance was less of an issue when the only Pentax DSLRs had APS-C format sensors
It is the other way round. A full frame format is less demanding on the lens.
06-03-2021, 12:29 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,594
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
It is the other way round. A full frame format is less demanding on the lens.
I think itís something of each. The magnification is greater with APS-C, but the light rays are closer to paraxial, and therefore less subject to some aberration.

06-03-2021, 03:33 AM   #20
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,922
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
I think itís something of each. The magnification is greater with APS-C, but the light rays are closer to paraxial, and therefore less subject to some aberration.
Think of the image circle in terms of the bits of information it contains.
Now compare apsc format rectangle on it as well as a full frame one. The full frame format takes up more than twice the area (twice the bits of information) and this includes all the higher quality area that the apsc covers. So 2.25x the bits of information minus some from the outer drop off areas.
Or if you wish to think lineally a FF presents a given lens at 1.5 times the LW/PH (line widths per picture height) that an apsc format presents from that lens.
06-03-2021, 03:45 AM - 1 Like   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 568
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Fairytales. Even FA glass was designed before digital sensors were available, the glass was really good for the time, today it performs well and is rare. The 5.6/400 shows typical purple fringing and is not at the same level as newer designs for digital sensors which in turn are not available for Pentax. I am not talking bad about your favorite lenses, but donít tell me fairytales about 20 or 30 year old designs.
Do you have any experience with FA*400/5.6?
06-03-2021, 02:10 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,754
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
It is the other way round. A full frame format is less demanding on the lens.
For resolution yes. For edge performance no. Most would agree that telephoto lenses however have less trouble with poor edges than wide angle lenses. I have compared my DA* 60-250 to my FA* 300 multiple times on both APSC and FF (Sony A7Rii) and I find there are only slight differences but that the DA* has the edge in some instances due to better performance. Is it enough to matter? How does it map to the DA* 300 vs. FA* 300? I have no clue.

I can also say clearly that the DA* 200 lost in head to head sharpness and aberrations testing against the FA* 80-200 so FA* vs. DA* is not a simple question of newer is better. Granted the DA* 200 is not using a very modern design (in fact it is supposedly unchanged from the FA* 200) but it has newer coatings at the very least.

06-03-2021, 05:39 PM - 10 Likes   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington - the State
Posts: 193
I bought the F* 300 so I didn't have to worry about SDM failure at some point. I have been very happy with it.

06-03-2021, 11:15 PM   #24
PJ1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
PJ1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,121
QuoteOriginally posted by 5shot Quote
I bought the F* 300 so I didn't have to worry about SDM failure at some point.
That was an important consideration for me too. Some say that as long as a lens with SDM is used regularly, the SDM is not likely to fail. But I don't have time for that and it is still a gamble - particularly if you need to stay within budget. But to get back on thread, it would be interesting to see both a 300 shoot-out and a 400 shoot-out.
(Leave the 200s out for now. I just got an almost mint K200/f2.5 for half the price of a DA or an A 200. I would not consider the DA200 because of the SDM).
Oh - nice shot as well.
06-03-2021, 11:46 PM - 3 Likes   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 568
Here is what I wrote in my review of FA*400:

Image quality is excellent, but DA*300/4 is still a little bit sharper at f/5.6 and if you crop the image from DA*300/4 to the same size as from FA*400, it is difficult to see any difference. But if FA*400 is stopped down it will resolve more detail than the 300mm lens.

Read more at: SMC Pentax-FA* 400mm F5.6 ED [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
06-04-2021, 01:14 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,543
QuoteOriginally posted by PJ1 Quote
...it would be interesting to see both a 300 shoot-out and a 400 shoot-out.
.
On to it
06-04-2021, 01:57 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,594
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Think of the image circle in terms of the bits of information it contains.
Now compare apsc format rectangle on it as well as a full frame one. The full frame format takes up more than twice the area (twice the bits of information) and this includes all the higher quality area that the apsc covers. So 2.25x the bits of information minus some from the outer drop off areas.
Or if you wish to think lineally a FF presents a given lens at 1.5 times the LW/PH (line widths per picture height) that an apsc format presents from that lens.
I understand that. As I said, the smaller angle of view for the APS-C frame means that various aberrations (such as spherical) are not as prominent, because of their closer proximity to the lens axis. However, I concede that modern lens materials and design make some forms of aberration less of a problem.
06-04-2021, 10:24 AM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
brewmaster15's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: CT
Posts: 1,861
QuoteOriginally posted by 5shot Quote
I bought the F* 300 so I didn't have to worry about SDM failure at some point. I have been very happy with it.

That is a stunning Image..if I could give you two likes I would have.

al
06-04-2021, 05:40 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,543
QuoteOriginally posted by 5shot Quote
I bought the F* 300 so I didn't have to worry about SDM failure at some point. I have been very happy with it.
I got mine to cap a longer lens journey. Can't imagine selling it.
Nice quail shot, aren't they great little birds ?! we've got 17 living in the neighbours bush, they trot past morning and dusk.
06-04-2021, 05:49 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington - the State
Posts: 193
QuoteOriginally posted by brewmaster15 Quote
That is a stunning Image..if I could give you two likes I would have.

al
Thanks!

---------- Post added 06-04-21 at 05:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Transit Quote
I got mine to cap a longer lens journey. Can't imagine selling it.
Nice quail shot, aren't they great little birds ?! we've got 17 living in the neighbours bush, they trot past morning and dusk.
We have several coveys running around the neighborhood, but this year we have 2 new pups, so I don't think they will be visiting us much. The little ones look like a little puff ball in the spring.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
*fa400mm f5.6 vs, 300mm, elements, f4.5, f5.6 vs *f/fa, k-mount, lot, pentax lens, reviews, slr lens, vs *f/fa 300mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax A 400mm F5.6 vs Pentax FA*400mm F5.6 Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 24 03-25-2021 01:35 PM
DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 vs. FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 Pentaxxoid Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 02-10-2021 01:33 AM
FA* 300mm f4.5 vs. DA*300mm f4 - which is better full-frame? Socrateeze Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 04-03-2019 05:00 PM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 645 NII, 35mm f3.5 A, 45-85mm f4.5 FA, 80-160mm f4.5 FA, 300mm f5.6 FA Kmtn Sold Items 2 04-08-2013 09:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top