[Athanassios]

Did yesterday a test on seven Pentax Glasses with same exposure/settings ( f/4, ISO10000, 1/13s) on same "scene" with

IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE.

There are two "pairs" of seven photos taken with

DA*16-50/2.8 at @16mm
Limited HD 15/4 @...15mm
HD Macro 35/2.8 @....35
DA HD/RE 18-50 @ 18mm
Limited SMC 70/2.4 @ ....70
DA 50-200 @ 50 ( the WR)
HD DA 55-300 @ 55 ( the red)

In order to capture the same "scene" the 15-18 needed less than a feet away from the "glass". The 35er shy above a feet away, the 50-200 and 70 almost the same (!); some 1 1/2 feet away. Surprisingly the 55-300 did focus at less than 2 1/2-3 feet while Pentax says it need 5 feet. One more surprise is that the DA 50-200 was magnifying as much as the 70/2.4 at 50mm and more than the 55 at the red 55-300. Don't know why.


Findings:
First bunch of the 7 photos and without Photoshop "lens correction" vingetting and distortion was everywhere. And the DA* was as crappy as the RE HD 18-50 and no better than 50-200. Winners are the 35/2.8 and the 70/2.4 with less vingetting or crappy distortions. They behaved.

Second bunch of the next 7 photos ( same order of appearance) are with photoshop "lens correction" and things turned into detail and all "almost" looked the same save for texture and CA. Photoshop did some real magic.

BOTTOM LINE: the SMC Pentax Limited 70/2.4 gave the BEST IMAGES by far with our without photoshop. The fifth image in both first and second bunch is the 70/2.4 lens.

Yes, the test ignores everything and alot but in reality I wanted to capture a scene and at the end the SMC 70/2.4 was by far the best of the all. The texture eg on the iron jar on the left is magnificent.

(Soon I will do a better test at "day light" with 11 lenses among the most high rated in the forum".

PS: The tiff conversion of Pentaxes app, the Digital Camera Utility 5 is depressing. The saturation and contrast were as if I was shooting with a cheap Android phone. The iMac on the other hand, at mere "Preview" app was giving 99.99% same image as original DNG or like Photoshop and it's tiff ( no zip) was close to 200MB (16 bit) per file while Photoshop or Pentax's embarrassment for produce 144 MB.

PS: Why on earth Pentax's app does not have "lens callibration" for it's lenses. It's tragic!

This is not a professional test but the results shocked me. And yes, I hope you can see the differences at low Kb Pentaxforum images and share with me your ideas.

---

Last edited by Athanassios; 12-19-2022 at 10:31 AM.

[pschlute]

One observation is that your images do not have a tagged colour profile. You may have issues when viewing these in a colour-managed application, or a web browser that is not set up correctly.

I dont use DCU to process raw files, but different raw converters have different default settings. With the correct use of the sliders (or profile) DCU will be able to create as good a TIFF as any other application. If your DCU settings are such that no adjustments are applied by default you will have a low contrast/weak colour image.

[pschlute]

Surprisingly the 55-300 did focus at less than 2 1/2-3 feet while Pentax says it need 5 feet

There have been a few iterations of the 55-300 lens. The most recent one has a minimum focus distance of 0.95m (about 3.1 feet). The actual FL the lens is set to may also affect MFD, but I dont know enough about that particular lens to advise.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I was wondering what the message is that you try to convey. Is not it all a bit subjective? I for one can not imagine that in your test the DA70mm 2.4 is the best. I had the opportunity to try it out and I think it is a lens that, compared to other lenses I own, just gives mediocre results. That must say somethng to me then about the quality of the other lenses you tested. On the other hand, I am being subjective as well (in not liking the 70mm, like I do not like most of the Ltd's).

[Athanassios]

One observation is that your images do not have a tagged colour profile.

On camera I use Adobe RGB, on screen the darker Apple RGB and all tiffs or Jgs I usually convert to Apple RGB.

---------- Post added 11-27-22 at 01:21 PM ----------

On the other hand, I am being subjective as well (in not liking the 70mm, like I do not like most of the Ltd's).

May I please ask which lenses you love the most in terms of IQ? My love for Limiteds is endless (have all of them but one in DA)

---------- Post added 11-27-22 at 01:21 PM ----------

On the other hand, I am being subjective as well (in not liking the 70mm, like I do not like most of the Ltd's).

May I please ask which lenses you love the most in terms of IQ? My love for Limiteds is endless (have all of them but one in DA)

[Madaboutpix]

I for one can not imagine that in your test the DA70mm 2.4 is the best. I had the opportunity to try it out and I think it is a lens that, compared to other lenses I own, just gives mediocre results. That must say somethng to me then about the quality of the other lenses you tested. On the other hand, I am being subjective as well (in not liking the 70mm, like I do not like most of the Ltd's).

Well, at least as far as my kit is concerned, I'd say the smc DA70 is almost as good as it gets with regards to sharpness, microcontrast, and colour rendition. And with the Marumi DHG Achromat Macro-330(+3) in front of it, as for the second image, it becomes a competent lens for closeups even of live subjects:

[pschlute]

On camera I use Adobe RGB, on screen the darker Apple RGB and all tiffs or Jgs I usually convert to Apple RG

If you are posting to the web you should convert to sRGB.

But you are posting pictures with no colour profile at all ?

[Madaboutpix]

May I please ask which lenses you love the most in terms of IQ? My love for Limiteds is endless (have all of them but one in DA)

Get them all, for the sheer joy they can bring to the Pentax APS-C system. They're by no means perfect - how could they be with their emphasis on compactness and relative affordability? - but they sure pack a punch. Take your time exploring what each of them can bring to your photography. I guess I could be a happy photographer for the rest of my life just with the full set of them. Three of them (DAs 21, 40, 70) I bought used on eBay in mint condition for less than 300 euros each. Kinda ridiculous for what you're getting.

[luftfluss]

Of all the DA Ltd primes - and I've owned all of them, in both flavors - IMO the best output is from the DA70.

The DA70 is smooth, and sharp, but without the sharpened look that so many modern lenses have. I'm not the only one who feels this way...

What's much better for pictures of people than that DA 55mm ƒ/1.4? Well, for me anyway: Pentax's 70mm DA ƒ/2.4 Limited "pancake" short telephoto.


A 105mm ƒ/2.5 Nikkor for today
One of the most famous Nikkors in Nikon's history was the classic 105mm ƒ/2.5. It has such a long and involved history, starting with the original Nikkor-P Sonnar-type rangefinder lens designed by Zenji Wakimoto and announced in 1953, that this post is not long enough even to sketch the outlines of it. In 1971 the lens was redesigned by Wakimoto-san's protegé Yoshiyuki Shimizu. It was one of the legendary Nikkors that made the company's name.

The Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 has the same angle of view on APS-C cameras and virtually the same aperture, and might be thought of as a lens in the spirit of that famous Nikkor for portraits. While plenty sharp, it also has a subtle smoothness, one might very subjectively say "a gentle touch," as well as non-jarring bokeh, that makes it better than many other lenses for portraits.

Perfect? No. Hard to argue that, anyway. There's no such thing, and there's not even a market for it because the flood of people who have come into the hobby in recent years are still uncritically in thrall to our cultural idea that more technical perfection in lenses is always better.

But it's the people lens I'd choose if I were getting a Pentax K-3 Mark III.

The Online Photographer: The Perfect Portrait Lens

[AfterPentax Mark II]

May I please ask which lenses you love the most in terms of IQ? My love for Limiteds is endless (have all of them but one in DA)

Well you may ask that and it is a pleasure to satisfy your wish, the 20-40mm Ltd, FA 77mm 1.8 Ltd, DA* 55mm 1.4, DA* 11-18mm and the DA 35mm f2.4 (plastic fantastic). And not to forget the 18-135, especially when used on the KP. These are all lenses I owned for several years now, and I recently acquired a second hand DA* 50-135 in new condition/state, just missing the bag, and when I used it was much better than I expected, not only the sharpness, but the colour and the brilliancy. (I wonder why the original owner got rid of this lens) But I use them for specific purposes. To mention one, the 11-18, I use when in the woods, just to get more of the trees in the picture. I also have the 40mm f2.8 and it is a very good lens, but a bit boring, but it is my lens on the K-01 instead of the 40mm XS. And as I explained elsewhere on this forum I always take just one lens with me, a bit of challenging myself to work with a lens. Hope you like this answer. Enjoy!

[mikesbike]

Findings:
First bunch of the 7 photos and without Photoshop "lens correction" vingetting and distortion was everywhere. And the DA* was as crappy as the RE HD 18-50 and no better than 50-200. Winners are the 35/2.8 and the 70/2.4 with less vingetting or crappy distortions. They behaved.

I cannot comment on the post-processing, as I nearly always shoot best-quality JPEG images, and find I rarely need any post-tweaking of these. However, the performance of these lenses in terms of the areas of concern (vignetting and linear distortion) is not at all surprising. For example, the DA* lens at 16mm, like virtually all zoom lenses going from WA to the tele range, will exhibit very high distortion at the short end, especially when that is so extreme as 16mm extra- WA, as well as in vignetting. Your DA 15mm Ltd will beat the socks off of it regarding distortion but has some vignetting wide open, no doubt some compromise being necessary for its remarkably small size to be possible, and such a wide expanse covered by the 15mm FL. The DA 35mm Ltd is a macro lens no faster than /2.8 and should definitely provide edge-to-edge fine performance wth low vignetting even wide open. The DA 70mm Ltd is also known for fine edge-to-edge performance, and at f/2.8 maximum aperture, and a good lack of vignetting. No surprises.

[swanlefitte]

There have been a few iterations of the 55-300 lens. The most recent one has a minimum focus distance of 0.95m (about 3.1 feet). The actual FL the lens is set to may also affect MFD, but I dont know enough about that particular lens to advise.

At least with the plm version the minimum distance is dependent on focal length and focal length is also dependent on focus breathing.

[swanlefitte]

Honestly with the different compositions because of different distances I can't even think of sharpness and sharpness of what?

As focal lengths are defined at infinity and all lenses focus breath, even the posted focal lengths make no sense. Is the thing out of the depth of field of that focal length sharper when in depth of field than out of it? Is the magnified ash tray sharper than the unmagnified ash tray viewed at the same distance?

I like the composition of 5 the best. That is what stands out to me.

[Athanassios]

Well, at least as far as my kit is concerned, I'd say the smc DA70 is almost as good as it gets with regards to sharpness, microcontrast, and colour rendition. And with the Marumi DHG Achromat Macro-330(+3) in front of it, as for the second image, it becomes a competent lens for closeups even of live subjects:

The 70mm/f2.5 Limited is an outstanding lens to capture the texture of portraits and subjects and in tests with the FA 77mm/f1.9 Limited there is no clear winner.

A pocket size marvel. If you are a studio professional and has cash to buy the HD D FA 85mm/f1.4 that costs and weights multiple times ok, that is a better lens.

[Lowell Goudge]

I am totally confused.

Not with the results but with what the OP was trying to prove.

The 7 lenses in question range from 15mm through a minimum of 70mm, therefore I don’t under stand the shock that some lenses needed to be less than 1 foot away.

Remember

Image Size = Subject Size x Focal Length / Distance

So let’s take the extremes, a 15 mm lens will need to be almost 5x closer than the 70mm lens. That is just optics.

Aside from that there will be some potential degree of focus berthing due to reduction in focal lenfth to achieve close focus, and or for use of internal focus, or partial internal focus in the case of zooms.

The other thing I find bizarre is shooting all the shots at 1/10000

I know the answer will be to achieve a standard exposure, but considering that the lenses are all so different, what is the point of standardizing at an extreme iso.

Just my $0.02