Top 3 sharpest AF lenses

**Marc Langille** · 06-19-2009, 05:04 PM

Tom, I am very sorry to hear that it was a problematic lens.

Regards,
Marc

heatherslightbox · 06-19-2009, 05:20 PM

I don't know if the M28/3.5 would be considered Pentax's sharpest lens ever, but it's certainly the sharpest in my bag.

Here are a couple of examples--they're so sharp you might want to be wearing eye protection when you look at them

:

Taken with the K20D:

Taken with the ZX-M and Kodak Ektar 100 film:

See what I mean?
Heather

malakola · 06-19-2009, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by K-9

The crops of the eyes are a smaller area than your pics. Also, lighting, exposure, f-stops. etc. are probably all mixed. Only a side by side of same subject, same distance, same lighting, and with the same exposure would truly tell the difference.

true..same photographer plus user error too. it's K200D first time.

and 85/1.4 @f1.4 crop 100% headshot ,indoor & a novice pentaxian

top jpg crop / bottom raw crop

borno · 06-19-2009, 05:34 PM

Thanks for the sympathy, I was really bummed because I had been wanting that lens for a long time. I would have been willing to pay to have it sent to japan, but wasn't given the option and didn't know who could tweak it.

Back on topic, here's one with the Da300

I would love a DA*500 f4

danielchtong · 06-19-2009, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by borno

Thanks for the sympathy, I was really bummed because I had been wanting that lens for a long time. I would have been willing to pay to have it sent to japan, but wasn't given the option and didn't know who could tweak it.

Back on topic, here's one with the Da300

While you have a capable replacement , you should not refrain from asking for help to finetune the FA* lens. Maybe you can email Ned or Lance who could be of some help in locating the right technician

Daniel

borno · 06-19-2009, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by danielchtong

While you have a capable replacement , you should not refrain from asking for help to finetune the FA* lens. Maybe you can email Ned or Lance who could be of some help in locating the right technician

Daniel

Thanks Daniel, but I had to trade it (two months of stress was enough

)

I have always liked my A 50mm f1.4, I got it when the "a" series just came out in the early "80's. This is at f11

Sorry not AF (I forgot)

K-9 · 06-19-2009, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Marc Langille

Does that help or do you still think Malakola's crops are sharper?

Regards,
Marc

Your crops were of eyes that were scaled very large in the originally framed shot. They took up about 60% or more space of your frame than Malakola's. You're enlarging a tightly framed head shot and comparing it with an enlargement of a small eye in a much further zoomed out portrait. You simply can't compare different size area of a frame like that.

To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his.

I still say the true test is using the lenses on film bodies and shooting transparencies of the same subject. Then, let a lightbox and loupe reveal the winner.

Last edited by K-9; 06-19-2009 at 09:10 PM.

**EsBee** · 06-19-2009, 09:31 PM

I'd say in my bag these three are the sharpest.

If allowed, I think my M 50mm lenses (both f1.4 and f1.7), a zoom (yes a manual zoom!) A 35-105mm f3.5 as well as the super tak 55mm f1.8 would also put up a pretty good fight!

**Marc Langille** · 06-19-2009, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by K-9

Your crops were of eyes that were scaled very large in the originally framed shot. They took up about 60% or more space of your frame than Malakola's. You're enlarging a tightly framed head shot and comparing it with an enlargement of a small eye in a much further zoomed out portrait. You simply can't compare different size area of a frame like that.

To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his.

I still say the true test is using the lenses on film bodies and shooting transparencies of the same subject. Then, let a lightbox and loupe reveal the winner.

Well, this has evolved from a simple question!! I never said the 50mm was not sharp. You are the one claiming that lens is sharper, so we've shifted the focus of the discussion as a result.

We were discussing a specific group of images, not the lens. Obviously I don't have the full images to do a proper crop from Malakola's images so your insistence to achieve a potential level playing field with a specific set of standards in place is quite difficult. It's now more of a "what if" situation - therefore in that case it's pretty much a moot point to go further. I noticed the remaining images were pretty much dismissed, which is too bad.

The hummingbird is a much, much smaller subject in comparison, yet it is quite sharp. I have much longer focal length where the subject is much further away and it's definitely a sharper image, so I am unclear as to your logic about "Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer." Technique and lens quality do have an impact in the image quality. Besides, the hummingbird's eye is much smaller than a human's eye...

No worries and thank you for the discussion - I wish you the best! Take care.

Regards,
Marc

K-9 · 06-19-2009, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Marc Langille

Well, this has evolved from a simple question!! I never said the 50mm was not sharp. You are the one claiming that lens is sharper, so we've shifted the focus of the discussion as a result.

We were discussing a specific group of images, not the lens. Obviously I don't have the full images to do a proper crop from Malakola's images so your insistence to achieve a potential level playing field with a specific set of standards in place is quite difficult. It's now more of a "what if" situation - therefore in that case it's pretty much a moot point to go further. I noticed the remaining images were pretty much dismissed, which is too bad.

The hummingbird is a much, much smaller subject in comparison, yet it is quite sharp. I have much longer focal length where the subject is much further away and it's definitely a sharper image, so I am unclear as to your logic about "Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer." Technique and lens quality do have an impact in the image quality. Besides, the hummingbird's eye is much smaller than a human's eye...

No worries and thank you for the discussion - I wish you the best! Take care.

Regards,
Marc

Sorry, didn't mean to dismiss the birds, but he only put up photos of a person, so I thought person to person would make a better comparison than hummingbird to person!

danielchtong · 06-20-2009, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by K-9

To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his.

Beside the cropping ratio, aperture should also be factor of sharpness. The F8 or F9 of a consumer grade lens has the same sharpness of a premium lens at wider aperture.

To give cropping ratio, poster can post a full frame rough image to show how much has been cropped out.

Like this 300mm lens at F5.6

Daniel

danielchtong · 06-20-2009, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by K-9

Sorry, didn't mean to dismiss the birds, but he only put up photos of a person, so I thought person to person would make a better comparison than hummingbird to person!

As said. The subject does not matter. What matters is the cropping ratio and aperture.

Daniel

**Rondec** · 06-20-2009, 04:31 AM

Awesome photos, everyone! I have to say that the DA 35 is far and away the sharpest lens I own. Love the DA* zooms as well, but the 35 is amazingly sharp.

melander · 06-20-2009, 06:40 AM

The DA 35 can produce some spetacular sharpness when it feels like it. It got its ups and downs and sometimes it can be hard to find that perfect focus. But when it does it shines. (hopefully the k-7s new screen will help a bit with that)

06-19-2009, 05:33 PM	#48
malakola Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 42	Originally posted by K-9 The crops of the eyes are a smaller area than your pics. Also, lighting, exposure, f-stops. etc. are probably all mixed. Only a side by side of same subject, same distance, same lighting, and with the same exposure would truly tell the difference. true..same photographer plus user error too. it's K200D first time. and 85/1.4 @f1.4 crop 100% headshot ,indoor & a novice pentaxian top jpg crop / bottom raw crop Last edited by malakola; 06-19-2009 at 05:54 PM. Reason: add picture

06-19-2009, 07:48 PM	#51
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Originally posted by danielchtong While you have a capable replacement , you should not refrain from asking for help to finetune the FA* lens. Maybe you can email Ned or Lance who could be of some help in locating the right technician Daniel Thanks Daniel, but I had to trade it (two months of stress was enough) I have always liked my A 50mm f1.4, I got it when the "a" series just came out in the early "80's. This is at f11 Sorry not AF (I forgot) Last edited by borno; 06-19-2009 at 07:50 PM. Reason: oops

06-19-2009, 09:31 PM	#53
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	three sharpest I'd say in my bag these three are the sharpest. If allowed, I think my M 50mm lenses (both f1.4 and f1.7), a zoom (yes a manual zoom!) A 35-105mm f3.5 as well as the super tak 55mm f1.8 would also put up a pretty good fight! Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Top 3 Lenses you actually use...	dmoon911	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	116	07-03-2010 11:15 PM
What is the Top Ten Zoom Lenses?	rodfs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-03-2010 07:20 PM
How can I get the sharpest Pics possible with Kit Lenses?	The Kurly One	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	03-12-2010 06:55 PM
K200D in Top 25 & K-7 out of Top 25 at Amazon	Samsungian	Pentax News and Rumors	8	10-20-2009 07:06 AM
Sharpest points of several lenses	Erasmo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	08-10-2008 07:28 AM

06-19-2009, 05:04 PM	#46
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,708	Tom, I am very sorry to hear that it was a problematic lens. Regards, Marc

06-19-2009, 05:20 PM	#47
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	I don't know if the M28/3.5 would be considered Pentax's sharpest lens ever, but it's certainly the sharpest in my bag. Here are a couple of examples--they're so sharp you might want to be wearing eye protection when you look at them : Taken with the K20D: Taken with the ZX-M and Kodak Ektar 100 film: See what I mean? Heather

06-19-2009, 05:34 PM	#49
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Thanks for the sympathy, I was really bummed because I had been wanting that lens for a long time. I would have been willing to pay to have it sent to japan, but wasn't given the option and didn't know who could tweak it. Back on topic, here's one with the Da300 I would love a DA*500 f4

06-19-2009, 07:33 PM	#50
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by borno Thanks for the sympathy, I was really bummed because I had been wanting that lens for a long time. I would have been willing to pay to have it sent to japan, but wasn't given the option and didn't know who could tweak it. Back on topic, here's one with the Da300 While you have a capable replacement , you should not refrain from asking for help to finetune the FA* lens. Maybe you can email Ned or Lance who could be of some help in locating the right technician Daniel

06-19-2009, 08:55 PM	#52
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Langille Does that help or do you still think Malakola's crops are sharper? Regards, Marc Your crops were of eyes that were scaled very large in the originally framed shot. They took up about 60% or more space of your frame than Malakola's. You're enlarging a tightly framed head shot and comparing it with an enlargement of a small eye in a much further zoomed out portrait. You simply can't compare different size area of a frame like that. To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his. I still say the true test is using the lenses on film bodies and shooting transparencies of the same subject. Then, let a lightbox and loupe reveal the winner. Last edited by K-9; 06-19-2009 at 09:10 PM.

06-19-2009, 09:43 PM	#54
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,708	Originally posted by K-9 Your crops were of eyes that were scaled very large in the originally framed shot. They took up about 60% or more space of your frame than Malakola's. You're enlarging a tightly framed head shot and comparing it with an enlargement of a small eye in a much further zoomed out portrait. You simply can't compare different size area of a frame like that. To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his. I still say the true test is using the lenses on film bodies and shooting transparencies of the same subject. Then, let a lightbox and loupe reveal the winner. Well, this has evolved from a simple question!! I never said the 50mm was not sharp. You are the one claiming that lens is sharper, so we've shifted the focus of the discussion as a result. We were discussing a specific group of images, not the lens. Obviously I don't have the full images to do a proper crop from Malakola's images so your insistence to achieve a potential level playing field with a specific set of standards in place is quite difficult. It's now more of a "what if" situation - therefore in that case it's pretty much a moot point to go further. I noticed the remaining images were pretty much dismissed, which is too bad. The hummingbird is a much, much smaller subject in comparison, yet it is quite sharp. I have much longer focal length where the subject is much further away and it's definitely a sharper image, so I am unclear as to your logic about "Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer." Technique and lens quality do have an impact in the image quality. Besides, the hummingbird's eye is much smaller than a human's eye... No worries and thank you for the discussion - I wish you the best! Take care. Regards, Marc

06-19-2009, 09:48 PM	#55
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Langille Well, this has evolved from a simple question!! I never said the 50mm was not sharp. You are the one claiming that lens is sharper, so we've shifted the focus of the discussion as a result. We were discussing a specific group of images, not the lens. Obviously I don't have the full images to do a proper crop from Malakola's images so your insistence to achieve a potential level playing field with a specific set of standards in place is quite difficult. It's now more of a "what if" situation - therefore in that case it's pretty much a moot point to go further. I noticed the remaining images were pretty much dismissed, which is too bad. The hummingbird is a much, much smaller subject in comparison, yet it is quite sharp. I have much longer focal length where the subject is much further away and it's definitely a sharper image, so I am unclear as to your logic about "Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer." Technique and lens quality do have an impact in the image quality. Besides, the hummingbird's eye is much smaller than a human's eye... No worries and thank you for the discussion - I wish you the best! Take care. Regards, Marc Sorry, didn't mean to dismiss the birds, but he only put up photos of a person, so I thought person to person would make a better comparison than hummingbird to person!

06-20-2009, 04:12 AM	#56
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by K-9 To be fair, you would almost have to compare your eye with Malakola's first shot's entire face. That's a more accurate crop size comparison. You can't compare cropped eyes to cropped eyes with shots that have totally different sized eyes, and at much different distances from the lens! Subjects further from lens are not going to have better resolution than subjects closer. The person in your frame was much closer than his. Beside the cropping ratio, aperture should also be factor of sharpness. The F8 or F9 of a consumer grade lens has the same sharpness of a premium lens at wider aperture. To give cropping ratio, poster can post a full frame rough image to show how much has been cropped out. Like this 300mm lens at F5.6 Daniel

06-20-2009, 04:13 AM	#57
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by K-9 Sorry, didn't mean to dismiss the birds, but he only put up photos of a person, so I thought person to person would make a better comparison than hummingbird to person! As said. The subject does not matter. What matters is the cropping ratio and aperture. Daniel

06-20-2009, 04:31 AM	#58
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Awesome photos, everyone! I have to say that the DA 35 is far and away the sharpest lens I own. Love the DA* zooms as well, but the 35 is amazingly sharp.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2009, 06:40 AM	#59
melander Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden, Umea Posts: 876	The DA 35 can produce some spetacular sharpness when it feels like it. It got its ups and downs and sometimes it can be hard to find that perfect focus. But when it does it shines. (hopefully the k-7s new screen will help a bit with that)