[DSims]

I don't think it is fair to blame the camera body though, when all it is doing is showing up technical weaknesses in other parts of the optical system.

This is dubious. My FA43 just begs to be stopped down to at least f/2.2. But this is not so with the FA*85. One of the reasons it commands a good price is its ability to deliver acceptable sharpness even wide open.

The shot of your dog is exactly what the FA43 wide open on the K-5 will look like, based on my own experience as well. While not unbearable, the softness is apparent (By the way, this doesn't stop the FA43 from being a great lens).

If the FA43 were on the K200D or K-x, the softness wouldn't be improved much. But as we have seen, with the FA*85 or Sigma 85, it is. That's because in the case of the 85s, even wide open, the lens isn't the limiting factor.

[LeChuck]

It is most likely that on a sensor of the resolution found in the K5, the lens *becomes* the limiting factor, and even more so wide open. You can't expect lenses to continue to resolve more and more details to match newer, higher resolution sensors.

In addition, if you read reviews, you will see that camera makers often use a more conservative approach with image processing on their higher end cameras, which will often appear "softer" before post-processing, but can take a lot more post-processing than images from lower-end cameras. After that...you takes your choice...

Too much pixel-peeping isn't good for you

[deadwolfbones]

My FA43 is quite sharp at f/1.9, DSims...

[DSims]

Interesting.... Do you work in RAW or JPG?

The reason I ask is mainly where I work in RAW exclusively and I can say without a doubt that the K-5 produces consistently better files. However... they are not the same systems either, and I've found that tapping into that extra power does not equate an automatic go as one may expect upon changing systems...

I use RAW 90% of the time. I just processed these in ACDSee Pro 4 last night (since I am testing it) and performed optimal sharpening on both images. The results were the same - it did not boost either image. SR is a possible culprit, even though it's supposed to be better on the K-5. It could be turned off sometimes if that proves to be the case. But using a tripod is often impossible or impractical, like in a dynamic portrait shoot such as Outsider is doing.

[DSims]

My FA43 is quite sharp at f/1.9, DSims...

The FA43 has a noticeable improvement in IQ when stopped down slightly. I'm not comparing it to other lenses so much as comparing it to itself. I'd be willing to be that yours shows a significant improvement when stopped down as well. As you've no-doubt noticed your FA31 and FA77 are not this way - wide open is nearly as good as stopped down by 2/3 stop.

My FA43 seems to be a good, representative copy. Many others have reported similar experiences.

[Ash]

All my FA limiteds are also sharp wide open. The FA 43 is no exception.
But realistically I don't often need that kind of aperture and so stopping down is a depth-of-field necessity for me rather than a sharpness issue.

[deadwolfbones]

Oh, I definitely agree that it's sharper at f/2.2, but it's objectively already quite sharp at f/1.9.

An example at f/1.9:



At f/2:



At f/2.2:

[DSims]

Oh, I definitely agree that it's sharper at f/2.2, but it's objectively already quite sharp at f/1.9.

So I think we actually agree on this. What I forgot to add was that I wouldn't shoot my FA43 faster than f/2.2 without a really good reason. (This is because I'd know I could've got an image that met my standards (it's not only sharpness that looks better to me) merely by slightly stopping down the shot).

I guess it's a little like the FA35/2 I had - some people were happy using it wide open, but the image degraded too much for me faster than f/2.5. I doubt our copies were significantly different - I think we just had different standards for how the images should look.

All your shots are really nice, by the way. But if I had taken the f/2 shot I'd be saying to myself "I really like that shot - I only wish I'd stopped down a little to better show that great rendering I love in the FA43!" (assuming the shooting conditions would have allowed me to do so by making other adjustments, such as the ISO). Because let's face it - few if any lenses can match the image (foreground especially) of an FA43 when well stopped down!

[Schraubstock]

I don't know, the skin looks a bit plasticky in that shot

That's only bad makeup !

[deadwolfbones]

So I think we actually agree on this. What I forgot to add was that I wouldn't shoot my FA43 faster than f/2.2 without a really good reason. (This is because I'd know I could've got an image that met my standards (it's not only sharpness that looks better to me) merely by slightly stopping down the shot).

I guess it's a little like the FA35/2 I had - some people were happy using it wide open, but the image degraded too much for me faster than f/2.5. I doubt our copies were significantly different - I think we just had different standards for how the images should look.

All your shots are really nice, by the way. But if I had taken the f/2 shot I'd be saying to myself "I really like that shot - I only wish I'd stopped down a little to better show that great rendering I love in the FA43!" (assuming the shooting conditions would have allowed me to do so by making other adjustments, such as the ISO). Because let's face it - few if any lenses can match the image (foreground especially) of an FA43 when well stopped down!

Fair enough. The f/2 shot was taken in a moving car, so I needed pretty much as fast a shutter speed as I could get.

[kenyee]

outsider:
You might just be seeing the effects of more megapixels. I noticed this when I went from the K10D to K20D as well, though that also had the effect from a stronger AA filter. Pixel Peeped K10D shots were sharper than the K20D.

Are you reducing MP from the K-5 to match your K-x when doing comparisons?

[DSims]

Too much pixel-peeping isn't good for you

Actually, more than anything else, it's the K-5 that's "inspired" me to not pixel peep too much (which is a good thing).