[Aaron28]

Nice, but please... the FA ltds are a K-1 only lens

hahaha!! ....have a ZX-L and a few others that may say more than a K-1

[BruceBanner]

hahaha!! ....have a ZX-L and a few others that may say more than a K-1

Haha! touche!

[Coiseam]

FA 43 lim, f2.5, Pentax K-1

[Aaron28]

fa77....k-1 @BruceBanner

[BruceBanner]

fa77....k-1 @BruceBanner

[Aaron28]

haahaha! @BruceBanner

[-JW-]

Hah! Yeh that's just you and your crop mind! The one shot I stole with the FA 31 on my K-1 felt right at home in my eyes. All the FA ltds are supposed to be on FF's! They feel misused and ill treated on crops, you've basically insulted and abused them

But no seriously.. the thing is this. In terms of FoV and DoF ability the FA 31 on KP/K-3 is giving you 46.5/2.7 (yes f2.7, not in terms of exposure but in terms of DoF) equivalent for FF. So the FA43 on a K-1 is similar to a FA31 on KP (but even then the FA43 is a bit wider and also able to get a significant extra shallow DoF, i.e f2.7 vs f1.9).

So many people leave out the crop factor from the aperture (myself included only up to recently!), you can no longer think of your lenses as being just wider FoV, they are also able to take a far FAR shallower DoF shot!

Another example. A DA 15/4 on a K-3 is rendering like a 22.5/6 lens on a K-1! That's pretty disgusting! I mean who would want to own a FF lens that the widest DoF aperture is displaying like a f6 piece of glass?!!? Don't misunderstand me, I realise its exposing like a f4 lens, I'm purely talking about FoV and DoF that is obtainable... that makes for quite a limited lens in terms of applications.

I've heard the DA21/3.2 being compared to the FA31/1.8 many times, to me that's a joke.

1.5x 21 = 31.5
1.5x3.2 = 4.8

Let me one more time make it abundantly clear, I realise that the lens is still EXPOSING as f3.2, but in terms of DoF it is performing like a f4.8 piece of glass on FF.

Now consider 'pixie dust' and FA Ltds folklore... most of all the magic happens at the wider apertures. The FA ltds when shot at f1.8-2 are doing something few other lenses can achieve, whereas using them stopped down... well.. it starts to become a far more even playing field.

So how a DA 21/3.2 can be compared to a FA31 to be is a joke, it's night and day difference, the FA 31 can get to DoF the DA can only dream about, and that is why FF is so friggin cool! Those wide apertures!

Funny to think all this time with the FA 31 at f1.8 on your K-3 you have really only seen and experienced a DoF akin to f2.7

So i implore you... reset your mind... shake the crop factor out of your skull, it's for the better because PHYSICS actually tells us the same lens is capable of so much more (different applications and rendering choices) on a FF body. Sell the crop.. not even joking!

And as for finding a 40-50mm for the K-1, something to match the FA31, I think the FA43 is a decent contender. I tried the FA31 and edited that one shot of you. I took the shot wide open and saw the same degree of softness at f1.8 that I get with the FA43 at 1.9. I think all FA ltds actually benefit from being set to f2, its incredible that this tiny increment can help take much of the softness away. So yes, the FA43 probably would be a good substitute as a walkaround lens (I know its mine). But really there is only one king lens for the K-1 at this 'normal' length and that is the DFA 50. It is flawless in every way. You will have to decide (as I did) if the additional cost and size is worth it, for me I felt not.... at least not at this time in my shooting career.

Here's a shot from today with the FA77, happy Hogmanay everybody!

Regarding what you call "pixie" dust, I don't think it has a lot to do with the aperture/DOF and APS-C vs. FF.
I can get the same magic from the FA31, shooting at F/8.0 on APS-C, for me it has something do to with how the lens renders. (I can show you some examples later).

It is also funny that for many APS-C is considered a crop-factor, but I started out with photography on APS-C, so for me it's more like FF is an add-factor.
I have to convert FF focal lengths to APS-C comparable lenghts, to get an idea of the FOV I would get with say a 28mm lens.
It's like FF is a crop from MF but nobody looks at it this way because most started out with 35mm back in the days.

[Coiseam]

FA 43 lim, f1.9, Pentax K-1

[northcoastgreg]

Humboldt Bay, with the FA 43:

[scratchpaddy]

I don't think I need to say which lens I took to the park this morning...

[ivanvernon]

I don't think I need to say which lens I took to the park this morning...

It has the look of my lucky double 7 lens, the one my wife calls our magic lens.

[BruceBanner]

Regarding what you call "pixie" dust, I don't think it has a lot to do with the aperture/DOF and APS-C vs. FF.
I can get the same magic from the FA31, shooting at F/8.0 on APS-C, for me it has something do to with how the lens renders. (I can show you some examples later).

It is also funny that for many APS-C is considered a crop-factor, but I started out with photography on APS-C, so for me it's more like FF is an add-factor.
I have to convert FF focal lengths to APS-C comparable lenghts, to get an idea of the FOV I would get with say a 28mm lens.
It's like FF is a crop from MF but nobody looks at it this way because most started out with 35mm back in the days.

I agree.

I mean the pixie dust is always there, at any aperture, because its the lens, the elements and how they are working together that gets you it, but I was simply meaning to say the the special characteristics of the lens are easier to see at wide open apertures. You could shoot f8 and have a subject in focus close and still get an incredible bokeh, so yeah that is true also. But I've had many conversations about wth 'pixie dust' even is, and many have agreed that to use Lens Correction often kills the pixie!
But what is true (and you can say this of a lot of lenses) is that what you often pay for, the unique expensive properties of the lens... its happening at the wide apertures, and less prominent as the lens gets stopped down. Take for example the Takumar 50/1.4 (eight element), it actually does insane bokeh wide open, like almost lensbaby weirdness kinda stuff, once getting to f2.8 the bokeh is behaving more normal (but still has great subject isolation).
The DFA 50/1.4, it (with perhaps the Sigma 35/1.4 Art) is about the only portrait lens that can hold exceptionally good edge sharpness at f1.4! You can pretty much have a group portrait shot of people close to the edge with thoses lenses and the people on the edges are not softening up like they would if I used the aforementioned Tak, FA43, FA77, FA31 etc etc. You're basically paying for that edge sharpness at wide apertures (as well as good AF, silent AF, AW etc etc).

If we took the FA 50, DA 50, Tak 50, F50 and DFA50 and stopped them all down to f8, it will be a lot harder to tell which lenses is responsible for which image, but if we all had the lenses at their widest apertures, subject perhaps close to the edge, then which lens might be which becomes a little easier to hazard a guess at. Note I say 'a little easier', I've actually played the game where someone takes a heap of shots with various lenses, you think you can tell which shot is taken with which lens, but its not as easy as you might think

My first DSLR was the K-50, I didn't stay with it for too long till going to the K-1. K-1 is where I spent most of my learning curve on, so I've come to accept FF in my mind as being the norm. There's no problem being the other way around, it is all just mental and in the head. However as I pointed out in another thread elsewhere, the manufacturer and sellers often will sell a crop lens and supply you with a FF equivalent, never the other way around, you even see it from a Medium Format perspective too!



So yeah, the photography world does tend to seem to see the FF/35mm as 'the standard' and anything outside of this gets equivalence pointing to that.

Please show us what you might consider pixie dust to being with a stopped down shot, be keen to see that. I've talked about this before, but here's my favourite example of pixie dist;



Without trying to discuss the image in too much detail, as someone who owned the DA50 and FA50 (as well as the excellent Samyang 85/1.4), what this shot is doing that I never saw from the others is the style of bokeh. Paying attention to the wine glasses bottom left, they are just rendered in such a high quality, textured gorgeous way. It's detailed yet still very much oof, it feels layered and interesting, whereas bokeh from the aforementioned can feel a little lifeless, flat and dull. Pixie dust in this instance I would say is not limited to a FA Ltd, a same or even perhaps more intense version of this shot could of perhaps happened with the Tak 50/1.4, whereas I have not see any pixie dust from the DFA50 (it's too clinical).

And just lastly, those additional elements (Tak50/FA ltds) can really assist with maintaining a strong 3D subject isolation as the lens is stopped down vs some other lenses. I've illustrated this before but this thread is also excellent to prove that point as we see images of a jug being rendered between a FA31 and FA35, as both lenses are stopped down the FA31 holds onto a far higher quality of bokeh whilst fooling people into seeing a sharper subject.

Hd fa35/2 - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

FA 43 lim, f1.9, Pentax K-1

Wonderful shot!

-----------------

Here's a couple of FA43 shots from a recent shoot I was commissioned for the Old Government House, Parramatta, Sydney for the National Trust;















More shots can be seen here; Old Government House, Parramatta | Flickr

[ivanvernon]

I agree.

I mean the pixie dust is always there, at any aperture, because its the lens, the elements and how they are working together that gets you it, but I was simply meaning to say the the special characteristics of the lens are easier to see at wide open apertures. You could shoot f8 and have a subject in focus close and still get an incredible bokeh, so yeah that is true also. But I've had many conversations about wth 'pixie dust' even is, and many have agreed that to use Lens Correction often kills the pixie!
But what is true (and you can say this of a lot of lenses) is that what you often pay for, the unique expensive properties of the lens... its happening at the wide apertures, and less prominent as the lens gets stopped down. Take for example the Takumar 50/1.4 (eight element), it actually does insane bokeh wide open, like almost lensbaby weirdness kinda stuff, once getting to f2.8 the bokeh is behaving more normal (but still has great subject isolation).
The DFA 50/1.4, it (with perhaps the Sigma 35/1.4 Art) is about the only portrait lens that can hold exceptionally good edge sharpness at f1.4! You can pretty much have a group portrait shot of people close to the edge with thoses lenses and the people on the edges are not softening up like they would if I used the aforementioned Tak, FA43, FA77, FA31 etc etc. You're basically paying for that edge sharpness at wide apertures (as well as good AF, silent AF, AW etc etc).

If we took the FA 50, DA 50, Tak 50, F50 and DFA50 and stopped them all down to f8, it will be a lot harder to tell which lenses is responsible for which image, but if we all had the lenses at their widest apertures, subject perhaps close to the edge, then which lens might be which becomes a little easier to hazard a guess at. Note I say 'a little easier', I've actually played the game where someone takes a heap of shots with various lenses, you think you can tell which shot is taken with which lens, but its not as easy as you might think

My first DSLR was the K-50, I didn't stay with it for too long till going to the K-1. K-1 is where I spent most of my learning curve on, so I've come to accept FF in my mind as being the norm. There's no problem being the other way around, it is all just mental and in the head. However as I pointed out in another thread elsewhere, the manufacturer and sellers often will sell a crop lens and supply you with a FF equivalent, never the other way around, you even see it from a Medium Format perspective too!



So yeah, the photography world does tend to seem to see the FF/35mm as 'the standard' and anything outside of this gets equivalence pointing to that.

Please show us what you might consider pixie dust to being with a stopped down shot, be keen to see that. I've talked about this before, but here's my favourite example of pixie dist;



Without trying to discuss the image in too much detail, as someone who owned the DA50 and FA50 (as well as the excellent Samyang 85/1.4), what this shot is doing that I never saw from the others is the style of bokeh. Paying attention to the wine glasses bottom left, they are just rendered in such a high quality, textured gorgeous way. It's detailed yet still very much oof, it feels layered and interesting, whereas bokeh from the aforementioned can feel a little lifeless, flat and dull. Pixie dust in this instance I would say is not limited to a FA Ltd, a same or even perhaps more intense version of this shot could of perhaps happened with the Tak 50/1.4, whereas I have not see any pixie dust from the DFA50 (it's too clinical).

And just lastly, those additional elements (Tak50/FA ltds) can really assist with maintaining a strong 3D subject isolation as the lens is stopped down vs some other lenses. I've illustrated this before but this thread is also excellent to prove that point as we see images of a jug being rendered between a FA31 and FA35, as both lenses are stopped down the FA31 holds onto a far higher quality of bokeh whilst fooling people into seeing a sharper subject.

Hd fa35/2 - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com




Wonderful shot!

-----------------

Here's a couple of FA43 shots from a recent shoot I was commissioned for the Old Government House, Parramatta, Sydney for the National Trust;















More shots can be seen here; Old Government House, Parramatta | Flickr

Thanks for this very interesting discussion.

[Aaron28]

fa77....k-1....bar room

[Coiseam]

BruceBanner, thanks!

Interested in seeing pixie dust at f8, too. I've always thought that differences in lenses (with similar focal range) at f8 are due to glass used and lens geometry and that's all.