[Winder]

That is from Carlson so it is suspect out of the gate. That said, one could turn of SR on a ff body for a DA* 300 or use SR and crop mode if there was a problem. However, if the DA* 200 is a problem, I would suspect that the FA* would also be a problem with SR on a FF digital body. Nikon bodies have a crop feature to allow the use of Dx lenses.

I agree to some extent. Carlson is not exactly they go to guy for anything about Pentax. That's why the stuck him in marketing. If he doesn't know anything he can't leak anything.......

[Class A]

Hopefully, though, most FF lenses would be adequate for this small increase of the image circle.

Most FF lenses provide the necessary safety margins, no problem.

Just published IR Interview:
John Carlson: All the tests I’ve seen, if you put those lenses on a film body, you get vignetting. So they’re bigger than if it were just an APS-C without shake reduction, but that added image circle is just to accommodate the shake reduction, it doesn’t accommodate full-frame.

John Carlson doesn't know what he is talking about!
I'm getting annoyed by his disservice to Pentax.

BTW, it is completely normal for FF lenses to show some vignetting in the corners and lose performance towards the corners. They have always done that.

[Docrwm]

Most FF lenses provide the necessary safety margins, no problem.


John Carlson doesn't know what he is talking about!
I'm getting annoyed by his disservice to Pentax.

BTW, it is completely normal for FF lenses to show some vignetting in the corners and lose performance towards the corners. They have always done that.

The bottom line is that Pentax has said that the following are FF lenses, despite JC assertions:
FA31
FA43
FA50/1.4
FA77
DFA50
DFA100

That's 6 lenses by my count that are apparently still in the Pentax Catalog,

By his logic there are a number of DA lenses and lenses that are current offerings from 3rd parties that are not intended for APS-C cameras because they vignette at certain f settings.

[netrex]

I wonder how many times "FF" is written in this thread, and indeed in any thread. Is it so damn important? Don't you just get tired of asking about it? It's NOT be-all end-all. I mean, FFS, come on already, stop the damn whine.

[Class A]

I mean, FFS, come on already, stop the damn whine.

This is a forum about photographic gear.
Praising, criticising and expressing hopes for the development of gear are all fair game.

Whining about whiners, on the other hand, seems to be something that should perhaps be exercised in a psychology forum.

[froeschle]

The bottom line is that Pentax has said that the following are FF lenses, despite JC assertions:

Current Pentax lenses (in Japan), which should/could be FF ready:

31/1.8, 35/2, 35/2.4, (40/2.8), 43/1.9, 50/1.4, [50/1.8], 50/2.8 Macro, 55/1.4, (70/2.4), 77/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, {20-35/4}, (60-250/4), (50-300/4-5.8), 200/2.8, 300/4, [560/5.6]

I count 12 lenses in recent Japanese catalogs (see e.g. http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf , {} -> still available in previous version), which seem to be FF ready - 2 new ones, which are very likely FF capable (in [] brackets) - and 4 (in () brackets), which would deliver stopped-down, at slightly smaller formats or in a certain focal length range. Furthermore, most of the Pentax lenses should be capable to illuminate APS-H. So, a FF Pentax would automatically be an APS-H DSLR (with SR turned off). In comparison, how many lenses were available at the release of the following systems: Q, Nikon 1, m43, NEX, NX, X, ... ?

[twitch]

That's a good list, but the DA55-300 is no where near FF ready

[Clavius]

Most FF lenses provide the necessary safety margins, no problem.


John Carlson doesn't know what he is talking about!
I'm getting annoyed by his disservice to Pentax.

BTW, it is completely normal for FF lenses to show some vignetting in the corners and lose performance towards the corners. They have always done that.

Normal maybe, but not desireable at all. Does this mean APSC generally outperforms FF in corner-to-corner sharpness?

I've noticed this even when using my 50 1.2 and FA 135 on my 5D. I just assumed that the match Pentax/Canon was the cause. But is it really accepted that all FF has some vignetting?!?

[netrex]

This is a forum about photographic gear.
Praising, criticising and expressing hopes for the development of gear are all fair game.

Whining about whiners, on the other hand, seems to be something that should perhaps be exercised in a psychology forum.

I know, but it becomes a bit much. It's all just "FF this, FF that", and it's not that important :P

[gazonk]

But is it really accepted that all FF has some vignetting?!?

APS-C-only lenses, especially the very compact ones, also show some more vignetting than FF lenses on APS-C, but in general I guess vignetting is a bigger problem on FF than on APS-C because of the relatively shorter register distance (and an even larger problem on systems with very short register distance). The problem seems to be most pronounced for older, compact ultra wides (has anyone here tried Pentax 20mm lenses of different generations on FF?), but even Canon's latest version of its very expensive normal FF zoom has quite a bit of vignetting: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis. Nikon's wide angle wonder - the14-24 - of course has some vignetting at 14mm, but it helps to stop down: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1

[froeschle]

That's a good list, but the DA55-300 is no where near FF ready

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED: 0 (+, ++ at tele end, viking79)

55-300 I
55-300 II

A frame (dependent on lens and focal length) could be indicated in the (hybrid?) viewfinder.

[MMVIII]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

55-300 I
55-300 II

A frame (dependent on lens and focal length) could be indicated in the (hybrid?) viewfinder.

Ok, I see. But having at least a -2 lightfalloff on the borders and yet to be measured decrease in sharpness, contrast and increase in abberations doesn't make this a desireable option in my eyes on a 2000$ camera? You are actually photographing with 2 iso values less in this areas, well, it may be a nice effect sometimes...

Generally I would assume that this list of "FF" compatible lenses, let's call it correct 35 mm-film compatible (in german "Kleinbild" ), was done with a very optimistic approach, just not darking the corner of the film, not more, not less.

And it's correct, that the performance in corners also of 35 mm covering lenses from film days is going to be a definite problem. And I would bet this forum would be the first place to show some threads whining exactly over that Just have a look at Photozones tests, some of the lenses on your list have even on APS-C 1lv vignetting.

Just to condense my position on the miracoulous "FF": everybody, who is shooting mainly tele, everybody who want's highest portability, durability, image quality in one body, who is happy using all old lenses with SR, who doesn't care, that the dark and optically not perfect corners of older film-optimised lenses are not recorded by the sensor etc. might still be happier with a K5II for 1000$ (or whatever the faster sensor development in this size will bring, e.g. K-3) than with a Pentax "uberFF" for at least the double price. The only reason I (sic!) would lust for a larger sensor would be for easier wideangleconstructions. All the rest would come for the expense of a higher price, weight, size, or other compromises like the omitment of sensor-SR etc.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[audiobomber]

When you mount a DX lens on a Nikon FF camera, does the camera always do the cropping, or is it selectable by the user? I would think the best solution for a Pentax FF (if there ever is such a thing), would be to not crop in the camera, do it in post-processing. Some photos can withstand strong vignetting, on some it looks awful. Some DA lenses may show strong vignetting, some not so much, some could be acceptable depending on focal length and aperture.

[mecrox]

Ok, I see. But having at least a -2 lightfalloff on the borders and yet to be measured decrease in sharpness, contrast and increase in abberations doesn't make this a desireable option in my eyes on a 2000$ camera? You are actually photographing with 2 iso values less in this areas, well, it may be a nice effect sometimes...

Generally I would assume that this list of "FF" compatible lenses, let's call it correct 35 mm-film compatible (in german "Kleinbild" ), was done with a very optimistic approach, just not darking the corner of the film, not more, not less.

And it's correct, that the performance in corners also of 35 mm covering lenses from film days is going to be a definite problem. And I would bet this forum would be the first place to show some threads whining exactly over that Just have a look at Photozones tests, some of the lenses on your list have even on APS-C 1lv vignetting.

Just to condense my position on the miracoulous "FF": everybody, who is shooting mainly tele, everybody who want's highest portability, durability, image quality in one body, who is happy using all old lenses with SR, who doesn't care, that the dark and optically not perfect corners of older film-optimised lenses are not recorded by the sensor etc. might still be happier with a K5II for 1000$ (or whatever the faster sensor development in this size will bring, e.g. K-3) than with a Pentax "uberFF" for at least the double price. The only reason I (sic!) would lust for a larger sensor would be for easier wideangleconstructions. All the rest would come for the expense of a higher price, weight, size, or other compromises like the omitment of sensor-SR etc.

I handled a D600 in a shop yesterday. A fine camera, no doubt. But it lacked the K5's build quality and heft and felt a little too much like picking up a piece of plastic. I'm not trying to diss it - millions of folks are more than happy with a cam like this and it's a marvel of high tech - just to point out that if you want a Pentax FF done right, and personally I don't see much point in doing it any other way, the price is going to be a lot more than that of a D600. A lot of folks out there, almost all of them Westerners, are forever hollering between mouthfuls of fries that bigger is better and plastic is fantastic. The East thinks differently, very differently. And currently the East is where the money is if you are a company hungry for growth and profit. Pentax do have an aesthetic, at least for most of their products: a little like finely machine netsuke. The all-metal limiteds are the classic example: each one is the same but not the same as each one's design cues have been subtly tweaked. This is one reason that going with the Australian furniture designer was so inappropriate for the K-01: it may or may not be a poor design but it was definitely the wrong aesthetic for a Pentax camera. Pentax have in some ways pitched themselves as the experts of smaller, not a bad thing to be when you think of East + mobiles + cams. Folks don't have to like that of course. But think before you leap. You won't be getting finely machine netsuke stylee from Nikon any time soon.