[house]

I don't think so. The DA limiteds are quite small and have minimal purple fringing. I haven't used the 21, but the 15, 35, 40, and 70 all have pretty low levels of this compared to the FA limiteds.

The size of the DFA 50 has mainly to do with edge sharpness wide open and that's one place where the FA limiteds aren't perfect but it is tolerable since you have excellent center sharpness.

I think so to. It's just a matter of lens design and manufacture improving over the years. You really don't have to go full DFA*50 to cut down on fringing.

[Serkevan]

Unfortunately, this recent trend of scalpel-level sharpness corner to corner would land any redeveloped FA Ltds in DPR's trash bin out the gate. Their ability to take stunning pictures in real life would be more or less irrelevant.

[house]

Unfortunately, this recent trend of scalpel-level sharpness corner to corner would land any redeveloped FA Ltds in DPR's trash bin out the gate. Their ability to take stunning pictures in real life would be more or less irrelevant.

Eventually this trend will have to turn. Thing is that reviewing beyond the charts and numbers is very demanding. Requires very high level of seeing, thinking, writing. Not skills that abound. It's also very hard for manufacturers to claim superiority and high price.

[Serkevan]

Absolutely true. Honestly, I'm quite pleased with most of my lenses, and neither of them is what would pass as a "top performer". The aspects that do not please me, curiously, are never related to sharpness. For example, my Tokina 80-200 f/4 push/pull zoom has a very obvious glow at f/4, and that is far more annoying than any CA, softness or low contrast that you can throw at me. So I use it at 5.6 and up XD

[TwoUptons]

Unfortunately, this recent trend of scalpel-level sharpness corner to corner would land any redeveloped FA Ltds in DPR's trash bin out the gate. Their ability to take stunning pictures in real life would be more or less irrelevant.

I wonder...
Some of the DPR folks also seem tired of optical excellence at the expense of all else.
Maybe that’s our niche...

-Eric

[Kunzite]

I wonder...
Some of the DPR folks also seem tired of optical excellence at the expense of all else.
Maybe that’s our niche...

-Eric

I doubt their tiredness would manifest when reviewing a Pentax, even when optical excellence is not at the expense of all else (see their D FA* 50mm review)

[Serkevan]

Something something LoCA is only terribad when Pentax has it?

[Rondec]

I wonder...
Some of the DPR folks also seem tired of optical excellence at the expense of all else.
Maybe that’s our niche...

-Eric

DP Review actually doesn't do many lens reviews. That said, they want small lenses but at the same time they want sharp lenses. Basically, they want in camera application of lens profiles (like Sony does) to produce the "perfect lens" without having to have a large lens.

But yes, as Serkevan says, the DFA *50 is a very nice lens which was well reviewed across the board and DP Review found ways to disparage it. "Autofocus is fast enough to shoot static subjects." "LoCA is severe." And repeatedly calling it "heavy and bulky." Initially they had some comment about this maybe being the last SLR lens from Pentax they would see and so they had to review it (this has since been changed to say that there is an 85mm lens coming from Pentax down the road).

Pentaxians for some reason think that Pentax should build a camera to try to please DP Review, but that seems a lost cause to me. They should build high quality gear that targets niches that are unfilled in the current landscape -- traditional SLRs with good build, high quality lenses that don't require a lot of correction in post and don't worry about DP Review.

[Serkevan]

Trying to please DPR is easy, you just have to stick a Sony label over the Pentax logo, add some affiliate Amazon links and they will jump with joy over it.

Come on, them praising Sony's ridiculous raw baking of the vignetting and in the same breath lambasting the accelerator is hilarious.

[ThorSanchez]

Unfortunately, this recent trend of scalpel-level sharpness corner to corner would land any redeveloped FA Ltds in DPR's trash bin out the gate. Their ability to take stunning pictures in real life would be more or less irrelevant.

Eventually this trend will have to turn. Thing is that reviewing beyond the charts and numbers is very demanding. Requires very high level of seeing, thinking, writing. Not skills that abound. It's also very hard for manufacturers to claim superiority and high price.

Isn't this really just a slap-fight with phones? See, your phone can't do pixel-peeping scalpel-level sharpness in the corners so you should buy a $1700 camera and a $1500 lens to take photos! They think that's easier to explain than the long, sometimes nuanced list of things dedicated cameras do better.

---------- Post added 10-06-19 at 07:57 AM ----------

DP Review actually doesn't do many lens reviews. That said, they want small lenses but at the same time they want sharp lenses. Basically, they want in camera application of lens profiles (like Sony does) to produce the "perfect lens" without having to have a large lens.

But yes, as Serkevan says, the DFA *50 is a very nice lens which was well reviewed across the board and DP Review found ways to disparage it. "Autofocus is fast enough to shoot static subjects." "LoCA is severe." And repeatedly calling it "heavy and bulky." Initially they had some comment about this maybe being the last SLR lens from Pentax they would see and so they had to review it (this has since been changed to say that there is an 85mm lens coming from Pentax down the road).

Pentaxians for some reason think that Pentax should build a camera to try to please DP Review, but that seems a lost cause to me. They should build high quality gear that targets niches that are unfilled in the current landscape -- traditional SLRs with good build, high quality lenses that don't require a lot of correction in post and don't worry about DP Review.

I don't see what's wrong with in-camera or post-processing profiles if it gets me to the right end result at a lower cost and with a lighter kit.

[Rondec]

Isn't this really just a slap-fight with phones? See, your phone can't do pixel-peeping scalpel-level sharpness in the corners so you should buy a $1700 camera and a $1500 lens to take photos! They think that's easier to explain than the long, sometimes nuanced list of things dedicated cameras do better.

---------- Post added 10-06-19 at 07:57 AM ----------



I don't see what's wrong with in-camera or post-processing profiles if it gets me to the right end result at a lower cost and with a lighter kit.

Profiles are fine. They really shouldn't applied to RAW and it is understood they have penalty -- correct 2 stops of vignetting in the corners at iso 800 and you are bound to start seeing noise there. That's a choice the photographer should make, not the camera maker.

[Serkevan]

Isn't this really just a slap-fight with phones? See, your phone can't do pixel-peeping scalpel-level sharpness in the corners so you should buy a $1700 camera and a $1500 lens to take photos! They think that's easier to explain than the long, sometimes nuanced list of things dedicated cameras do better.

Might very well be. I think that focusing (hah) on just how much better portraits are, the better night-time pictures or plain old 200mm+ teles would do a better job of selling cameras. Also the ergonomics.

I don't see what's wrong with in-camera or post-processing profiles if it gets me to the right end result at a lower cost and with a lighter kit.

Me neither as long as they are user-selectable, the problem is that review sites accept it or hate it depending on who does it (hint: Pentax can't win apparently, it's either "uncorrected aberrations and whatnot" or "baked-in whatevs of the raw files). I think the accelerator works wonders and if they refine it to lose even less detail (or make it adjustable) it will be a great tool.

[house]

Isn't this really just a slap-fight with phones? See, your phone can't do pixel-peeping scalpel-level sharpness in the corners so you should buy a $1700 camera and a $1500 lens to take photos! They think that's easier to explain than the long, sometimes nuanced list of things dedicated cameras do better.

---------- Post added 10-06-19 at 07:57 AM ----------



I don't see what's wrong with in-camera or post-processing profiles if it gets me to the right end result at a lower cost and with a lighter kit.

Software corrections are fine. Problem comes when comparing lenses/systems using different standards. Dpreview doesn't do enough to clarify what is or isn't done in software for a specific lens. New lenses tend to be expensive despite software corrections. Dpreview basically pushes new stuff at all cost.

[totsmuyco]

Trying to please DPR is easy, you just have to stick a Sony label over the Pentax logo, add some affiliate Amazon links and they will jump with joy over it.

Come on, them praising Sony's ridiculous raw baking of the vignetting and in the same breath lambasting the accelerator is hilarious.

I don't see any reason why I should please DPreview. I used to read their reviews but in the end, I found it biased. I stopped lurking on their site. When I want to read a review about Pentax, I read our PF staff's review. If I want to see a decent review in YouTube, watch Cameraville. He does a side by side comparison and I think that's more credible.

[Serkevan]

I was being sarcastic. I know about Cameraville, his "WHAT'S GOING ONNNN" is a bit over the top but the content is quite nice and the gear seems to be thoroughly tested.