[normhead]

In any case, the issue is academic - DPR will go on at length about it but I certainly don't own any lens that behaves better than this at any aperture wider than, say, f/4, much less f/1.4. As I said, it's a very tough situation and we still see only a very small aberration, which is not particularly unpleasant and isn't even present on the subjects themselves.

I find a lot of CA is OK, because it looks natural. I remember a sunset on our local campsite a few years ago, where if I looked carefully with my eye I could see purple fringing and purple outline across the whole tree line. This is something you have to train your eye to see, and I have to ask "why do photographers do that?" The issue is not no CA, that's not natural, the issue is appropriate. Does it look out of place?

The more amateurish sites, like DPR try and make an issue out of it. Like if it exists at all it's bad.
The most perfect human eye is used to dealing with CA. Our eyes aren't perfect.

The issue shouldn't be no CA because all CA is bad, the issue should be whether or not you like the way the lens handles CA.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-24-2020 at 09:47 AM.

[monochrome]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbSMeWQUEAEOpUz?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbSMpYMU4Ag3j_c?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

OK... I tried on my PC, the mobile version works differently it seems.
Maybe the links posted by beholder3 will help you.

Wowsers. Stunning. Waiting for my ship date . . . . . .

[Wheatfield]

And with them the colors on the shirts of both subjects, which is a much worse result . The brush tool works wonders with basically no collateral damage but it's more time consuming if you go the picky way (like a 3-5 minute job, but I can see that being a problem if you have 100+ photos...). In any case, the issue is academic - DPR will go on at length about it but I certainly don't own any lens that behaves better than this at any aperture wider than, say, f/4, much less f/1.4. As I said, it's a very tough situation and we still see only a very small aberration, which is not particularly unpleasant and isn't even present on the subjects themselves. Other photos in just-slightly-less-torturing situations show basically no aberrations which is outstanding.

---------- Post added 06-24-20 at 09:23 AM ----------



Certainly not! Me saying that it's visible doesn't mean that it's a bother (or worse than any competitor). As I just mentioned to Beholder, the brush tool gets rid of it although it takes some time longer than a simple one-click painless correction.


The FA77 does have a much worse time with such situations, some photos need a fair bit of work done for skin tones and some never get to the levels of this gorgeous piece of machinery - but it's one fifth of the weight and has its lovely character so it's no big deal.

I think that in all things, it is important for the photographer to know what his gear is good at and what it isn't good at. All lenses seen to have problems with high contrast backlighting, some are worse, some not so bad, but all lenses seem to have some issues. A good photographer will, whenever possible, play to the strengths of his equipment. This new lens appears to be a very strong performer under very trying conditions, which should make the user's life much easier.
As an aside, the much vaunted and always beautiful FA*200/4 macro has rather twitchy bokeh when used as a pictorial lens, though it is beyond gorgeous when used as a macro. Shoot to the strengths of the lens and it is stunning, misuse it and you will wonder why you didn't buy a cheap 80-200 zoom.

---------- Post added Jun 24th, 2020 at 10:55 AM ----------

Wowsers. Stunning. Waiting for my ship date . . . . . .

It can't come too soon.

[Kunzite]

It can't come too soon.

It definitely can, if you don't have money for it
Now I'll have to avoid the Pentax store...

[c.a.m]

Summary, this lens is a 'special' one.

Indeed, the optics are strong with this one.

[teiki arii]

Of course, the KAF4 "still exists".
It is the most modern version of the K-mount.

Yes, according to the economic events and DSLR market, what about it in next 5 years? If a Pentax Mirrorless camera doesn't emerge, what about a KAF4-"X" MLC mount in near future to use with KAF4 lenses?

MY K-5 is still in use 9 years later and will probably still be in use 5 years from now. No one can tell you what you should worry about, but that might not be the most productive use of you ability to worry.

That's true for your camera, but not safe for the Pentax KAF4 lenses. Who can tell you'll be able to use a KAF4 (electronic DLSR) lens in future on MLC if Pentax (DLSR) FF camera are abandoned? Will there be any adapter?
As I told you, I do not worry about myself as I use mechanical apertures lenses which can be suitable with any future MLC, no more no less. So, what's the near future for electronic apertures DSLR lenses, especially for Pentax? It is a question worth asking.

[normhead]

That's true for your camera, but not safe for the Pentax KAF4 lenses. Who can tell you'll be able to use a KAF4 (electronic DLSR) lens in future on MLC if Pentax (DLSR) FF camera are abandoned? Will there be any adapter?

I plan to buy only KAF4 lenses in the future. I completely understand the reasoning and like the technology.

Your insistence that the only lenses Pentax should make would be ones that can be hijacked by MILC manufacturers is just weird.

How many MILC manufacturers are making lenses that can be used on Pentaxes?

I'm going the other way. Make people who use MILC gear use MILC lenses.
Too bad they can't make every lens unusable on MILC cameras.

The sooner we get MILC users out of the Pentax market the better for Pentax users. They contribute nothing to the brand.

[monochrome]

Yes, according to the economic events and DSLR market, what about it in next 5 years? If a Pentax Mirrorless camera doesn't emerge, what about a PK-"X" MLC mount in near future to use with KAF4 lenses?

That's true for your camera, but not safe for the Pentax KAF4 lenses. Who can tell you'll be able to use a KAF4 (electronic DLSR) lens in future on MLC if Pentax (DLSR) FF camera are abandoned? Will there be any adapter?
As I told you, I do not worry about myself as I use mechanical apertures lenses which can be suitable with any future MLC, no more no less. So, what's the near future for electronic apertures DSLR lenses, especially for Pentax? It is a question worth asking.

This is a non-issue / concern trolling because Pentax is NOT going to abandon DSLR’s and IS NOT going to bring an MILC. If anything, MILC’s are more likely to suffer discontinuation than DSLR’s. KAF4 is the future mount. Eventually the screwdrive will be removed from camera bodies.

[nzondlo]

I plan to buy only KAF4 lenses in the future. I completely understand the reasoning and like the technology.

Your insistence that the only lenses Pentax should make would be ones that can be hijacked by MILC manufacturers is just weird.

How many MILC manufacturers are making lenses that can be used on Pentaxes?

I'm going the other way. Make people who use MILC gear use MILC lenses.
Too bad they can't make every lens unusable on MILC cameras.

The sooner we get MILC users out of the Pentax market the better for Pentax users. They contribute nothing to the brand.

Also, I'm sure any manufacture that wants to make a Metabones or Fotodiox-like adapter can do so much easier with a KAF4 mount now. It was developed to modernize us, when all other camera manufacturers had moved on long ago. The EF mount goes back to the early 90s.

[Mistral75]

Also, I'm sure any manufacture that wants to make a Metabones or Fotodiox-like adapter can do so much easier with a KAF4 mount now. It was developed to modernize us, when all other camera manufacturers had moved on long ago. The EF mount goes back to the early 90s.

Late '80s actually: 1987.

[nzondlo]

Late '80s actually: 1987.

And all those lenses work just fine.

[normhead]

Also, I'm sure any manufacture that wants to make a Metabones or Fotodiox-like adapter can do so much easier with a KAF4 mount now. It was developed to modernize us, when all other camera manufacturers had moved on long ago. The EF mount goes back to the early 90s.

That would only make sense if MILC users would buy new lenses, which they won't.

Pentax needs to be concerned about their bottom line. Making life easier for MILC users is a recipe for disaster if all they buy is archaic gear. I'd hope they'd put in a poison pill of some sort.

I have always recommended buying the body that supports your lenses. This whole taking lenses from one brand and using them on another is just another marketing abomination. Back when there was no Pentax FF it was barely tolerable. Now it's just anti-Pentax behaviour.

Every real Pentax user would benefit if we could somehow shut down this practice.

[sbh]

Got an email from Ricoh Imaging that it is on the way and should arrive tomorrow. Nice...

[teiki arii]

Your insistence that the only lenses Pentax should make would be ones that can be hijacked by MILC manufacturers is just weird.

You misunderstand me. I never said anything like that. I am just saying to your early point, I am not sure you have a DSLR camera to use with KAF4 lenses in "20 years time" as I read somewhere else. Just because of compatibility.
So the rest of your reasoning is off-topic.

I'm going the other way. Make people who use MILC gear use MILC lenses.
Too bad they can't make every lens unusable on MILC cameras.

A DSLR camera to my eyes is a piece of work compared to a MILC, because of mechanical true precision. One day, this mechanical precision will be costlier to produce... probably to be discontinued. That's my theory, I hope I am wrong.

The sooner we get MILC users out of the Pentax market the better for Pentax users. They contribute nothing to the brand.

Unfortunately, the market alone holds sway. Are you an absolute Pentax fan? I am not, if Pentax doesn't suit my needs, I quit, just like that. That's nothing to do with mirrorless cameras or without. Just a matter of needs. I am not convinced at all by MILCs superiority, today. But what about the next five years? Fortunately, the Pentax K-1 is the best camera for my needs, at the moment.

This is a non-issue / concern trolling because Pentax is NOT going to abandon DSLR’s and IS NOT going to bring an MILC. If anything, MILC’s are more likely to suffer discontinuation than DSLR’s. KAF4 is the future mount. Eventually the screwdrive will be removed from camera bodies.

I pray for you to be right!

Every real Pentax user would benefit if we could somehow shut down this practice.

You are right, I am not a "real" Pentax user, just a real photography "amateur". But thanks to Pentax, I can use my Leica-R lenses and I would say it sounds like "Pentax made the K-1 for my personal concern and needs"... Thank you Pentax.
I am a hybrid/bastard photographer but I am very happy like this in my lonely world... I am the fruit of a dilemma: how to use my beloved lenses with a very good OVF FF DSLR camera? Just by "Leitaxing" my lenses. Not the easy way but the only one and the best one according to my needs...

[gatorguy]

I find a lot of CA is OK, because it looks natural. I remember a sunset on our local campsite a few years ago, where if I looked carefully with my eye I could see purple fringing and purple outline across the whole tree line. This is something you have to train your eye to see, and I have to ask "why do photographers do that?" The issue is not no CA, that's not natural, the issue is appropriate. Does it look out of place?

The more amateurish sites, like DPR try and make an issue out of it. Like if it exists at all it's bad.
The most perfect human eye is used to dealing with CA. Our eyes aren't perfect.

The issue shouldn't be no CA because all CA is bad, the issue should be whether or not you like the way the lens handles CA.

A very common sense attitude Norm. 100% agree.