[*isteve]

The main issue here is that people treat corner issues as a particular problem for FF. This is not true; it is just as much issue on DA lenses on APS cameras.

I have most FA* lenses, all FA Limiteds and the DA* 16-50/2.8. The latter have more edge sharpness problems (and purple fringing, for that matter) than any of the above. And so you should expect; after all you are not using the edge of the FA lenses on an APS camera.

Some APS lenses have corner sharpness problems and some FF lenses have corner issues. Whats the difference?

I have them all too. I think you should try a newspaper test on a FA*24 and FA 50 F1.4 for starters. Wide open they have very soft corners on APSC.

[jbinpg]

Indeed. It is the lack of corner sharpness, the pronounced field curvature wide open and the razor thin DOF that allow the 50/1.4 (and I imagine the 1.2 as well) to work so well as a portrait lens. Try the same thing with a 35 macro and you would be disappointed. The fact that it becomes tack sharp with stopping down just gives it more versatility.

Jack

[*isteve]

Indeed. It is the lack of corner sharpness, the pronounced field curvature wide open and the razor thin DOF that allow the 50/1.4 (and I imagine the 1.2 as well) to work so well as a portrait lens. Try the same thing with a 35 macro and you would be disappointed. The fact that it becomes tack sharp with stopping down just gives it more versatility.

Jack

50mm is too short for a portrait lens on FF. Most people buy it as a "low light" lens but if shooting indoors, I find its useless much below F4 which makes it no more useful than a 17-70.

The FA* 24 is definately way too short for portraits and would normally make a great landscape lens but the corners are not even sharp stopped down.

[falconeye]

Would you bet your company on a 5 year strategy not knowing how the economy or technology would progress?

If I don't know what the technology in 5 years is about to look like I have to quit my job. I once was technical director in an IT company and my predictions were pretty precise. Better than Gartner anyway. Their's are jokes...

If you drive innovation then you actually know the future. It's followers only speculating in the dark :ugh:

Agree with that. :ugh:

[*isteve]

If I don't know what the technology in 5 years is about to look like I have to quit my job. I once was technical director in an IT company and my predictions were pretty precise. Better than Gartner anyway. Their's are jokes...

If you drive innovation then you actually know the future. It's followers only speculating in the dark :ugh:

What sensible company would tell its competitors what its five year strategy was?

Having spent 15 years at IBM I would also say that the predictions about how new technology will impact the market are frequently wide of the mark. Even if the technology itself is well understood, issues with production, geopolitics, competition and licensing can make predictions about when it will come onstream and at what cost almost impossible over a 5 year time frame.

[sir_bazz]

Really? Of course, everyone is entitled to believe what that want, but I have not seen anything printed on an A3 or A2 prints, or any 100% crops, that would enable me to make any such judgement.

Hi again Steve,

I suspect you haven't seen these images then.


Pentax-FA 31mm f1.8 Limited on a Canon 5D MkII

I'd be happy to "make do" with that sort of poor performance.

cheers,
bazz.

[*isteve]

Hi again Steve,

I suspect you haven't seen these images then.


Pentax-FA 31mm f1.8 Limited on a Canon 5D MkII

I'd be happy to "make do" with that sort of poor performance.

cheers,
bazz.

Suit yourself, I would have expected something slightly better considering its up against a zoom and its stopped down.

One lens (and the best lens Pentax ever made) does prove much, nor does it refute Neds original point that MANY Pentax lenses were not up to it. Show me pictures with a decent cross section of FA lenses, and we'll see.

[RBellavance]

One lens (and the best lens Pentax ever made) does prove much, nor does it refute Neds original point that MANY Pentax lenses were not up to it. Show me pictures with a decent cross section of FA lenses, and we'll see.

And make sure it's on a high-MP FF body, like the 5DMkII. Whether we like it or not, nobody is going to market a new FF body with anything less the 21-24MP in the future.

Agree with that,

but it is doable, I think.

[sir_bazz]

One lens (and the best lens Pentax ever made) does prove much, nor does it refute Neds original point that MANY Pentax lenses were not up to it. Show me pictures with a decent cross section of FA lenses, and we'll see.

I'm not disputing that many FA lenses wouldn't be up to the job especially when considering that much of the FA range is filled with cheap consumer zooms.

However the better FA primes would be more than suitable, (for those us lucky enough to already own them), and the number of useable lenses would increase further if pixel density was kept to a reasonable number. Interestingly a current poll on one of the Pentax related Blog sites suggests most respondants would prefer 12-15mp in a FF package which I suspect would be a match for the FA lenses while newer versions could be slowly introduced.

Yeah I know, I know it's just not gonna happen with limited dev resources but just my wishful thinking

cheers,
bazz.

[vinzer]

I think that's because 4/3 is such a departure from FF--different mount, etc.--that there's no hope for FF for them. When you buy into Olympus or Panasonic you know that you're buying into 4/3 and 4/3 only, whereas with other manufacturers there's always at least the hope of FF. Pentax is now the only manufacturer with a FF-compatible mount and specification that doesn't have a FF camera. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but that's why there's grumbling about FF amongst Pentax users and not 4/3 users.

Personally I'd much rather see Pentax concentrate on APS-C and becoming the best, most specialized APS-C manufacturer in the market. Pentax has a head start already with DA Limited lenses and just needs to continue to exploit the size benefits of APS-C with more high quality lenses, particularly more large aperture primes. 55mm f/1.4 is a good start.

Sure, I understand that 4/3 pretty much locks users in that sensor size, but what I allude to is how their users feel no need to gripe about their smaller sensor size. When Nikon entered the FF fray, suddenly some people here think that APS-C isn't good enough. Dunno about them, but I'm pretty sure the K10D I had back then still took good pictures.

Pentax never promised FF to their users, so I don't see why people are taking them to task about it. It will be a nice surprise, sure, but I'll believe it only when they announce it, and maybe not even until they release a FF body will I believe it. I bought Pentax knowing APS-C is all I'll get in the predictable future. There are other options out there if one really wants FF, and others here have already acted on it, and now they're happy people. If I really wanted FF, I would've done what Samsungian, Duplo, and Asahiflex did: go multiple system.

We can play armchair CEOs all day and dictate what Pentax should do, but it won't matter one whit since we don't make those decisions, and our armchair decisions are no better off since we don't know the actual resources, capabilities, and hindrances Pentax faces, much less the talks that do go on behind the scenes.

Really, I'm fine with discussing the technical advantages/disadvantages of FF over APS-C, but playing armchair execs have long run its course quite a number of threads back, because we're basically deadlocked in a position where some want FF at any cost, some want APS-C for the size and weight advantages, some want FF for $1000, and some want APS-C because it's the only logical camera you'd be getting for $1000. None of us are bound to change our point of views until another new groundbreaking camera comes along (say, the FF equivalent of the 300D), which is when we probably should restart armchair exec talks once again.

[vinzer]

The issue about glass and edge quality is based on the price/performance factor. The more one pays for an FF system, the more likely the demand that the entire equipment system meet the expectations. Outstanding sensors demand outstanding glass for that level of investment. Many quibbles about the quality of glass have the subtext regarding this price/performance measure.

Bingo. Price-to-performance ratio is what a non-professional photographer with meager resources like me looks for.

I am not against FF, really. I want it, but not at the current price levels. The photography I do can be done with APS-C, still. Of course, that's subject to change once FF falls to around $1000 in price.

[Wheatfield]

Sure my dear Troll, my only agenda I could have would have to make guys like you being kicked out of this forum. Really a shame admins won't.

It's an imperfect world. Learn to live with it.

But then, did I massacred your name? Why do you need to it do with mine?

No insult intended. I actually do that to people I like.
Stop looking to be insulted.

[Duplo]

50mm is too short for a portrait lens on FF. Most people buy it as a "low light" lens but if shooting indoors, I find its useless much below F4 which makes it no more useful than a 17-70.

The FA* 24 is definately way too short for portraits and would normally make a great landscape lens but the corners are not even sharp stopped down.

Steve I am not going to get into the discussion about which lenses can be sued on which format, as I know we tend to come to a common understanding, but the 50 is a fairly decent portrait lens on full frame, just not for head and shoulder portraits.

I delivered print to a client from one, last week. happy client and happy me
Now granted it was the newly designed Sigma 50/1.4, but that is a different story all together, I have found the older 50ies I have shot on 35mm digital fine lenses, but not up to the sigma.

for tighter portraits I would be around 105-200 mm, but for full body portraiture or small groups a 50 is a fine portrait lens

I liked the FA*24 a lot on APS-C, btw and had little in terms of soft corner issues, but I may be less picky