[cali92rs]

It isn't resolution that is the issue with older lenses, it is the wicked pf in my opinion.

[monochrome]

It isn't resolution that is the issue with older lenses, it is the wicked pf in my opinion.

Posters in several thread discussions of using legacy lenses on K-1 have mentioned the propensity of many nice older lenses to produce (Lo)CA and PF. Responders who actually own the camera and have tested legacy lenses on it note that it isn't as bad as most people believe it will be. People with a higher degree of technical knowledge then I suggest this might be a result of the larger sensor returning the full image circle, thus reducing the relative area of (any) fringing, as well as the diminished density of the photosites.

All I know is, I have to work to coax PF out of the FA43, which has been called a 'PF monster' in the past (shooting birds with a K400/5.6 against a bright blue sky is a classic example of 'wicked' PF), but LR and PSE correct fringing easily and quickly..

[normhead]

Posters in several thread discussions of using legacy lenses on K-1 have mentioned the propensity of many nice older lenses to produce (Lo)CA and PF. Responders who actually own the camera and have tested legacy lenses on it note that it isn't as bad as most people believe it will be. People with a higher degree of technical knowledge then I suggest this might be a result of the larger sensor returning the full image circle, thus reducing the relative area of (any) fringing, as well as the diminished density of the photosites.

All I know is, I have to work to coax PF out of the FA43, which has been called a 'PF monster' in the past (shooting birds with a K400/5.6 against a bright blue sky is a classic example of 'wicked' PF), but LR and PSE correct fringing easily and quickly..

I frequently have PF issues with the 70-210, and I won't use it with the TC because it makes the PF 1.4 times larger, but I have many series where there was no purple fringing at all, and I have deleted images with PF using every lens I own, including the more modern corrected ones. I'm not as clear on the PF issue as some seem to be. It affects at most 1-2% of my images and I still get lots of great images for those lenses. And the reason I was using that lens in the first place was because another lens was too big or too heavy etc.etc.. You use the lens for what it's good for and if it purple fringes a bit, so what? A have never sold a lens or not used it in a appropriate situation because I was afraid of PF. It's just far too intermittent a problem. OK< maybe on my old VIvitar M 135 ƒ2.8, and extremely cheap lens brand new, and suffering from design flaws you would not find on any lens made in the last 30 years. My A-400 and F-70-210, may be a bit more prone to fringing, so, maybe fringe 2%-4% of the time instead of 1%-2%. I still get lots of great images with them.

Many of the images I take that have purple fringing are back lit, and the IQ just isn't there, even if there was no purple fringing.

[jatrax]

I've been processing images this week from a Caribbean trip with the k-3II and the DA 16-85. And some images taken with the K-1 and various new and old lenses.

In general I can say that under the right conditions the purple fringing of the da 16-85 (a relatively modern lens ) is terrible. As in hard for LR to remove terrible. I can also say that using a variety of old, mostly F series lenses on the K-1 has demonstrated that under the right conditions they will produce PF, and under most conditions it really isn't an issue.

So my conclusion regarding PF and old lenses is to just take pictures and not worry about it.

[normhead]

I've been processing images this week from a Caribbean trip with the k-3II and the DA 16-85. And some images taken with the K-1 and various new and old lenses.

In general I can say that under the right conditions the purple fringing of the da 16-85 (a relatively modern lens ) is terrible. As in hard for LR to remove terrible. I can also say that using a variety of old, mostly F series lenses on the K-1 has demonstrated that under the right conditions they will produce PF, and under most conditions it really isn't an issue.

So my conclusion regarding PF and old lenses is to just take pictures and not worry about it.

Exactly.

[noelpolar]

I've just apent some time trying to correct PF on lots of images I took recently at Victor Harbour (group shots). I wasn't able to correct it....turns out that most of the lady retirees that live there just have purple hair....duh!

[Rondec]

I've been processing images this week from a Caribbean trip with the k-3II and the DA 16-85. And some images taken with the K-1 and various new and old lenses.

In general I can say that under the right conditions the purple fringing of the da 16-85 (a relatively modern lens ) is terrible. As in hard for LR to remove terrible. I can also say that using a variety of old, mostly F series lenses on the K-1 has demonstrated that under the right conditions they will produce PF, and under most conditions it really isn't an issue.

So my conclusion regarding PF and old lenses is to just take pictures and not worry about it.

It is really lens dependent. The DA *16-50, FA 77 and DA *200 are my worst lenses for purple fringing. The DFA 24-70 is about the best, with extremely minimal fringing in any situation. It is a little sad, because the FA 77 gives awesome results, but there are time when you fix the PF and you end up with a gray line highlighting parts of your image.

By all accounts the new zoom trio -- 15-30/24-70/70-200 are a lot better in this respect, although of course, two of those lenses are Tamron's design.

[sibyrnes]

I can't understand how lens designed to be sharp enough for Kodachrome 25 can be "out resolved" by any currently available digital sensor. Am I missing something?

[jatrax]

I can't understand how lens designed to be sharp enough for Kodachrome 25 can be "out resolved" by any currently available digital sensor. Am I missing something?

Yep. About 10 years of back posts with people arguing this 'issue'. And since (until now) there has not been a FF, Pentax camera the argument has just stumbled along with no way to 'prove' anything.

The original post in this thread was actually sarcasm I believe. Since the K-1 has arrived and people have gotten around to testing old glass on it they have discovered that those lenses are not in fact 'out-resolved' by the sensor. Whatever that actually means.

[osv]

Yep. About 10 years of back posts with people arguing this 'issue'. And since (until now) there has not been a FF, Pentax camera the argument has just stumbled along with no way to 'prove' anything.

that would be true for the newest lenses, especially the zooms that everyone wants to use.

but people have been putting legacy pentax glass on ff sony cameras since late 2013, and before that, on canon ff bodies.

a bunch of those pics have been posted on this forum already; some people have even done imatesting on the old pentax glass: Pentax : ERPhotoReview

legacy glass is a great way to get into the k-1, for a lot less money than a zoom, with just as good or better pq at stopped-down apertures.

[Fat Albert]

The original post in this thread was actually sarcasm I believe. Since the K-1 has arrived and people have gotten around to testing old glass on it they have discovered that those lenses are not in fact 'out-resolved' by the sensor. Whatever that actually means.

Tongue planted firmly in cheek

I created this thread partly because the sudden silence from the legions of Pentax FUDers is DEAFENING. Has anyone else noticed how they've all disappeared?

[monochrome]

Tongue planted firmly in cheek

I created this thread partly because the sudden silence from the legions of Pentax FUDers is DEAFENING. Has anyone else noticed how they've all disappeared?

They are Stuned!

All their base are belong to US!

[Eyewanders]

I frequently have PF issues with the 70-210, and I won't use it with the TC because it makes the PF 1.4 times larger, but I have many series where there was no purple fringing at all, and I have deleted images with PF using every lens I own, including the more modern corrected ones. I'm not as clear on the PF issue as some seem to be. It affects at most 1-2% of my images and I still get lots of great images for those lenses. And the reason I was using that lens in the first place was because another lens was too big or too heavy etc.etc.. You use the lens for what it's good for and if it purple fringes a bit, so what? A have never sold a lens or not used it in a appropriate situation because I was afraid of PF. It's just far too intermittent a problem. OK< maybe on my old VIvitar M 135 ƒ2.8, and extremely cheap lens brand new, and suffering from design flaws you would not find on any lens made in the last 30 years. My A-400 and F-70-210, may be a bit more prone to fringing, so, maybe fringe 2%-4% of the time instead of 1%-2%. I still get lots of great images with them.

Many of the images I take that have purple fringing are back lit, and the IQ just isn't there, even if there was no purple fringing.

Agree with all of this.


I don't own the K-1, but I own large percentage of alleged "PF monster" glass and have rarely been bothered by it. The FA77 is a good case study. On 35mm I've never noted it. On APS-C it pops with fair regularity in high contrast scenes, but it's digital and the shot will always find its way into Lightroom, where it (90% of the time) is practically erased with the flick of the mouse. There've been a few digi shots over the years where it was "bad" enough that I scrapped the image, but that happens so rarely that I literally don't think about it, ever, except on PF. (Purple Forums... Pentax Fringing)

---------- Post added 06-06-16 at 11:38 AM ----------

They are Stuned!

All their base are belong to US!

They're not PINING! They've PASSSSSSED ONNNN!

[Zygonyx]

We must admit DxO Mpix equ.figures are at most surprising, as far as lens tests are concerned...

[monochrome]

Agree with all of this.

They're not PINING! They've PASSSSSSED ONNNN!

Take off every ZIG!