Originally posted by kuau I was just checking out
Pentax 645D в усадьбе "Архангельское" - managger - Участники - Фотогалерея iXBT
Wow, I was looking at the sample from the 35mm FA, I thought it looked terrible, and it was shot at F22, sure some diffraction but it had bad ca in the corners and the image was not sharp at all.
I thought the 120mm looked good, the 200mm looked good even the 45mm looked good. But the 35mm looked yuk...
Actually this is better than what I thought. Of course at f/22 nothing is really sharp, but as with all the 645D images it withstands a lot of sharpening even multiple pass (with decreasing radius) and you can correct for CA, to some extent, in RAW conversion. No one's MF wide angle lenses are really sharp to the corners. Not even the Canons on 35mm and Nikons until the 14-24 came up. 47mm XL, 58mm XL, and 65/75mm on LF film, used to be the only games in the town if you really want quality wide angle shots technically.
Remember as a matter of fact, the Pentax FA 35mm beats the Hasselblad and the Mamiya in this review:
Pentax 645 FA 35mm Review
Had you looked Ansel or his F64 school buddy's 8x10 negatives (shot at f/45, and f/64 and beyond) though a loupe? Or Michael Fatali's big prints in which details are not really sharp? Even this image makes great 24x30 after some clinical work -- just forget 100% view into the pixels.
Little soft lenses coupled with high resolution sensors reduces "digital flavor", demosiacing artifacts, and moire.
The 35mm sample on this page has better sharpness but improperly sharpen and look too digital to my taste:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fganref.jp%2Fmagazines%2...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8