Hi everybody,

I would like to open up a thread dedicated to one topic:

DA lens on Full Frame: a sticky test shots thread.

This thread shall be dedicated to test shots of a DA lens mounted to a full frame body (e.g., a film camera body). By test shot, I mean shots dedicated to evaluate the performance. Shots of ordinary subjects aren't suitable to this task, normally, and should not be posted. So, these are the rules:

• K mount lens dedicated to the APS-C form factor is used.
• Image is taken full frame 36mm x 24mm.
• Lens hood was removed.
• And ideally, no filter is mounted.
• The aperture used is specified (note that film cameras don't record EXIF...).
• Sample image shows the entire field of view.
• Sample image(s) show(s) corner, border and center performance at 10MP-100% (multiple crops, or single not-resized image).
• The subject is such that resolution and vignetting at the borders can be compared to the center.

The idea behind this thread is obvious: To compile enough data to assess the spectrum of available lenses for a forthcoming full frame DSLR in K mount.

#################################################

Table of results as obtained in this thread (updated regularly):

SMC Pentax-DA primes...

• DA 14mm F2.8: - (clawhammer)
• DA 15mm F4.0: - (Zav)
• DA 21mm F3.2 Limited: - (Boris Liberman)
• DA 35mm F2.4 AL: +++ (aurele ;like FA35/2.0 and no vignetting) (frank)
• DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro: 0 (ryno), + (@ 1.15 crop)
• DA 40mm F2.8 Limited: +
• DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM: +++ (aurele)
• DA 70mm F2.4 Limited: +
• D FA Macro 100mm F2.8 WR: +++ (officially specified FF by Pentax)
• DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM: +++? (common belief, but is it true?)
• DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM: ++ (officially rated "designed for FF" by Pentax patent US7715116)

SMC Pentax-DA zooms...

• DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye ED [IF]: FE, see #59, #61, #94. 10mm: heavy vignette / 14mm: almost no vignette / 17mm ++ (Reps, froeschle, Gooshin)
• DA 12-24mm F4 ED AL [IF]: - (below 16mm, xitek.com), o (at 18mm, architorture), + (at 20mm, architorture), ++ (at 24mm, architorture)
• DA 16-45mm F4: - (below 21mm, Nesster)
• DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM: - (xitek.com)
• DA 17-70mm F4 AL [IF] SDM: - (KjetilH)
• DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL: - (at 18mm, Spongefingers; below 23mm, xitek.com)
• DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II: missing
• DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF]: - (xitek.com)
• DA 50-200mm ED: -
• DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM: - (elho_cid)
• DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM: ++ (officially rated "designed for FF" by Pentax patent US7489452) probably good on full frame but evaluation still missing; the rating is +++ with a baffle modification, + without)
• DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED: 0 (+, ++ at tele end, viking79)

Sigma K mount DC...

• Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC: -
• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC: - (below 14mm, Gooshin)
• ...

Tamron K mount Di-II...

• ...

Overall rating scale:
+++: no significant difference between APS-C and FF corners
++: difference but usable at full aperture with a small loss in corner IQ only
+: usable staring at f/4~f/5.6, with no or a small loss in corner IQ only
o: usable at f/11 or with big loss in corner IQ only
-: not usable

[Sandy Hancock]

I just took some test shots of the following lenses: DA10-17, DA40, DA*55, DA70, DA55-300, DA*60-250 and DA*300

My film camera can not control the aperture of these lense, but as far as I could tell by looking backwards through the lenses, all photos were taken at wide open aperture. I used Fuji slide film at ISO 100 on a Pentax P30T. Rough metering was done with my iPhone.

The zooms were shot at both extremes of their range; in the case of the DA10-17 that meant ~13mm at the wide end, because before that the non-removable hood gets in the frame.

*All* of these lenses appeared to give good coverage of the viewfinder frame. I will post the shots as soon as I develop and scan them.

Hopefully this might fill in some of the remaining gaps.

[Clavius]

I just took some test shots of the following lenses: DA10-17, DA40, DA*55, DA70, DA55-300, DA*60-250 and DA*300

...

*All* of these lenses appeared to give good coverage of the viewfinder frame. I will post the shots as soon as I develop and scan them.

The DA 10-17 too?!? Are you sure?

[séamuis]

*All* of these lenses appeared to give good coverage of the viewfinder frame. I will post the shots as soon as I develop and scan them.

the viewfinder does not show the whole frame. the viewfinder of your p30t, I believe only has 92% coverage. therefore your test is somewhat flawed.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA 10-17 too?!? Are you sure?

From 13mm onwards the image in the viewfinder looked fine. This is consistent with the observations detailed in the OP, but I won't draw my own conclusions until the slides are developed.

[Sandy Hancock]

the viewfinder does not show the whole frame. the viewfinder of your p30t, I believe only has 92% coverage. therefore your test is somewhat flawed.

I wondered whether that may have been the case. Luckily the truth will be known soon.

[bobell69]

Does anyone know if the 18-135WR will work on a Full Frame or only APSC?

[VisualDarkness]

Hi there
I made some test photos of DA 55-300mm on Full Frame Pentax MZ-6.
My copy of this lens is definately not +/++ suitable for FULL FRAME.

Here are the results: vjacesslav: SMC PENTAX DA 55-300MM F4-5.8 vs FULL FRAME

It seems to be a "200mm Prime" on full-frame.

[Cannikin]

Does anyone know if the 18-135WR will work on a Full Frame or only APSC?

I checked my 18-135 without the hood on an MX, and the viewfinder shows a solid black circle at all focal lengths. It is completely unusable on FF.

[twitch]

It seems to be a "200mm Prime" on full-frame.

The images posted weren't anything like in the 3:2 ratio of a 35mm negative though so I'm not sure if solid conclusions can be made.

[rawr]

the viewfinder shows a solid black circle at all focal lengths. It is completely unusable on FF.

Meh.

In this age of the huge popularity of Instragram and Lomography, that's not an unusable bug - it's a feature! The designers of the 18-135 are simply hipsters at heart.

[falconeye]

the lens hood was removed..

Vjacesslav, ok, so I revised the rating in the opening post.
It applied to the tele end only anyway, but it may not have been sufficiently clear. Now, that you tested the wide end, I gave it an "0" overall.

[aurele]

i've done 3 rolls of films with the DA*55.

From f2 to f22 : no vignetting at all.

From f1.4 to f2 with hood : subtle vigneting with a value around 0.3 - 0.7 EV that is very soft and progressive in the extreme corner (around 5-7% of the width of the frame.)
See below :

DA*55 @f1.4, 1/60, MZ-5n, Ilford HP5+ push 2 stops @1600 iso. light bulb of 100watts at 2m above Florent.

At f1.4 without hood : very subtle vigneting of 0.3 EV (less than on the picture above.)

DA*55 @1.4, 1/125, MZ-5n, Ilford HP5+ push 2 stops @1600 iso. Sunset light only.


To conclude :
I think we can say DA*55 without hood : +++, and DA*55 with hood ++.

Definitely a keeper it completely remplace my A50/1.7 now.

[JinDesu]

Sexy news to hear, that DA*55 is pretty awesome.

[aurele]

Indeed that's'pretty sexy.

Just remember that due to its KAF3 mount, it's'only manual focus on film body.

And i really and strongly suggest you to have a microprism or stygmo or any precision matt focusing screen, because F1.4 on film is unforgiveable when it comes to focusing.

On MZ-5n, with standard matt focusing scrEen, i missed around 50% of my shots.
On SuperA with stygmo and microprism i missed around 20 %.

But the result is really astonishing with B&W film.

[falconeye]

To conclude :
I think we can say DA*55 without hood : +++

I only collect results w/o hood in this thread. However, in order to embrace the conclusion, I would have to know something about edge and corner resolution. Subtle vignetting is normal for all FF lenses.