Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11 Likes  
DA lenses on Full Frame: Test Shots thread
Posted By: falconeye, 07-07-2008, 02:50 PM

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...
SMC Pentax-DA zooms...
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


Last edited by falconeye; 07-20-2016 at 02:57 AM. Reason: Result table updated
Views: 313,170
08-22-2008, 12:09 PM   #46
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Alan 2 Quote
What's negative is when the FF pushers tell people not to buy lenses that won't work for FF [...] Coming here and telling people not to buy some of best lenses around because they won't work well on FF, now that's foolish.
There are no FF pushers in this thread. This thread is dedicated to fact collecting. Which is hard work, btw.

Nobody here tells to buy or not to buy anything.

But this really isn't the forum to use tone or attitude like you did. Ben tried to hint that at you in a nice way. Please, get it. With your few number of posts, we'll forgive you but you should behave as the guest you are.

If you cannot contribute to this thread, then please, stay away from it.

08-22-2008, 01:38 PM   #47
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Madison WI U.S.A.
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by Alan 2
What's negative is when the FF pushers tell people not to buy lenses that won't work for FF [...] Coming here and telling people not to buy some of best lenses around because they won't work well on FF, now that's foolish.


QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
There are no FF pushers in this thread. This thread is dedicated to fact collecting. Which is hard work, btw.

Nobody here tells to buy or not to buy anything.

But this really isn't the forum to use tone or attitude like you did. Ben tried to hint that at you in a nice way. Please, get it. With your few number of posts, we'll forgive you but you should behave as the guest you are.

If you cannot contribute to this thread, then please, stay away from it.
Well okay, that's a nice way of taking things out of context. If you read the whole post instead of cutting and pasting a few snippets there's nothing negative about it. It's just common sense. Having said that I'll leave the thread alone.
09-01-2008, 12:37 PM   #48
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
as per request,


Sigma 10-20 on a pentax Super Program

this is at 10mm and wide open (since i dont have aperture control with that camera)




the vignetting does go away in the viewfinder at around 14mm (again wide open)

which is intresting considering how the DA14 performs on a FF...
09-06-2008, 03:58 AM   #49
Senior Member
Spongefingers's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 238
I didn't see an example of the DA 18-55, so here's one:


SMC DA 18-55 AL at 18mm, Pentax MZ-5n, Fuji Superia 400
I don't remember the f-stop, it may have been around f4.

The vignetting's pretty nasty, but looks interesting. Naturally, the imaging circle expands further out, but I didn't take any on this film - which I took a few months ago. I might take a range of samples on another film if anyone's interested.

09-06-2008, 05:11 PM   #50
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Spongefingers Quote
I didn't see an example of the DA 18-55, so here's one: I might take a range of samples on another film if anyone's interested.
Thanks, Spongefingers. I updated the summary table.

It would be interesting to have a sample photo at a focal length where vignetting is less obvious (if it exists). You did remove the lens hood, did you?

Nice "majestic" cat
09-07-2008, 03:18 AM   #51
Senior Member
Spongefingers's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 238
The cat's name is Henry, he lives across the road from us. I honestly don't remember if the lens hood was on. It was just a rough example shot. When I look through the film viewfinder, I can distinctly see black corners at 18mm with the lens cap off.
I will dedicate 2/3 of a roll of HP5 to a test. I'll shoot the shots against a brick wall or a wall chart. I'll try these combinations:

18mm: --- 3.5 4 5.6 8 11 16
24mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
35mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
55mm: ---------- 5.6 8 11 16

I don't think I will be able to test the resolution particularly well, as my scanner (Epson V100 Photo) makes pretty smudgy film scans. But I will try my best to fulfill your test criteria!
Any thoughts before I start? Do you think f/22 would be worth trying too?

I also noticed you added my data on the first post, but the lens is not the 18-55 AL II. I haven't used that one. Is this because you know of its vignetting on APS-C (like the original 18-55) so you presume it is identical, or because you know the lens construction is the same?

You may want to add "Lens must have no filter(s) fitted" to the test criteria too. just to be on the safe side.
09-08-2008, 04:09 PM   #52
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Spongefingers Quote
I will dedicate 2/3 of a roll of HP5 to a test. I'll shoot the shots against a brick wall or a wall chart. I'll try these combinations:

18mm: --- 3.5 4 5.6 8 11 16
24mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
35mm: -------- 4 5.6 8 11 16
55mm: ---------- 5.6 8 11 16

I don't think I will be able to test the resolution particularly well, as my scanner (Epson V100 Photo) makes pretty smudgy film scans. But I will try my best to fulfill your test criteria!
Any thoughts before I start?
You have already found out that the 18-55 produces full vignetting, at least at 18mm. So, a more thorough test is most interesting at focal length where it doesn't vignette too much. Otherwise, we would give it a "-" anyway, right? Your prepared choice of tests is great. Maybe, select those which are most interesting in the end. A pitty that you have no other lens to test And thanks for your participation in this experiment.

As for the scanner. Meanwhile I have studied some of my test films (see above) with a microscope. Holy crap!! The B&W film actually outperforms both the Nikon Coolscans (even with my multi-pass trick) and the K20D. I'll post photos as soon as I can take photographs of my microscope...

Regarding some of your remarks: I removed the 18-55 AL II. I wasn't sure which one you used. I also added a "Lens must have no filter(s) fitted" remark. Actually, a 35mm lens should be able to be fitted with a filter to fully qualify as FF capable
09-08-2008, 04:19 PM   #53
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
To all who have posted photos of full frame performance of DA lenses

WHile I have not looked, have any of you put a posting of the performance in the lens review data base?

There is a LOT of great data here. YOu each have taken the time to test and evaluate the perfrormance of the lens on a FF camera. Why not put the results where they really need to go?

Feel free to blast me for this rant if you have already done the postings

09-09-2008, 02:22 PM   #54
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
WHile I have not looked, have any of you put a posting of the performance in the lens review data base?

There is a LOT of great data here. You each have taken the time to test and evaluate the perfrormance of the lens on a FF camera. Why not put the results where they really need to go?
Lowell, this is a good point. Actually, I already had put a review in the lens review database for the lenses I gave a serious test myself. The review was short: Final verdict plus link to the corresponding post here. I think I did it for DA40, DA70 and DA300. While I could do this for my own tests, I of course cannot post reviews done by others.
09-09-2008, 03:32 PM   #55
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Lowell, this is a good point. Actually, I already had put a review in the lens review database for the lenses I gave a serious test myself. The review was short: Final verdict plus link to the corresponding post here. I think I did it for DA40, DA70 and DA300. While I could do this for my own tests, I of course cannot post reviews done by others.
It's good to hear at least you have posted links to your shots.

If others do the same, and this also goes when people post things here about the image etc. the database becomes really useful
09-13-2008, 09:31 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
Hi everyone! Just stuck the 55-300mm on my MX and i can confirm that there is no visible vignetting, at least to me, even stopped down to f/22

I took some shots and i will post them when i get this developed (which might take a long time).

One thing, to make me seem even more stupid then i already appear, how the hell do i change the aperture on a DA lens? seems to be stuck on f/22. do i get a fork and jimmy the metal pin on the left side? or am i getting my hopes high using the MX? it would be great to get this lens working on the my film camera.

another question, doesn't FF use much more glass and should therefore cost more, or is it just incidental to the design of the lens?
09-15-2008, 04:56 PM   #57
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by IsaacEastgate Quote
how the hell do i change the aperture on a DA lens? seems to be stuck on f/22. [...] another question, doesn't FF use much more glass and should therefore cost more, or is it just incidental to the design of the lens?
Hi Isaac,

I fear that the MX doesn't operate the aperture lever. Only bodies which feature automatic aperture mode, I guess. Maybe, it is possible to fix/tape the aperture lever to stay fully open. I don't know.

Yes, FF glass can use more glass and cost more. But as soon as the focal length starts to be larger than the FF image circle (43mm), the difference starts to vanish.
09-16-2008, 09:34 AM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
Just like i thought! Thanks, i will try a piece of sellotape and at least then i can use it.

I think its safe to assumer the 55-300 is a full frame lens, even if we dont have any tests.
09-16-2008, 02:04 PM - 1 Like   #59
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Posts: 159
Da 10-17

Checked it out almost a year ago under awful conditions: living room lit by ca. 100W tungsten and shot a wall with a painting- but the wall was too short for definite conclusions and dark corners and furniture spoiled it :-(
Will choose daytime target and reshoot.
My initial findings @F8 (or maybe it was 5.6- for confirmation have to reshoot anyway):

10mm: heavy vignette, nicely usable with 1.4x crop factor;
14mm: almost no vignetting (or maybe none- bad scene as I told);
17mm: no visible vignetting nor corner degradation compared to dSLR;

After seeing this thread I was surprised why I haven't attached fisheye to my film body for regular shots although I know how it behaves- must save it in my to-do list and slip DA1017 into film bag :-)

And one more thing- remember the FOV difference... it is almost impossible to hide Your feet with SLR and FE :-)
After next test I also upload the images.
Best and happy experimenting, JR
09-16-2008, 05:04 PM   #60
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by IsaacEastgate Quote
I think its safe to assumer the 55-300 is a full frame lens, even if we dont have any tests.
QuoteOriginally posted by Reps Quote
10mm: heavy vignette, nicely usable with 1.4x crop factor;
14mm: almost no vignetting (or maybe none- bad scene as I told);
17mm: no visible vignetting nor corner degradation compared to dSLR; [...] it is almost impossible to hide Your feet with SLR and FE :-)
I updated the intial post accordingly. Thanks for all the contributions.

And a new lesson: always clean shoes before shooting FE on SLR
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
60-250mm, aperture, bodies, body, camera, corner, da, da*, da* 60-250mm, f2.8, f4, ff, film, flickr, focus, frame, k-mount, lens, lenses, op, pentax, pentax lens, pm, post, sdm, sensor, shots, slr lens, tests, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA Lenses on Full Frame (DA 35 ltd) Painter Pentax Full Frame 18 05-29-2016 04:42 PM
DA lenses on Full Frame hjoseph7 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-03-2014 01:14 PM
TEST: smc PENTAX DA 35mm 2.8 Macro Limited on Full Frame vjacesslav Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 03-17-2012 06:41 AM
DA lenses on Full Frame: Test Shots falconeye Pentax Lens Articles 0 07-07-2008 02:50 PM
DA lenses on full frame sensor ZigDaPig Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 01-05-2008 11:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top