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

[froeschle]

Thanks for this collection of facts . I admire how much effort you put into testing DA(*) lenses on FF.

A direct comparison of DA* 300/4 vs. F(A)* 300/4.5 would be great. Perhaps somebody in the dfn or dslr could borrow you the F(A)* for testing.

10-17 on FF: Can_the_Zoom_Tokina_10-17mm_be_shaved
However, you additionally can remove the sun-shade : Intricate panography

[messthetics]

To be honest, I think it would be cool to have one DA lens for FF. You guys who are geeking out over the vignetting are ignoring that the effect is actually kind of cool. Sort of like a high quality pinhole camera shot. It would be a lot of fun to play around with this effect and it would give you something normal FF lenses wouldn't.

[Isaac314]

To be honest, I think it would be cool to have one DA lens for FF. You guys who are geeking out over the vignetting are ignoring that the effect is actually kind of cool. Sort of like a high quality pinhole camera shot. It would be a lot of fun to play around with this effect and it would give you something normal FF lenses wouldn't.

You are so awesome!

[falconeye]

A direct comparison of DA* 300/4 vs. F(A)* 300/4.5 would be great. Perhaps somebody in the dfn or dslr could borrow you the F(A)* for testing.

I already aquired a FA*300. Stay tuned. However, not before the days got shorter

10-17 on FF: Can_the_Zoom_Tokina_10-17mm_be_shaved

Interesting. Added note to opening page now.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 09-21-2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason: added note

[Spex]

Just found this small gallery. Last two pics were shot with DA 40/2.8 on MZ-S 35 mm body. Not so bad like charts are showing. probably because any light difference is the most visible on white background.
Pentax SMC-DA 40mm f2.8 LE "Pancake" Lens Photo Gallery by Jim King at pbase.com

>falconeye: great work man! Showing Pentax readiness for FF body, very interesting for future times

[kyrios]

This is definitely a huge contribution to the forum.

kyrios

[Substitute]

According to Y. Bourque some DA lenses will be FF.
Which that's the question...
I am waiting for the test results to either get rid of DA 16-50mm and 50-135mm or keep them...
Still I can't help thinking DA* will be FF compatible.

"Only Pentax knows which, if any, of their DA lenses were built with FF capabilities…and they’re not talking." Have them lenses talk, then

---

Last edited by Substitute; 09-22-2008 at 01:59 AM.

[falconeye]

According to Y. Bourque some DA lenses will be FF.
Which that's the question...
I am waiting for the test results to either get rid of DA 16-50mm and 50-135mm or keep them...
Still I can't help thinking DA* will be FF compatible.

"Only Pentax knows which, if any, of their DA lenses were built with FF capabilities…and they’re not talking." Have them lenses talk, then

Y. Bourque knows less than is in this thread. Not only Pentax knows. For lenses tested here, we know as well. Unfortunately, only few people shot test charts on film. I will test a FA*300 to have a comparison as it is reported that former lenses on film weren't great corner performers either

dkittle promised a test of DA*50-135. DA*16-50 and DA*60-250 are the other two much awaited entries

[elho_cid]

The DA*50-135 is indeed a stellar performer on croped camera and a great lens, but I borrowed it from my friend and attached to my Ricoh manual camera - it has better frame coverage than MZ-7. I saw black corners through all the zoom range. Maybe stopping the lens down would help, but I don't think anyone could get from film camera+this lens performance comparable with DA* capabilities when mounted on K20D.

[Spongefingers]

I saw black corners through all the zoom range. Maybe stopping the lens down would help,

It won't help if you are seeing actual black corners (not just a bit dark), because when a lens is stopped down, the border of the imaging circle increases in contrast - it contracts slightly but so does the blur at the edge. It's easier to see this with a wider lens, like the DA 18-55.

[viking79]

Here are some samples I took with the DA 55-300mm on my ZX-L using Kodak E100S. These were most likely taken wide open. Vignetting appears worse in the mid-range, than at 55mm. Virtually none at 300mm, but it is NOT a full frame lens, although the rendering is excellent, it would require a slight crop.

img309 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

img316 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

img311 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[falconeye]

@viking79. Thank you for the DA 55-300mm samples.

I tried to correct the middle focal sample for vignetting and 3 out of 4 corners didn't black out, actually (cf. attachment).

So, according to my scale, I give vignetting the following rating:
"+: visible and distracting, but can be compensated".

As for resolution, the scans unfortunately lack the level of sharpness to really know. There is no distracting loss of corner sharpness which means that it may safe to give it an overall verdict of +/++ depending on focal length
(++: 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).

I updated the initial post's summary table accordingly.

-------------------------------------------------------

@elho_cid. Thank you for checking out the DA*50-135.

Are you sure the corners black out? Sometimes it looks like but it is a -2EV darkening only. Assuming you're sure I give it a rating of
-: not usable.

I updated the initial post's summary table accordingly.

[froeschle]

Just to reanimate this discussion:
There exist adapters to fit Pentax lenses on Canon-DSLRs. Perhaps one should just mount some DA(*)s and FA(*)s on a FF-Canon and take some pictures?

[falconeye]

Just to reanimate this discussion:
There exist adapters to fit Pentax lenses on Canon-DSLRs. Perhaps one should just mount some DA(*)s and FA(*)s on a FF-Canon and take some pictures?

froeschle, as You are from Germany too: I will gladly accept a Canon 5DmkII with adapther and run some tests.

But you are right, this is a good proposition. How much is one of those adapters? And do they work with lenses w/o aperture ring?

[KjetilH]

Got the DA 17-70 today, and mounted it on my Chinon CE-4, which showed very heavy vignetting at all focal lengths. Probably won't bother shooting a single shot with it (anyway as the CE-4 doesn't have aperture control in the body).