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

[abhaskare]

Looks like almost all lenses will not be able to be used on FF except few of the expensive DA* ones
Would it be technically possible to put some sort of adapter that will expand the image from DA lenses to FF?
Most of us would have the DA 18-55, 18-135, 35, 50, 42 etc.

[Glorfindelrb]

An 1.4x teleconverter should be able to do that I suppose (at the std cost of a teleconverter) but the DA 50/1.8 is already FF compatible. What is this DA 42 ?

[abhaskare]

Thanks .. Good to know 50/1.8 will work. The 42 is a typo, I meant DA 40

[ChristianRock]

Thanks .. Good to know 50/1.8 will work. The 42 is a typo, I meant DA 40

Look within this thread, or just read the first post and you'll see that the DA 35 2.4 and the 50, from your list, are fully full frame compatible. So is the DA 70 and of course the DFA 100. And the DA*55. The DA 40 works on full frame but the corners aren't great.

[clackers]

Looks like almost all lenses will not be able to be used on FF except few of the expensive DA* ones
Would it be technically possible to put some sort of adapter that will expand the image from DA lenses to FF?
Most of us would have the DA 18-55, 18-135, 35, 50, 42 etc.

Rules of thumb, Abhaskare:

1. All film era lenses will work.

2. All normal and longer DA primes should be fine.

3. Every other lens will work as long as you're happy with an APS-C field of view and a 50% reduction in the number of pixels.

[abhaskare]

Hi I did not find the DA 18-135 lens in the list above or maybe I missed it.
If someone has any info on how it will behave on FF, will be very useful!

[Rondec]

Hi I did not find the DA 18-135 lens in the list above or maybe I missed it.
If someone has any info on how it will behave on FF, will be very useful!

I am sure it is crop only. Unlikely to cover even APS-H with how weak its borders are in a lot of the range.

[MadMathMind]

An 1.4x teleconverter should be able to do that I suppose (at the std cost of a teleconverter) but the DA 50/1.8 is already FF compatible. What is this DA 42 ?

The only thing the TC gains you is pure pixels. The FoV of Lens + TC is only slightly larger than just shooting in APS-C crop mode. You lose a stop of light for this. That may be ok but it seems unless you *need* all 36+ MP working for you, you might as well just go with crop mode.

[fs999]

DA 40mm F2.8 XS is also fullframe, not aps-c as marked in the database !

[Glorfindelrb]

The only thing the TC gains you is pure pixels. The FoV of Lens + TC is only slightly larger than just shooting in APS-C crop mode. You lose a stop of light for this. That may be ok but it seems unless you *need* all 36+ MP working for you, you might as well just go with crop mode.

That's "the std cost of a tc" except that using aps lens + tc you do not loose a stop, the light you lose would not have been used or even there anyway and you're able to catch the whole resultant area. The only stop you lose is to get you're equivalence right (ie 100mm f2.8 will give you a ~150mmf4 (135 equivalent) exactly as it would on aps-c or by a crop function). You just get more raw resolution and a way better viewfinder coverage.

[abhaskare]

Look within this thread, or just read the first post and you'll see that the DA 35 2.4 and the 50, from your list, are fully full frame compatible. So is the DA 70 and of course the DFA 100. And the DA*55. The DA 40 works on full frame but the corners aren't great.

Just curious - I found in the sticky mention of 35/2.4, however don't see any 50/1.8 .. Is it in a post or somewhere else please?

[robthebloke]

Just curious - I found in the sticky mention of 35/2.4, however don't see any 50/1.8 .. Is it in a post or somewhere else please?

I posted about some pages back. If you look for my review for the lens in the database, you'll see a couple of film shots there. Works fine on full frame

[clackers]

Just curious - I found in the sticky mention of 35/2.4, however don't see any 50/1.8 .. Is it in a post or somewhere else please?

I've shot with it on an A7, it's fine. ☺

[Mock]

The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and DA* 50-135 f/2.8 are the workhorses of my APS-C kit, but I've got a K-1 pre-ordered so their days may be numbered. I've been unsatisfied with the FF-compatibility tests of these 2 lenses I've seen online, so I decided to conduct my own. Real world shots, I don't derive any value from brick walls or test charts, YMMV.
All the following were shot on a Pentax PZ-1, the film was scanned with a Lomography Digitaliza mask on an Epson V600. This mask allows you to scan the entire 35mm strip (including sprockets) if you're so inclined, so you don't lose any of the frame edges. All the shots have at least 2 of the frame edges intact, so you can evaluate the level of vignetting for yourself. Lens hoods and filters were not used at all. Click through to the flickr pages for higher resolution.

It's really a matter of opinion, but I think the DA* 50-135 is usable (++) at 130-135mm, at any aperture. There is a bit of vignetting when stopped down, but nothing that a LR lens profile correction can't take care of.
I also tried 50-60mm and they're both a (-) rating with severe vignetting at any aperture. I didn't try any setting between 60-130mm, so I'll reserve judgment on those until later.


DA* 50-135, 50mm @ f/2.8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 60mm @ f/8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 130mm @ f/8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 135mm @ f/2.8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 135mm @ f/5.6 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 135mm @ f/5.6 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 135mm @ f/5.6 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


DA* 50-135, 135mm @ f/5.6 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

Regarding the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I didn't take any shots between 18-23mm because the vignetting is clearly visible in the viewfinder.
Results at 24mm depend on focus distance: At minimum focus distance, 24mm gets a (++) from me, tested at f/1.8 and f/4. Anything further than MFD and you get vignetting in the extreme corners, rendering a (-) result, but still salvageable if you crop just a bit.


Sigma 18-35, 24mm @ f/1.8, close focus distance by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 24mm @ f/4, close focus distance by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 24mm @ f/4, medium focus distance by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 24mm @ f/2, medium focus distance by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 24mm @ f/1.8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

I only took one shot at 26mm, f/8. There is a minuscule amount of vignetting at this setting, but not totally black, an extreme amount of vignette correction might get the shot close to usable. I'll call it an (o) result for now.


Sigma 18-35, 26mm @ f/8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

Shots at 28mm are good for my taste, the amount of vignetting can be corrected for with an LR profile. Tested at f/2, f/5.6, and f/8. 28mm gets a (++) imo.


Sigma 18-35, 28mm @ f/2 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 28mm @ f/5.6 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 28mm @ f/8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

No problems at 35mm at all, personally I will give 35mm a (+++), but a slight loss of some corner sharpness could make it a (++) for some people.


Sigma 18-35 @ 35mm f/1.8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 35mm @ f/2 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr


Sigma 18-35, 35mm @ f/8 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

In conclusion, I think I'm going to keep both lenses. The DA* 50-135 still functions as a DA* 135mm f/2.8, I have other MF FF 135s I can use, but it's nice to know I still have an AF weather-sealed one to use too.
The Sigma 18-35 becomes a 28-35mm f/1.8, and that's a great range for walk-around low light. I won't need to splurge out on a 31 Limited just yet. While 24mm is good at MFD, I have a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 which is what I'll primarily be using for that FL.

---------------------------------------------------
Bonus shot! Another (+++) vote for the DA* 55, but I already knew this was good on FF.
I've added a bit of PP vignetting on this one.


DA* 55 f/1.4, 55mm @ f/1.4 by Kurt Bauschardt, on Flickr

[abhaskare]

IMO .. these are not acceptable as FF lenses. The vignetting is just too visible and if you are going to crop, then why bother FF!