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

[Mock]

Thanks for showing! I'm a bit surprised that the vignetting is strongest at the longest focal length. For the other focal lengths, it looks highly usable for any subject where a little vignetting doesn't matter (or is desirable).

Edit: I guess you didn't use the lens hood?

Now you've stumped me, I think I took the hood off, but I was all giddy-new-camera mode so I might have overlooked it. I think it's off, or else 60 would vignette a ton.

The SR is created by moving the sensor around, including moving it further away from the center of the image, potentially making the corners both darker and less sharp.

An in-body SR camera quite naturally demands a bigger image, or conversely, an in-body SR camera will have worse corner performance.

Thank you! I was wondering why some of my shots with DA lenses seem to only have vignetting on one side (two corners). This might explain it.

SR was on for the shots above, by the way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 07:06 PM ----------

Okay, I'm going to introduce a scary topic that some users here may not be familiar with: Lens Shaving

Here is a shot from the DA 10-17 at 10mm. The flashlight illuminates the ridged built-in lens hood very clearly.



If you remove the hood, then you get a nice circular fisheye lens on the FF sensor.

There is a service in Germany that will cut the hood off for you (this link also shows examples of FF coverage): Shaved or original Tokina 10-17 mounted on a full-frame Canon 5D- Shaved Nikkor/Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye - Shaved Sigma 10mm Fisheye - Shaved Samyang 8mm Fisheye
or you can go the DIY route: Tokina 10-17 - DIY hood shaving -- Canon EF and EF-S Lenses in photography-on-the.net forums

Another interesting piece of information about the DA 10-17 comes at 14mm. It has been previously confirmed that the lens covers full-frame at this focal length, but it has another surprise. Look at these two images shot from a stationary tripod, SR off:





The top image is from the Pentax-F Fisheye 17-28mm at 17mm, it's widest setting. This lens is a 180 diagonal fisheye at 17mm, same as the 10-17 is to an APS-C camera at 10mm.
The bottom image comes from the DA 10-17 at 14mm! It has a dramatically larger field of view than the 17-28.

The difference even holds up when both lenses are focused to infinity. Anyone wanting an ultra-wide for their K-1 would do well to hold onto their 10-17.

---

Last edited by Mock; 05-03-2016 at 06:12 PM.

[ranchy]

Another interesting piece of information about the DA 10-17 comes at 14mm. It has been previously confirmed that the lens covers full-frame at this focal length, but it has another surprise. Look at these two images shot from a stationary tripod, SR off:





The top image is from the Pentax-F Fisheye 17-28mm at 17mm, it's widest setting. This lens is a 180 diagonal fisheye at 17mm, same as the 10-17 is to an APS-C camera at 10mm.
The bottom image comes from the DA 10-17 at 14mm! It has a dramatically larger field of view than the 17-28.

The difference even holds up when both lenses are focused to infinity. Anyone wanting an ultra-wide for their K-1 would do well to hold onto their 10-17.

Hi there,

Do you have any vignette when the lens is at 14mm?

For me, it seem that there seem to have some vignette, but sometime it's not as bad. weird.

My 2 shots.




Last one is with multi-exposure of K1 - 4 images.

[robthebloke]

I was impressed by my test shot using the sigma 8-16 a day or two ago, so took it out for a longer trip today. Short story: vignetting is obvious at 16mm. Sometimes, in some shots, it doesn't look bad. Most of the time it does....

On the plus side though, it's actually quite sharp on FF (compared to my other legacy ultra wide lenses). Another downside, is that you're limited to 16mm and f5.6.

[MJSfoto1956]

When I picked up my K-1 the other day I had a go with the shop's DA* 60-250 f/4, in FF mode naturally. These are straight out of camera, just resized on export from lightroom.

Seems like the DA* 60-250mm will be a good fit on the K-1 using 4x5 crop (see attached photo)

Note: a 4x5 crop of a full-frame image results in an approximate 1.14 crop factor.
Thus the 60-250mm cropped to 4:5 becomes an effective 68-285mm lens (or in very "round" numbers a 70-300mm f/4 lens).

Michael

Attached Images

 

[geomez]

Seems like the DA* 60-250mm will be a good fit on the K-1 using 4x5 crop (see attached photo)

Note: a 4x5 crop of a full-frame image results in an approximate 1.14 crop factor.
Thus the 60-250mm cropped to 4:5 becomes an effective 68-285mm lens (or in very "round" numbers a 70-300mm f/4 lens).

Michael

Looks like there's still some vignetting within your crop frame.

[UncleVanya]

Seems like the DA* 60-250mm will be a good fit on the K-1 using 4x5 crop (see attached photo)

Note: a 4x5 crop of a full-frame image results in an approximate 1.14 crop factor.
Thus the 60-250mm cropped to 4:5 becomes an effective 68-285mm lens (or in very "round" numbers a 70-300mm f/4 lens).

Michael

With the hood or without?

[MJSfoto1956]

Looks like there's still some vignetting within your crop frame.

No doubt, as this was shot at f/4 so "some" vignetting is to be expected.
Just pointing out that this DA* lens will be "serviceable" on the K-1 while still providing high res: 24Mp (square), 24Mp (1.2x crop), and 30Mp (4:5 crop).

Michael

[ChristianRock]

Anyone tried the DA 35 2.4 on the K-1 yet? I am sure it will be fine but I am curious about the corner resolution.

[clackers]

Anyone tried the DA 35 2.4 on the K-1 yet? I am sure it will be fine but I am curious about the corner resolution.

Check the sticky at the top, CR:


"DA 35mm F2.4 AL: +++ (aurele ;like FA35/2.0 and no vignetting) (frank)"


I never noticed a problem when I played with it on the A7. It's virtually a daughter of that FA35.


For new K-1 owners who won't have spare cash for decades as a result, the DA35 and DA50 are the cheapest lenses to go with the system. For some, they won't need another lens. Others, a DA70 or 100 WR Macro could be added later, to get a three prime setup.


For someone with LBA, I suppose all these suggestions of how to do things in a measured, limited and cost effective way are quite alien.

[ranchy]

Anyone tried the DA 35 2.4 on the K-1 yet? I am sure it will be fine but I am curious about the corner resolution.

Did try the DA35 2.4 but on portrait.

Could refer to the below and open up the full size to have a look. Taken at F4.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47967900@N08/26590856480/sizes/o/

[ChristianRock]

Check the sticky at the top, CR:


"DA 35mm F2.4 AL: +++ (aurele ;like FA35/2.0 and no vignetting) (frank)"


I never noticed a problem when I played with it on the A7. It's virtually a daughter of that FA35.

I know it works on film and I've seen mixed reports from Sony users, which I think might be down to the adapters used. So I was specifically asking for K-1 users if they had used the lens.

Did try the DA35 2.4 but on portrait.

Could refer to the below and open up the full size to have a look. Taken at F4.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47967900@N08/26590856480/sizes/o/

That is a great portrait!

[clackers]

I know it works on film and I've seen mixed reports from Sony users, which I think might be down to the adapters used.

But there's no adapter on film.

I own both the FA35 and DA35 and personally, I'd be hard pressed to tell apart shots taken with them.

[ChristianRock]

But there's no adapter on film.

I own both the FA35 and DA35 and personally, I'd be hard pressed to tell apart shots taken with them.

It's just a bit harder to judge border performance on film cameras and that is what I was particularly asking about. I do appreciate your comparison between the DA and the FA versions

[ranchy]

I know it works on film and I've seen mixed reports from Sony users, which I think might be down to the adapters used. So I was specifically asking for K-1 users if they had used the lens.



That is a great portrait!

Thanks..

Anyway, i don't own a FA35 but a friend does use it for his landscape. He did say he like the lens alot.

An awesome image by him..

https://flic.kr/p/GKs1EH

[micromacro]

Here is DA 21ltd on K-1 at f3.2; the first picture is with the original lens hood, and the second's with the metal hood for SuperTak 35mm.

Both pictures were taken with the same settings, from exact same spot, and focusing at the same point.