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

[SteveD]

I am new to the forum and Pentax. Was using Olympus but missed the mirror. Am enjoying the K-1 very much. Based on what I saw here I bought the DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM used in great shape. To test it at the store I stepped outside and took the shot here. I re-sized the raw from the camera to reduce it in Photoshop. The top of the image shows no correction like I think I see in the jpg.


PEF reduced no other touch up:





Jpg reduced no other touch up:

[GeneV]

What would be interesting is to pit this result against an FA 35 f/2 to see if there is a significant improvement in vignetting.

Very quick and dirty comparison on the K1, and it appears the wall is not evenly lit, with more light coming from the right, so only the corners on the same sides should be compared. However, it seems to me that the top photo with the FA 35 at F/2.5 has significantly less vignetting than the bottom, DA 35 F/2.4. I'll try some better ones with studio lighting, but my take is that the FA virtually eliminates vignetting at F/4, while the DA requires F/5.6 to get to the same place. It is also interesting that the FA renders warmer.

[falconeye]

I think that GeneV's test is a nice reminder that many genuine full frame lenses do vignette quite a bit as well.

I appreiate the recent entries shot with a K-1. Thank's a lot.

Nevertheless, may I suggest to provide a few corner crops as well, so everybody can assess sharpness on full frame, besides vignetting?

[SteveD]

Not sure whether to reply or edit the original but here goes. These are the top 2 corners from the brick wall. The bottom corners are far enough forward that they are a bit out of focus. I can upload those as well if useful. Untouched from the PEF saved with Photoshop.


Top left





top right

[falconeye]

I just wanted to pin here this thread:
-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/304092-da-60-250-mod-ff.html
It reenforces the ++ rating the lens got in the thread OP.

[mee]

I just wanted to pin here this thread:
-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/304092-da-60-250-mod-ff.html
It reenforces the ++ rating the lens got in the thread OP.

It is a '+' or an 'o' without the potentially dangerous (and permanent to the baffle if you cut it) modification.

I wouldn't want to give anyone the impression it doesn't vignette on FF out of the gate..

[ZombieArmy]

Goes to show just how much of a carbon copy the DA 40 was of its manual predecessor. Impressive on full frame.

[adriano210]

SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 XS work on k-1 great

[Barry Pearson]

I now have a de-baffled (is that a word?) DA* 60-250mm f/4 lens. I've started to do some systematic testing on the K-1 at FF. I'm posting to this thread at DPReview:

Tests of de-baffled 60-250mm on K-1 at FF

My summary so far, based on the tests and conclusions in the 2nd post in that thread, is:

I now view this as a good 135-250mm f/4 FF lens:
At 135mm, it is good at FF at f/8.
At 200mm, it is good at FF at f/5.6.
At 250mm, it is good at FF at f/4.
It improves on stopping down.

I have better and lighter lenses covering the range wider than 135mm:
At 60mm, it is best seen as an APS-C lens, and never becomes a plausible FF lens.
At 85mm, it is just about OK as an FF lens at f/11.

Other people, with different standards for different purposes, will probably disagree!

I expect to continue with tests and field experience, and then will add to that thread.

For interest, I used a "non-destructive" form of debaffling. I could restore it to its original state in perhaps less than an hour.

[icy]

how about the lens 35mm f/2.8 limited HD version? Hope Pentax can support it in FF

[UncleVanya]

how about the lens 35mm f/2.8 limited HD version? Hope Pentax can support it in FF

Various results have been reported. Here's a good example of one:
diglloyd: Pentax DA HD Limited 35mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: 'Map' (Pentax K1 SuperRes)

The lens seems to vignette up to about f/5.6 or f/8 per the reports I have seen. However you can crop larger than APSC and less than FF and get pretty useful images as you might surmise from the f/2.8 shot linked above. I'd say it is not really "full frame" but it is pretty close stopped down and offers more than APSC - however to be clear I do not have the lens or a FULL frame DSLR to test it on.

[clackers]

how about the lens 35mm f/2.8 limited HD version? Hope Pentax can support it in FF

It is listed and rated in the sticky at the top of the page, Icy.

[icy]

It is listed and rated in the sticky at the top of the page, Icy.

Yes I saw that, but the HD version isn't there. Unless we assume both HD and SMC versions are the same...

[clackers]

Yes I saw that, but the HD version isn't there. Unless we assume both HD and SMC versions are the same...

Well, I'd assume the coatings are different, but not the image circle.

[BarryE]

[B][U]

Rob, when you tried the 50-135 was there a smaller aperture where it became usable ? I'm thinking f5.6 or f8 and above, perhaps ...What were the corners & edges like ? Mushy ? I'm vaguely thinking that I might be able to pair the 50-135 with the d-fa 24-70 on a k-1 as a temporary measure while I decide if I should upgrade. Thanks.