Canon lenses; why only 8 blades?

TOUGEFC · 01-10-2012, 11:24 PM

Ive been looking at lenses alot lately from both Nikon and Canon, just checking out prices and specs, and what I would choose when I jump to FF.

One thing Ive noticed (only been looking at the primes) is that alot of canon lenses even the "L" glass has only 8 blades, what gives?
Where as the Nikon lenses have 9 blades in alot of their lenses.

Ive seen pics from the 50mm f/1.2 stopped down to just f/1.6 and ugly octagon bokeh higlights has started to appear

. Why arnt they giving these lenses 9 blades?

Just based on apertures blades, the Nikon lenses look more appealling.

_quicksilver_ · 01-10-2012, 11:52 PM

Hi,

I have been doing the same kind of research lately.

Nikon seems to be more about primes, but on the other hand, Canon has some very nice glass as well. There is a very nice gallery from Joseph James, who shoots Canon 5D mark I, with Canon´s prime offerings. They seem to deliver! Especially I like the rendering of EF 100/2, which is quite affordable lens...

Have a look here: joe's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

There´s plenty of pictures to see some real life samples of what these lenses can do.

Sinister · 01-11-2012, 04:01 AM

When comparing lenses, i.e. what you would use when you jump on FF, you should take the wheight into consideration as well. I had a 5D at home and built up a comparable lens setup (in excel). Then I realized, that I would have to carry more than 1,5kg more while also having a bigger equipment in terms of size. Moreover, I'd loose the stabilization and wheather resistance. Hence, I sold the 5D and kept my K5.

You'll find my comparison (unfortunately in German) here, with the table and comparison shots: click

_quicksilver_ · 01-11-2012, 05:14 AM

Interesting comparison Sinister!

Pentax is of course very good in making small, rugged bodies and lenses. I have all the FA limiteds and I´m very pleased with them. Unfortunately Pentax doesn´t offer a full-frame camera to use them. Sure, I shoot film Pentax as well, but I would like to move into digital FF. And I wouldn´t mind carrying some extra weight for the gains in IQ and the much debated "FF-look".

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

Just based on apertures blades, the Nikon lenses look more appealling.

Not sure about Sony but Minolta used to be big on bokeh and round aperture. Personally I am not too bothered by the shape, but rather, the symmetry when stopped down.

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by _quicksilver_

Pentax is of course very good in making small, rugged bodies and lenses. I have all the FA limiteds and I´m very pleased with them. Unfortunately Pentax doesn´t offer a full-frame camera to use them. Sure, I shoot film Pentax as well, but I would like to move into digital FF. And I wouldn´t mind carrying some extra weight for the gains in IQ and the much debated "FF-look".

I think at least the FA43/77 won't be good on FF so the urge of using them on FF is minimal. Will look at the coming X Pro1 closely. If their fast primes are good and affordable, maybe it's time for me to quit. Dragging heavy equipments can be tiresome as one grows older.

_quicksilver_ · 01-11-2012, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

I think at least the FA43/77 won't be good on FF so the urge of using them on FF is minimal. Will look at the coming X Pro1 closely. If their fast primes are good and affordable, maybe it's time for me to quit. Dragging heavy equipments can be tiresome as one grows older.

Well, my experience is quite the opposite! All three work wonderfully at least on film FF.

Sinister · 01-11-2012, 06:37 AM

and they perform on a Canon 5D as well - you can find examples in the forum!

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by _quicksilver_

Well, my experience is quite the opposite! All three work wonderfully at least on film FF.

My FA Limited were acquired when I was shooting film. I was happy with the 31 & 77, but the 43 showed barrel distortion and weak edge sharpness at 5.6. On APS-C DSLRs, the 43 is awesome from 2.8 but really soft wide open. The 77 has weak non-center sharpness until 4. The 31 remains great. 77 & 31 have CA issue on digital too. I wouldn't really label them as poor overall, but one can do better for the same amount of budget.

Originally posted by Sinister

and they perform on a Canon 5D as well - you can find examples in the forum!

Would love to see some full size samples. I have seen some shots from Zeiss lenses on 5DII with awesome sharpness corner to corner. I have yet to see the same kind of quality from Pentax lenses.

JinDesu · 01-11-2012, 07:14 AM

My understanding of Pentax lenses, even the best ones from the manual days, is that Pentax focused more on center sharpness than anything else.

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

My understanding of Pentax lenses, even the best ones from the manual days, is that Pentax focused more on center sharpness than anything else.

That has been my experience in general, and those lenses are great for snaps, but weak on landscape.

JinDesu · 01-11-2012, 07:30 AM

I read on the forum that a lot of the lenses were made more for portraiture, where center sharpness is paramount (and also the bokeh, rendering, etc). Hence why the legendary lenses of Pentax when compared to Leica or Zeiss lenses lose out in corner and edge sharpness, but sometimes exceed in center sharpness.

As for landscapes, stick that FA 50mm F2.8 macro on a full frame and voila, sharpness from corner to corner that beats pretty much anything I can think of.

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 07:53 AM

But I think time has changed and many portraits are now done off-centre toward wide open. You can tell when the subject just jumps off the picture with razer sharpness and very shallow DOF. It cannot be done with lenses only good at centre sharpness toward wide open.

Lens design is all about compromise; even sharpness, flat field and low distortion are much more difficult to design. I think either the Pentax optical engineers were not up to the jobs, or they didn't spend much resource on designing them, or they simply didn't care, IMHO anyway.

**Rondec** · 01-11-2012, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

But I think time has changed and many portraits are now done off-centre toward wide open. You can tell when the subject just jumps off the picture with razer sharpness and very shallow DOF. It cannot be done with lenses only good at centre sharpness toward wide open.

Lens design is all about compromise; even sharpness, flat field and low distortion are much more difficult to design. I think either the Pentax optical engineers were not up to the jobs, or they didn't spend much resource on designing them, or they simply didn't care, IMHO anyway.

I understand that you aren't a big fan of Pentax anything (lenses, cameras, etc), but there are some strong lenses in the line up, including the FA limiteds, the DA limiteds. Clearly Canon also makes good lenses and if a photographer can't take good photos with either line up, it is not the fault of the lenses. On the other hand, bokeh is something that requires special attention in the design process, more than what you indicate in your statement and many lenses with good sharpness (even corner sharpness) do not have good out of focus rendering.

wlachan · 01-11-2012, 10:04 AM

Although there is no objective way of testing bokeh, I think there are 3 basic parameters - aperture shape, evenness & 3D quality (highly subjective imho). People on different forums often brag about the bokeh of their own brands, and one can be confused on what to believe. With my own eyes at least, Pentax lenses in general, tend to produce bright-ring bokeh, or called donut bokeh (or whatever one might like to call it). Also, only a selected few have almost circular aperture when stopped down.

That leaves what we called 3D quality which, I have no idea how to put it. Back when I was shooting film, viewing slides using the Schneider 4X MC was a joy and every slide looked so 3D, Pentax lenses or not. However, those same slides under the Cabin, Nikon or Pentax loupes just looked so flat. When evaluating 3D quality on digital, are we really judging the lenses, the sensors, the monitors, or even the post-processings (in-camera or Photoshop etc)? Did the shooting distances playing tricks on our eyes? Up till now, with my limited experience, the only Pentax lens that produces the "wow" factor is the FA31, on film or digital. The images just look more "lively" (again highly subjective). The FA43 & 77 are just meh. What I have noticed is that people tend to judge a lens by its built quality and peer opinions. Optically however, they don't necessarily suppress the competitions.

01-10-2012, 11:24 PM	#1
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Canon lenses; why only 8 blades? Ive been looking at lenses alot lately from both Nikon and Canon, just checking out prices and specs, and what I would choose when I jump to FF. One thing Ive noticed (only been looking at the primes) is that alot of canon lenses even the "L" glass has only 8 blades, what gives? Where as the Nikon lenses have 9 blades in alot of their lenses. Ive seen pics from the 50mm f/1.2 stopped down to just f/1.6 and ugly octagon bokeh higlights has started to appear . Why arnt they giving these lenses 9 blades? Just based on apertures blades, the Nikon lenses look more appealling.

01-11-2012, 04:01 AM	#3
Sinister Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,045	When comparing lenses, i.e. what you would use when you jump on FF, you should take the wheight into consideration as well. I had a 5D at home and built up a comparable lens setup (in excel). Then I realized, that I would have to carry more than 1,5kg more while also having a bigger equipment in terms of size. Moreover, I'd loose the stabilization and wheather resistance. Hence, I sold the 5D and kept my K5. You'll find my comparison (unfortunately in German) here, with the table and comparison shots: click Last edited by Sinister; 01-11-2012 at 05:18 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentacon 135mm F2.8 ~ 15 blades = BOKEH MONSTER ~ 6 blades = NOT ?	minahasa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	04-03-2021 05:35 PM
Pentax-A lenses on Canon	Varash	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	8	01-25-2011 03:49 PM
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Is there an adapter for Canon FD lenses?	Deniz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	04-24-2010 05:26 AM
Certain Canon lenses that don't have IS?	LeDave	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	17	03-15-2010 07:28 PM

01-10-2012, 11:52 PM	#2
_quicksilver_ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 207	Hi, I have been doing the same kind of research lately. Nikon seems to be more about primes, but on the other hand, Canon has some very nice glass as well. There is a very nice gallery from Joseph James, who shoots Canon 5D mark I, with Canon´s prime offerings. They seem to deliver! Especially I like the rendering of EF 100/2, which is quite affordable lens... Have a look here: joe's Photo Galleries at pbase.com There´s plenty of pictures to see some real life samples of what these lenses can do.

01-11-2012, 05:14 AM	#4
_quicksilver_ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 207	Interesting comparison Sinister! Pentax is of course very good in making small, rugged bodies and lenses. I have all the FA limiteds and I´m very pleased with them. Unfortunately Pentax doesn´t offer a full-frame camera to use them. Sure, I shoot film Pentax as well, but I would like to move into digital FF. And I wouldn´t mind carrying some extra weight for the gains in IQ and the much debated "FF-look".

01-11-2012, 05:44 AM	#5
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by TOUGEFC Just based on apertures blades, the Nikon lenses look more appealling. Not sure about Sony but Minolta used to be big on bokeh and round aperture. Personally I am not too bothered by the shape, but rather, the symmetry when stopped down.

01-11-2012, 05:49 AM	#6
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by _quicksilver_ Pentax is of course very good in making small, rugged bodies and lenses. I have all the FA limiteds and I´m very pleased with them. Unfortunately Pentax doesn´t offer a full-frame camera to use them. Sure, I shoot film Pentax as well, but I would like to move into digital FF. And I wouldn´t mind carrying some extra weight for the gains in IQ and the much debated "FF-look". I think at least the FA43/77 won't be good on FF so the urge of using them on FF is minimal. Will look at the coming X Pro1 closely. If their fast primes are good and affordable, maybe it's time for me to quit. Dragging heavy equipments can be tiresome as one grows older.

01-11-2012, 06:33 AM	#7
_quicksilver_ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 207	Originally posted by wlachan I think at least the FA43/77 won't be good on FF so the urge of using them on FF is minimal. Will look at the coming X Pro1 closely. If their fast primes are good and affordable, maybe it's time for me to quit. Dragging heavy equipments can be tiresome as one grows older. Well, my experience is quite the opposite! All three work wonderfully at least on film FF.

01-11-2012, 06:37 AM	#8
Sinister Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,045	and they perform on a Canon 5D as well - you can find examples in the forum!

01-11-2012, 07:07 AM	#9
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by _quicksilver_ Well, my experience is quite the opposite! All three work wonderfully at least on film FF. My FA Limited were acquired when I was shooting film. I was happy with the 31 & 77, but the 43 showed barrel distortion and weak edge sharpness at 5.6. On APS-C DSLRs, the 43 is awesome from 2.8 but really soft wide open. The 77 has weak non-center sharpness until 4. The 31 remains great. 77 & 31 have CA issue on digital too. I wouldn't really label them as poor overall, but one can do better for the same amount of budget. Originally posted by Sinister and they perform on a Canon 5D as well - you can find examples in the forum! Would love to see some full size samples. I have seen some shots from Zeiss lenses on 5DII with awesome sharpness corner to corner. I have yet to see the same kind of quality from Pentax lenses.

01-11-2012, 07:14 AM	#10
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	My understanding of Pentax lenses, even the best ones from the manual days, is that Pentax focused more on center sharpness than anything else.

01-11-2012, 07:26 AM	#11
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by JinDesu My understanding of Pentax lenses, even the best ones from the manual days, is that Pentax focused more on center sharpness than anything else. That has been my experience in general, and those lenses are great for snaps, but weak on landscape.

01-11-2012, 07:30 AM	#12
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I read on the forum that a lot of the lenses were made more for portraiture, where center sharpness is paramount (and also the bokeh, rendering, etc). Hence why the legendary lenses of Pentax when compared to Leica or Zeiss lenses lose out in corner and edge sharpness, but sometimes exceed in center sharpness. As for landscapes, stick that FA 50mm F2.8 macro on a full frame and voila, sharpness from corner to corner that beats pretty much anything I can think of.

01-11-2012, 07:53 AM	#13
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	But I think time has changed and many portraits are now done off-centre toward wide open. You can tell when the subject just jumps off the picture with razer sharpness and very shallow DOF. It cannot be done with lenses only good at centre sharpness toward wide open. Lens design is all about compromise; even sharpness, flat field and low distortion are much more difficult to design. I think either the Pentax optical engineers were not up to the jobs, or they didn't spend much resource on designing them, or they simply didn't care, IMHO anyway.

01-11-2012, 09:05 AM	#14
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by wlachan But I think time has changed and many portraits are now done off-centre toward wide open. You can tell when the subject just jumps off the picture with razer sharpness and very shallow DOF. It cannot be done with lenses only good at centre sharpness toward wide open. Lens design is all about compromise; even sharpness, flat field and low distortion are much more difficult to design. I think either the Pentax optical engineers were not up to the jobs, or they didn't spend much resource on designing them, or they simply didn't care, IMHO anyway. I understand that you aren't a big fan of Pentax anything (lenses, cameras, etc), but there are some strong lenses in the line up, including the FA limiteds, the DA limiteds. Clearly Canon also makes good lenses and if a photographer can't take good photos with either line up, it is not the fault of the lenses. On the other hand, bokeh is something that requires special attention in the design process, more than what you indicate in your statement and many lenses with good sharpness (even corner sharpness) do not have good out of focus rendering.

01-11-2012, 10:04 AM	#15
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Although there is no objective way of testing bokeh, I think there are 3 basic parameters - aperture shape, evenness & 3D quality (highly subjective imho). People on different forums often brag about the bokeh of their own brands, and one can be confused on what to believe. With my own eyes at least, Pentax lenses in general, tend to produce bright-ring bokeh, or called donut bokeh (or whatever one might like to call it). Also, only a selected few have almost circular aperture when stopped down. That leaves what we called 3D quality which, I have no idea how to put it. Back when I was shooting film, viewing slides using the Schneider 4X MC was a joy and every slide looked so 3D, Pentax lenses or not. However, those same slides under the Cabin, Nikon or Pentax loupes just looked so flat. When evaluating 3D quality on digital, are we really judging the lenses, the sensors, the monitors, or even the post-processings (in-camera or Photoshop etc)? Did the shooting distances playing tricks on our eyes? Up till now, with my limited experience, the only Pentax lens that produces the "wow" factor is the FA31, on film or digital. The images just look more "lively" (again highly subjective). The FA43 & 77 are just meh. What I have noticed is that people tend to judge a lens by its built quality and peer opinions. Optically however, they don't necessarily suppress the competitions.