FA24mm/2 is really weak at K-5

ogl · 11-21-2010, 01:05 AM

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565942.jpg

I've download DNG from K-5's review.
Pentax K-5 Review - PentaxForums.com Professional Reviews
Index of /content/k5review/raw

It's ISO100 file. ISO80 is much worse.
Converted in LR 3.2.
ALL NR is set to ZERO. Sharpness 40@0.8. Details 35.

It's f8 and it's really weak result for me.

And I don't understand where is the focus point? The right wall of building and the lower part of road are sharper than left and central part of photo.

Last edited by ogl; 11-21-2010 at 02:05 AM.

Adam · 11-21-2010, 01:16 AM

Indeed it looks like there are some aberrations here and there. This particular shot was hand-held, but as I didn't shoot it, I don't know where the focal point is.

The FA* 24mm hasn't gotten much praise compared to other FA* lenses. Maybe that's because its resolution just isn't good enough on digital? It's starting to sound like resolution is becoming a big deal with older wide-angle lenses.

ogl · 11-21-2010, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Indeed it looks like there are some aberrations here and there. This particular shot was hand-held, but as I didn't shoot it, I don't know where the focal point is.

The FA* 24mm hasn't gotten much praise compared to other FA* lenses. Maybe that's because its resolution just isn't good enough on digital? It's starting to sound like resolution is becoming a big deal with older wide-angle lenses.

Let's compare with K200D at f8.
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565946.jpg
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565947.jpg
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565948.jpg

Jasvox · 11-21-2010, 01:40 AM

Correct me if I am wrong.

The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole.

Jason

ogl · 11-21-2010, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Correct me if I am wrong.

The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole.

Jason

Dear Jason....I say about what my eyes see and nothing else. It's just my impression.

I don't care benchmarks and test. I see real life photos.
FA*24 is worse at K-5 than at K200D. It's all. Maybe FA*24 of reviewer is wrong...I don't know.

You are a bit wrong. The wood is VERY complex object and good lens offers very good resolution and details of wood. The first object from review is more simple for FA*24.

Manel Brand · 11-21-2010, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I don't understand where is the focus point? The right wall of building and the lower part of road are sharper than left and central part of photo.

Perhaps there isn't one in particular; furthermore, it's a tricky shot because of the high contrast of the scene, potential foliage movement and (somehow) awkward perspective, with multiple focal planes; in addition to that, Adam has stated that it was a hand-held shot which may explain some lack of definition on the left side of the image.

While I was writing down this you have posted some photos but you have to agree that they are much less demanding in terms of focal point variation, hence the better results.

Just a side note: personally, although I don't have the lens in question, I don't find wide angle lens that good for this type of photography; people generally say that wides are good for landscape and scenery but I don't find them so adequate (only use them for close-ups, macros and occasionally architectural shots). If I need a wide perspective, I would go for a pano with a 50mm lens and stitch two or three shots in PP with much better results.

ogl · 11-21-2010, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Manel Brand

Perhaps there isn't one in particular; furthermore, it's a tricky shot because of the high contrast of the scene, potential foliage movement and (somehow) awkward perspective, with multiple focal planes; in addition to that, Adam has stated that it was a hand-held shot which may explain some lack of definition on the left side of the image.

Why did they make review with bad samples?

Anyway, I ask K-5 + FA*24/2 users about good DNG samples.

**eccentricphotography** · 11-21-2010, 02:10 AM

The better the sensors get, the more glaring a lens weakness.

Manel Brand · 11-21-2010, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Why did they make review with bad samples?

Anyway, I ask K-5 + FA*24/2 users about good DNG samples.

It happens all the time. They should know better; Pixel peeping it's in the order this days.

Oh, excuse me... I didn't notice that?

Adam · 11-21-2010, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Correct me if I am wrong.

The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole.

Jason

Right- the only thing that test shot was getting at is the dynamic range at ISO 80. Can't jump to conclusions based on one bad photo.

I have a whole folder of pics taken with the 24mm, so maybe I can throw a few more up tomorrow.

Arpe · 11-21-2010, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I don't care benchmarks and test. I see real life photos.

And those photos you see, you are using as a benchmark to make your remarks about the lens. Whenever you judge a lens you are using a benchmark, like it or not. Are you not testing it when you take a photo then look closely at it and complain?

ogl · 11-21-2010, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Right- the only thing that test shot was getting at is the dynamic range at ISO 80. Can't jump to conclusions based on one bad photo.

I have a whole folder of pics taken with the 24mm, so maybe I can throw a few more up tomorrow.

Two photos. ISO80 and ISO100.
ISO80 - f8 and 1/60.
ISO100 - f8 and 1/90. I doubt that camera has any shutter blur...Or???

I'd like to understand what I can expect...I'd like to buy K-5...
FA77 + K-5's I've seen before were sharp.
FA*24 is no good at all. I'd like to understand - focus or lens problem...?

ogl · 11-21-2010, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Arpe

And those photos you see, you are using as a benchmark to make your remarks about the lens. Whenever you judge a lens you are using a benchmark, like it or not. Are you not testing it when you take a photo then look closely at it and complain?

is it prohibited to think and trying to understand why FA*24 is weak at K-5?
is it not free forum?

brkl · 11-21-2010, 07:11 AM

The FA24 is just as capable as it ever was, but no lens has infinite resolution. The K200D shots posted here show similar performance to the one from the first post, but the resolution being over a third lower, the images look sharper. Even very highly rated lenses will show flaws at 16MP, especially near the corners.

hegedus · 11-21-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by ogl

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565942.jpg

In my opinion there is something very wrong with this photo - it is either lens or the body missed focus, or something third. I think that the resolution can't be accused for the bad picture in this case, because FA 24mm is a full frame lens, and it should be capable of much larger sensor at higher resolution.

11-21-2010, 01:05 AM	#1
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	*FA24mm/2 is really weak at K-5, need good DNG from users of K-5 + FA24** http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565942.jpg I've download DNG from K-5's review. Pentax K-5 Review - PentaxForums.com Professional Reviews Index of /content/k5review/raw It's ISO100 file. ISO80 is much worse. Converted in LR 3.2. ALL NR is set to ZERO. Sharpness 40@0.8. Details 35. It's f8 and it's really weak result for me. And I don't understand where is the focus point? The right wall of building and the lower part of road are sharper than left and central part of photo. Last edited by ogl; 11-21-2010 at 02:05 AM.

11-21-2010, 01:16 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Indeed it looks like there are some aberrations here and there. This particular shot was hand-held, but as I didn't shoot it, I don't know where the focal point is. The FA* 24mm hasn't gotten much praise compared to other FA* lenses. Maybe that's because its resolution just isn't good enough on digital? It's starting to sound like resolution is becoming a big deal with older wide-angle lenses. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

11-21-2010, 02:12 AM	#10
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Originally posted by Jasvox Correct me if I am wrong. The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole. Jason Right- the only thing that test shot was getting at is the dynamic range at ISO 80. Can't jump to conclusions based on one bad photo. I have a whole folder of pics taken with the 24mm, so maybe I can throw a few more up tomorrow. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I Am Weak... (LBA)	ajuett	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	04-02-2010 12:46 AM
Two hunters in the sand ... not for you weak hearted	Rense	Post Your Photos!	13	08-13-2009 11:41 AM
too weak? not worth it?	kewpie-o	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	7	07-31-2009 01:18 PM
I am so weak... need help!!!	ACImages	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	01-03-2008 02:24 AM
please critique my work. what's strong, what's weak?	konraDarnok	Post Your Photos!	2	11-02-2007 02:53 PM

11-21-2010, 01:33 AM	#3
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam Indeed it looks like there are some aberrations here and there. This particular shot was hand-held, but as I didn't shoot it, I don't know where the focal point is. The FA* 24mm hasn't gotten much praise compared to other FA* lenses. Maybe that's because its resolution just isn't good enough on digital? It's starting to sound like resolution is becoming a big deal with older wide-angle lenses. Let's compare with K200D at f8. http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565946.jpg http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565947.jpg http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565948.jpg

11-21-2010, 01:40 AM	#4
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Correct me if I am wrong. The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole. Jason

11-21-2010, 02:02 AM	#5
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jasvox Correct me if I am wrong. The comparison is with 2 different lenses, shot by 2 different bodies, and 2 different subjects. In my mind, that isn't at all a benchmark for comparing how well an FA24 performs on the K-5, or any other body. To indeed test more accurately, the comparisons should be made using the very same lens, shooting the exact same subject under the exact same light. But even then, all we will be able to determine are the results of that very lens and not every FA24 or as a whole. Jason Dear Jason....I say about what my eyes see and nothing else. It's just my impression. I don't care benchmarks and test. I see real life photos. FA24 is worse at K-5 than at K200D. It's all. Maybe FA24 of reviewer is wrong...I don't know. You are a bit wrong. The wood is VERY complex object and good lens offers very good resolution and details of wood. The first object from review is more simple for FA*24.

11-21-2010, 02:02 AM	#6
Manel Brand Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Porto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 853	Originally posted by ogl I don't understand where is the focus point? The right wall of building and the lower part of road are sharper than left and central part of photo. Perhaps there isn't one in particular; furthermore, it's a tricky shot because of the high contrast of the scene, potential foliage movement and (somehow) awkward perspective, with multiple focal planes; in addition to that, Adam has stated that it was a hand-held shot which may explain some lack of definition on the left side of the image. While I was writing down this you have posted some photos but you have to agree that they are much less demanding in terms of focal point variation, hence the better results. Just a side note: personally, although I don't have the lens in question, I don't find wide angle lens that good for this type of photography; people generally say that wides are good for landscape and scenery but I don't find them so adequate (only use them for close-ups, macros and occasionally architectural shots). If I need a wide perspective, I would go for a pano with a 50mm lens and stitch two or three shots in PP with much better results.

11-21-2010, 02:06 AM	#7
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Manel Brand Perhaps there isn't one in particular; furthermore, it's a tricky shot because of the high contrast of the scene, potential foliage movement and (somehow) awkward perspective, with multiple focal planes; in addition to that, Adam has stated that it was a hand-held shot which may explain some lack of definition on the left side of the image. Why did they make review with bad samples? Anyway, I ask K-5 + FA*24/2 users about good DNG samples.

11-21-2010, 02:10 AM	#8
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	The better the sensors get, the more glaring a lens weakness.

11-21-2010, 02:11 AM	#9
Manel Brand Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Porto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 853	Originally posted by ogl Why did they make review with bad samples? Anyway, I ask K-5 + FA*24/2 users about good DNG samples. It happens all the time. They should know better; Pixel peeping it's in the order this days. Oh, excuse me... I didn't notice that?

11-21-2010, 02:33 AM	#11
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by ogl I don't care benchmarks and test. I see real life photos. And those photos you see, you are using as a benchmark to make your remarks about the lens. Whenever you judge a lens you are using a benchmark, like it or not. Are you not testing it when you take a photo then look closely at it and complain?

11-21-2010, 04:06 AM	#12
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam Right- the only thing that test shot was getting at is the dynamic range at ISO 80. Can't jump to conclusions based on one bad photo. I have a whole folder of pics taken with the 24mm, so maybe I can throw a few more up tomorrow. Two photos. ISO80 and ISO100. ISO80 - f8 and 1/60. ISO100 - f8 and 1/90. I doubt that camera has any shutter blur...Or??? I'd like to understand what I can expect...I'd like to buy K-5... FA77 + K-5's I've seen before were sharp. FA*24 is no good at all. I'd like to understand - focus or lens problem...?

11-21-2010, 04:11 AM	#13
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Arpe And those photos you see, you are using as a benchmark to make your remarks about the lens. Whenever you judge a lens you are using a benchmark, like it or not. Are you not testing it when you take a photo then look closely at it and complain? is it prohibited to think and trying to understand why FA*24 is weak at K-5? is it not free forum?

11-21-2010, 07:11 AM	#14
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	The FA24 is just as capable as it ever was, but no lens has infinite resolution. The K200D shots posted here show similar performance to the one from the first post, but the resolution being over a third lower, the images look sharper. Even very highly rated lenses will show flaws at 16MP, especially near the corners.

11-21-2010, 10:57 AM	#15
hegedus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Croatia Posts: 180	Originally posted by ogl http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/565942.jpg In my opinion there is something very wrong with this photo - it is either lens or the body missed focus, or something third. I think that the resolution can't be accused for the bad picture in this case, because FA 24mm is a full frame lens, and it should be capable of much larger sensor at higher resolution.