DAs Versus Kit


lemmy

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 17:53
I've done some non-scientific tests on my 15, 35 and 70mm DA lenses comnpared with my kit lenses Here.
They make interesting viewing - but feel free to criticise my methods!
lemmy
My Home Pages, Cartoons and Videos

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 18:11
Er, kit lens at 70mm?

I'm surprised by the 15mm one, and also the 35mm to be honest (in the centre). Did you bracket your focusing? Could it be that there's a focusing error with the primes?

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

CraigF1969

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 18:22
Kit lens performs very well apart from at the edges.
Thought the primes would have been a lot better though.

shim

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 19:20
My Mk 1 kit lens is sharper than everything I've compared it with.
So far that's 55-300mm zoom, 10-20mm Sigma, 50mm FA f/1.4

The is a 200% enlargement of a 100% (1:1) crop. The kit lens is on the Right and the 50mm f/1.4 is on the left (the sun was out on that one) hard to see any difference. The aperture was f/5.6 which should be optimum for the 50mm but poor for the kit. The distance was about 120m (guess)




shim

lemmy

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 23:22
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Er, kit lens at 70mm?

I'm surprised by the 15mm one, and also the 35mm to be honest (in the centre). Did you bracket your focusing? Could it be that there's a focusing error with the primes?

Dan

I don't understand the first quote. My camera came with two kit lenses which go from 18 to 200mm between them.

The focussing on all my lenses is accurate and the same (checked by me for all my lenses). The results here are picked from several focussing efforts and in each case manual focussing either side of the autofocus results is less sharp than the auto. As it should be and you'd expect of a relatively expensive camera, of course.
lemmy
My Home Pages, Cartoons and Videos

nathanever82

Link Posted 23/05/2009 - 23:53
Usually by kit lens we intend the DA 18-55mm M I or II , so reading your first post, it was unclear as where you could find 70mm on an 18-55mm lens.

Cameras are bundled with lenses to help buyers. They don't "come with lenses" - they are DSLR's and therefore could easily come with a 300mm lens instead of the 18-55mm.

Although I appreciate your certainty in assessing the correct focus of your prime lenses, perhaps a thorough examination with focus chart and shots at various apertures would allow (us) to understand why a 15mm limited prime lens that costs much more than an 18-55 is so much less sharp than the zoom.

It is indeed very common for prime lenses to be slightly front focussing, or back focussing, and the results would become apparent in a test like the one you carried out.

Regards,
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'

www.nathanservi.com & PPG

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 24/05/2009 - 00:31
nathanever82 wrote:
Usually by kit lens we intend the DA 18-55mm M I or II , so reading your first post, it was unclear as where you could find 70mm on an 18-55mm lens.

Exactly, thank you Nathan.

lemmy wrote:
The results here are picked from several focussing efforts and in each case manual focussing either side of the autofocus results is less sharp than the auto.

Well, if that's the case, and you're sure that the focusing is as good as it gets, then I would get that 15mm replaced for a start. From what I've read and heard from other users, I would expect more from the 35mm too.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

Anvh

Link Posted 24/05/2009 - 00:56
This a full photo of the DA35mm on f/2.8 his softest aperture
link
This one at f/8 link
If you compare it to your photos you would say it's a completely differend lens.
Are you really sure that your focus was correct?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

mr.mellow

Link Posted 24/05/2009 - 12:13
I think my copy of the 18-55mm lens is very good and I am very happy with it. Have a look at some of the photos I have posted.
The older I get the faster I was.
Dave
K-3 II, K10D, DA16-85, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA18-55, DA 50, Sigma EX DG 70mm Macro, Sigma 70-300mm, Sigma DG 120-400mm APO HSM.
Metz 58 AF-1.

My Flickr link

lemmy

Link Posted 25/05/2009 - 11:25
Anvh, my full frame shots posted look at least as sharp, if not sharper than the ones you post. But you cannot compare yours with my crops of the frame at 100%, of course.

Daniel, all of the primes are excellent lenses in day to day use, so I don't see why I would get rid of them. Look at the distortion free performance of the 15mm. Look at the full frame shot. You wouldn't be unhappy with that, would you? I'm not, anyway.

Remember, no sharpening has been applied at any stage to these shots. They show the out of camera RAW performance. To compare them with your own, you must sharpen them in the same way you would your own.

Also, the 100% shots would require a 54x36 inch monitor to display the full image. You would view that from a lot further away than the monitors we normally use so the image would give a quite different imopression of sharpness.

I agree, mr Mellow, the original 18-55 is as good as anyone would ever normally need (better, probably, especially stopped down a bit). I like the primes because I can fit the camera body and 15mm in one pocket of my walking/ cycling jacket and the other two lenses in another and cover wide, normal, macro and short tele in a couple of pockets but especially because I like the solid, smooth quality feel of them which feels more like my Hasselblad, Nikon, Leics, professional days.

And all for less than the cost of a big plasma tele....
lemmy
My Home Pages, Cartoons and Videos

Anvh

Link Posted 25/05/2009 - 14:36
lemmy wrote:
Anvh, my full frame shots posted look at least as sharp, if not sharper than the ones you post. But you cannot compare yours with my crops of the frame at 100%, of course.



Lemmy DA35mm f/4.5 100% centre Samsung GX10




Photozone DA35mm f/2.8 100% off centre K10D




Photozone DA35mm f/8 100% off centre K10D


Is this better lemmy?
I thought I linked you to the full frame photos but guess not.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 25/05/2009 - 14:38

lemmy

Link Posted 25/05/2009 - 22:47
Thanks Stefan - my results look very similar or a little better than yours, my subject being much more exacting in detail terms, maybe the difference between your f2.8 and my f.4.5.

I don't see the relevance of the f8 shot but my lens gives rather better sharpness than yours seems to at f8. However, my shots are almost always tripod mounted and this does make a difference.

You don't say what ISO you use or if any sharpening has been applied. My shots are all straight from the camera RAW, no sharpening at all and 100 iso.

The apparent detail on my 35mm and 15mm after careful sharpening is excellent. The kit lens is excellent, too, as tests have averred.
lemmy
My Home Pages, Cartoons and Videos

Anvh

Link Posted 25/05/2009 - 23:13
Lemmy Those aren't my shot and the EXIF data says iso200 and iso800.
I don't have a DA35 so it's hard to make a test shot with them but I can do it with the DA40.

The site that these photos come from do lens reviews so I assume that they wouldn't processed there photos, if they do it wouldn't be a fair to compare with other lenses.

It's simply that I'm questioning that prime lenses preform worse then a kit lens and many other have their question marks with that too.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 26/05/2009 - 00:31
lemmy wrote:
Daniel, all of the primes are excellent lenses in day to day use, so I don't see why I would get rid of them. Look at the distortion free performance of the 15mm. Look at the full frame shot. You wouldn't be unhappy with that, would you? I'm not, anyway.

Well, I was just comparing them to the results I might expect, and they looked to fall short to me.

When I got my DA*300mm I was amazed at the detail it produced, here's a shot:



That's shown at 100% (i.e. full size and cropped down), and sharpened. I tried exactly the same sharpening on the section of bricks that Stefan posted and it didn't come close to this. (See this thread for this photo in context, and other examples).

Personally I would be a little unhappy with your lens, but if you're happy with it, that's all that matters. It really looks like it's out of focus to me though.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

nathanever82

Link Posted 26/05/2009 - 09:21
I completely agree with Daniel.

What is astonishing to me is the fact that with your "Hasselblad, Nikon, Leics, professional days" - can consider these results acceptable.

Surely your experience should tell you that a 400 lens SHOULD be sharper than that, and if it isn't then PROBABLY there's a focus issue which you haven't been able to takle.

Maybe this article will explain why, we insist on the fact that your lenses seem to have FF or BF situations.
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths


Regards,
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'

www.nathanservi.com & PPG
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.