Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

FA 31 Limited - why is it so good?

Frogfish
Posted 26/01/2013 - 05:12 Link
Whilst I no longer own a Pentax camera (I'm skipping this K5 generation, I'm sure the next one will be something special) I've kept some 'special' lenses, liberally dusted with Pixie Dust, that I won't sell :
15 Ltd (fitted with an invisible polariser everything that comes out of this gem seems to have been already processed for colour and sharpness),
43 Ltd (my first Pentax lens, bought before I even had a Pentax camera. Stunning sharpness, rendering and functionality).
77 Ltd (is there a better portrait lens ? I've not seen one, this produces magic in my eyes)
The other two I've kept are the Cosina 55/1.2 and Lensbaby set, both specialised lenses with an output unlike any other.

If anyone hasn't seen it then this is an article, old article granted, to make any Limited owner glow with pride :

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Edited by Frogfish: 26/01/2013 - 05:16
screwdriver
Posted 26/01/2013 - 11:57 Link
What makes one lens 'better' than another is something that has absorbed me for a long time.

What I've found is that lens design falls into two camps, there are many considerations to take into account when designing lenses and all lens designs are a compromise between conflicting parameters.

The German manufacturers, with their usual Teutonic efficiency, went with what you can measure, mainly resolution, lines per mm.

The Japanese went with a more aesthetic mandate and produce lenses that render better, don't ask me to define 'render' there is no S.I. unit for it LOL.

Most lenses are 'tested' on a flatly lit 2D test chart, so the 'measurbater' lenses win every time, mainly because contrast doesn't enter into it much.

But illuminate a 3D subject with 45° lighting (which is what photography does most of the time) and the aesthetic lenses begin to shine (pun intended) through, higher colour contrast makes them much more 3D than the German lenses. They are much more pleasing to look at and seem to have more 'pop', at least to my eye.

There are other lenses that have performed for me, Yashica (I know they are made in the same factory as Zeiss), but you can get a 'Monday morning' lens, you can also get a 'Friday afternoon just before a Bank Holiday' lens which will make your jaw drop, and they're so cheap second hand (go with those marked MC, multi-coated ones).

Olympus have never made a bad lens.

There isn't a lens made that will perform well in all lighting, lighting matters so much for image quality, some lenses prefer diffused and render all the subtle beauty of the light, some lenses 'sing' when the light is Direct and contrasty. It's very rare that you will find a lens that is totally comfortable with both.

Rest assured that any of the Pentax L series primes are at least on a par with the finest lenses from any manufacturer, and often 'better', whatever constitutes better in this discussion.

I've recently had a chance to test out Samyang lenses, and have been very pleasantly surprised, they do tend to have a little 'production spread', but what I've seen are very good. Good even at wide apertures. Always a good test for a lens.

There are no 'bad' lenses out there anymore, most lenses these days from all manufacturers are designed using Sigma software which even works out all the CNC machine codes for manufacturing too, Sigma have been 'reverse engineering' lenses for years, which is why they developed the software in the first place which is very good at determining the best compromise in design, and it shows in their lenses.
Chris
Edited by screwdriver: 26/01/2013 - 12:10
Frogfish
Posted 26/01/2013 - 12:05 Link
screwdriver wrote:
The German manufacturers, with their usual Teutonic efficiency, went with what you can measure, mainly resolution, lines per mm.

The Japanese went with a more aesthetic mandate and produce lenses that render better, don't ask me to define 'render' there is no S.I. unit for it LOL.

Most lenses are 'tested' on a flatly lit 2D test chart, so the 'measurbater' lenses win every time, mainly because contrast doesn't enter into it much.

But illuminate a 3D subject with 45° lighting (which is what photography does most of the time) and the aesthetic lenses begin to shine (pun intended) through, higher colour contrast makes them much more 3D than the German lenses. They are much more pleasing to look at and seem to have more 'pop', at least to my eye.

I think many people would strongly debate those assertions Chris. I have (had) 5 Zeiss lenses and not only is their sharpness jaw dropping but their rendering exquisite and the 3D is certainly there if conditions and settings are conducive (as they need to be with all lenses that offer 3D 'pop').
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Edited by Frogfish: 26/01/2013 - 12:05
johnriley
Posted 26/01/2013 - 12:20 Link
Taking as my source the 1960s and 1970s writing of Kevein MacDonnell and other respected writers, they put it as follows:

German lenses were designed for high resolution and exceptional gradation, so a maximum number of tones could be recorded.

After the Korean war in particular, western photojournalists started to discover the high contrast but lower definition Japanese lenses from Canon and Nikon in particular and for them it was a revelation. High contrast looked sharper and suited photomechanical reproduction in newspapers and magazines. The taste for high contrast and "bite" had begun.

Meanwhile the stalwarts of 1960s camera clubs were no doubt extolling the benefits of superior rendering from German lenses. In some instances they would be right, in others the high contrast newcomers would be right, whatever right may mean.
Best regards, John
screwdriver
Posted 26/01/2013 - 12:38 Link
Frogfish wrote:

I think many people would strongly debate those assertions Chris. I have (had) 5 Zeiss lenses and not only is their sharpness jaw dropping but their rendering exquisite and the 3D is certainly there if conditions and settings are conducive (as they need to be with all lenses that offer 3D 'pop').

It's not an assertion Frogfish, it's a generalisation. For me most of the German type lenses look too, for the want of a better word 'clinical', sometimes that's exactly what you want, but not always, at other times you want a more 'dreamy, misty' look with morning mist and very diffused light for instance. Sometimes 'tack sharp' is not what you want.

It's horses for courses, there is no right and wrong here, all I'm saying is they are different, not better or worse.
Chris
Edited by screwdriver: 26/01/2013 - 12:46
Algernon
Posted 26/01/2013 - 13:01 Link
Strange I remember seeing tests in AP of post war Nikon
rangefinder lenses v Leica lenses and the LPMM results
were better on the Nikon lenses. It's well accepted that
the contrast was higher on the Japanese lenses in general.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
johnriley
Posted 26/01/2013 - 13:06 Link
Those early lpmm tests were marred in various ways, but of course the contrastier shot can be read as sharper. That's why everyone was so pleased when MTF lens testing was introduced, apart from few people understanding the mysterious graphs!

Most Pentax lenses are of moderately high contrast, but they look very pleasing to the eye. Different makes do definitely have a different "look" but once we move into that territory beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Is it the optical equivalent of wine tasting?
Best regards, John
Algernon
Posted 26/01/2013 - 13:23 Link
Another lens that costs a lot of money is the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*
SLR Gear didn't think too much of it on their test.
See the Conclusion at the bottom of the test.

"The problem in recommending this lens is that there wasn't anything wrong with existing solutions for Pentax and Nikon.........."

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1144/cat/98

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Edited by Algernon: 26/01/2013 - 13:24
Frogfish
Posted 26/01/2013 - 14:00 Link
screwdriver wrote:
Frogfish wrote:

I think many people would strongly debate those assertions Chris. I have (had) 5 Zeiss lenses and not only is their sharpness jaw dropping but their rendering exquisite and the 3D is certainly there if conditions and settings are conducive (as they need to be with all lenses that offer 3D 'pop').

It's not an assertion Frogfish, it's a generalisation. For me most of the German type lenses look too, for the want of a better word 'clinical', sometimes that's exactly what you want, but not always, at other times you want a more 'dreamy, misty' look with morning mist and very diffused light for instance. Sometimes 'tack sharp' is not what you want.

It's horses for courses, there is no right and wrong here, all I'm saying is they are different, not better or worse.

I absolutely agree Chris - we all have differing taste. However it was your comment that ".... higher colour contrast makes them much more 3D than the German lenses" that I would dispute. I've seen wonderful 3D rendering from many lenses, including Zeiss, e.g the ZE/F II 100/2, to name but one, is simply spectacular in this regard.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Edited by Frogfish: 26/01/2013 - 14:01
screwdriver
Posted 26/01/2013 - 15:21 Link
Frogfish wrote:

I absolutely agree Chris - we all have differing taste. However it was your comment that ".... higher colour contrast makes them much more 3D than the German lenses" that I would dispute. I've seen wonderful 3D rendering from many lenses, including Zeiss, e.g the ZE/F II 100/2, to name but one, is simply spectacular in this regard.

Contrast is what makes lenses 3D, the difference between shadow and highlights, how continuous tones are rendered is more important for this than how much resolution a lens has which is important mainly for defining edges.

Pentax (and others) went a step further and made 'soft focus' lenses (never popular and as rare as hen's teeth to find) which deliberately sacrificed even more resolution to get even finer graduation in tones, they rendered tones more accurately, more subtly. A weird combination of sharp and soft, difficult to describe, has to be seen. Your Lensbabies have gone down this same path to some degree.

Finer resolution tends to render tones more 'blocky' more 'posterised' for the most part. Of course Zeiss lenses have contrast, all lenses do, but it's far less subtle and not as wide a variation as the Japanese lenses. It's generally agreed that Japanese lenses have a greater contrast range than German lenses.

You notice in my descriptions how there are few definitive terms, many are in inverted commas, it's all comparative. Unfortunately lens test only look at the absolutes, things that can be measured, I now take these lens reviews with a pinch of salt, they are accurate for what they are, but they don't tell you the whole story, they often throw the baby out with the bath water (if you see what I mean). Most of their parameters can't measure other aspects which are every bit as important to how a lens performs.
Chris
Edited by screwdriver: 26/01/2013 - 15:28
Algernon
Posted 26/01/2013 - 15:44 Link
johnriley wrote:
Those early lpmm tests were marred in various ways, but of course the contrastier shot can be read as sharper.

That's why everyone was so pleased when MTF lens testing was introduced, apart from few people understanding the mysterious graphs!

I don't think everyone was pleased The staff on AP and
Dr. Stewart Bell weren't.... their reasoning was that MTF Tests
bear absolutely no relationship to what appears on film.
LPMM tests do.

The latest MTF Tests are done on digital sensors and can't
even be compared from sensor to sensor never mind trying to
compare them with any results on film Some Standard
It's like going back to pre Weights and Measures days.

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Edited by Algernon: 26/01/2013 - 15:45
johnriley
Posted 26/01/2013 - 15:51 Link
You have a point there Algi.

Lens tests now need to be re-done every time we get a leap in sensor performance. Not very realistic as an expectation perhaps. Over a period of time it might be a problem, but it's probably tolerable at the moment.
Best regards, John
Frogfish
Posted 26/01/2013 - 16:49 Link
screwdriver wrote:
Frogfish wrote:

I absolutely agree Chris - we all have differing taste. However it was your comment that ".... higher colour contrast makes them much more 3D than the German lenses" that I would dispute. I've seen wonderful 3D rendering from many lenses, including Zeiss, e.g the ZE/F II 100/2, to name but one, is simply spectacular in this regard.

Contrast is what makes lenses 3D, the difference between shadow and highlights, how continuous tones are rendered is more important for this than how much resolution a lens has which is important mainly for defining edges.

Pentax (and others) went a step further and made 'soft focus' lenses (never popular and as rare as hen's teeth to find) which deliberately sacrificed even more resolution to get even finer graduation in tones, they rendered tones more accurately, more subtly. A weird combination of sharp and soft, difficult to describe, has to be seen. Your Lensbabies have gone down this same path to some degree.

Finer resolution tends to render tones more 'blocky' more 'posterised' for the most part. Of course Zeiss lenses have contrast, all lenses do, but it's far less subtle and not as wide a variation as the Japanese lenses. It's generally agreed that Japanese lenses have a greater contrast range than German lenses.

You notice in my descriptions how there are few definitive terms, many are in inverted commas, it's all comparative. Unfortunately lens test only look at the absolutes, things that can be measured, I now take these lens reviews with a pinch of salt, they are accurate for what they are, but they don't tell you the whole story, they often throw the baby out with the bath water (if you see what I mean). Most of their parameters can't measure other aspects which are every bit as important to how a lens performs.

That last paragraph is spot on Chris. Sites such as Lenstip, for example, go as far as to stress that point in their testing.

However that said it is far too simplistic to say that 'contrast' per se is what is required for a lens to demonstrate 3D rendering and there is always debate when this subject arises as to which photographs are 3D and which aren't !

Whilst the opinions on what is required for any lens to produce 3D images is even more diverse. Suffice to say that contrast alone is not the sole requisite, distance from subject to background and from the subject to the lens, angle of light source, sensor size, quality of light, separation of the subject from the environment (often of course easier with wide aperture tele lenses or indeed just a tele lens) and many other factors are often considerations.

It is not a pure science and that is why I said that Zeiss (Contax and ZF/E) lenses demonstrate some superb 3D rendering, the 100/2 I mentioned especially but the 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are superb too as no doubt the new 135/2 is/will be. For indisputable examples please just take a look at the very long Zeiss threads (there are a few) in the Alternative Lenses forum at FM. Those examples showing 3D rendering just jump off the screen.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
rparmar
Posted 31/01/2013 - 02:09 Link
Jun Hirakawa designed the FA43 and FA77 (though not the FA31) so that they fully correct the astigmatic difference in both meridional and sagittal subject planes, while allowing small amounts of field curvature to remain. This means that sharpness is not as absolutely perfect as would otherwise be possible, though it is still excellent. It also means that sharpness declines at wide apertures towards the periphery of the image. However, the up-side is smooth bokeh, that is, a transition from the subject to the out of focus part of the image that is gentle. These two lenses render dimensionality at the expense of those raw numbers that can be shown off in lens tests.

The only other lenses that achieve this look with any regularity are the physically imposing Zeiss lenses. And possibly the most expensive Leica 50mm and 90mm variants. (I see it more in the Zeiss, to be honest.) But none of these are auto-focus.

I don't see the same look in the FA31 though it is an excellent lens for its corner to corner consistent rendering.

The 43/77 pair will be the last Pentax lenses I sell. Though this may happen soon, since in the meantime I have discovered, as Chris wrote above, that "Olympus have never made a bad lens". The newish MFT 75mm renders much like the FA77 Limited.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Edited by rparmar: 31/01/2013 - 02:10
Horst
Posted 23/02/2013 - 08:26 Link
Screwdriver wrote:

Quote:
The German manufacturers, with their usual Teutonic efficiency, went with what you can measure, mainly resolution, lines per mm.[/

This is not quite so, Leitz made the lenses mainly to get a so called 3 dimensional effect. The Elmar 3.5 and the Summar f2 are special examples of this,
It was not very hard, even in the earlier days, to make a Tessat type lens which was very sharp. Maybe a bit to sharp. Leitz however designed the Elmar to have that special boukey and even so it was sharp, It had the special "duft" . Meaning it didn't kill you with the brutal sharpness.
The same applied to the Summar and later lenses including Summicrons and the Nocton f1.
I owned and still own a few of this lenses. The closest to this type of performance was and still is my SMC A 50mm f1.4 on Film.

These lenses lost out when in the 70's the fashion was to just compare lenses with the resolution charts etc. The actual picture quality did not seem to matter as much anymore. The most desirable attribute seem to be "edge sharpness". In my opinion, this is, with exceptions one of the lower priorities. Do you really need the super edge resolution in a portrait, landscape or even sports photography?

I still have some photos at home, done with the Elmar 50mm which I could not duplicate with the modern lenses. Where I have to say, some of my Pentax lenses come close.
Regards, Horst
Edited by Horst: 23/02/2013 - 09:35

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.