Some new lenses


johnwhit

Link Posted 06/07/2011 - 18:49
rparmar wrote:

There is no way in heaven the FA43 should consistently have half the border score of the FA31 and DA70. (Only wide open would I expect this number to be so poor.) My only conclusion is that there is in fact some issue with the test you did. This might be down to a bad sample since I am sure you followed procedure and took due care.

The other difference is the camera used. You use a K-5, I use a K20D and Photozone tested with a K10D. I cannot imagine this would matter so much, and if it did would not all three Limited lenses have skewed scores?

I'd concur with this, the results are so far removed from all other tests I've seen that they bear no resemblance.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 01:17
johnriley wrote:
The tests you mention cannot be compared, simply because we are measuring the total system, lens and body.

I understand, which is why I brought up that very issue myself and already addressed your response. To repeat: if this was an issue of the total system it would also show up in your other lens tests. But it does not.

johnriley wrote:
That's why the update is interesting. The lenses are fine and perform better than the other lenses I have been testing in this total system.

Sorry, I don't follow. What update?

johnriley wrote:
I can see that when we love a lens then seeing it doing less well than expected isn't very welcome, but it actually did very well indeed.

My analysis has nothing to do with any "love" I may have for a particular lens. I have bought and used lots of gear that I would not rank with the FA43 Limited. I take your implication, however, that I am somehow more biased than you on this issue. That's hardly a basis for a reasonable discussion.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Last Edited by rparmar on 07/07/2011 - 01:18

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 01:32
Sandehalynch wrote:
The 'signature' as I think it's often referred to, the very individuality that allows one to choose a lens as a painter might choose a brush - hog, squirrel, or sable.

Now that is an image that shows the FA43 look. Here's another from a while back.




Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

johnriley

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 09:22
The third lens test of this group is now up and running on EPZ:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-fa-77mm-f-1-8-limited-lens-16892

Just remember that we take the measurements and take the pictures first and then reach the conclusions based on the results, which are updated results in the sense that this is how the lenses perform now, on a 16.2MP sensor.

Pentax themselves have said that we're at the limit of where these Limited lenses can perform, but be that as it may I've now formed an overall opinion and I'll post something in a while to summarise how I end up thinking about this and indeed whether or not I'm keeping the three lenses.
Best regards, John

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 13:25
johnriley wrote:
Pentax themselves have said that we're at the limit of where these Limited lenses can perform

Is that just from a comment Ned made on his blog? Or is there another source?

In any case your own tests demonstrate this is not true. The FA77 out-performs the DA70, the FA31 has better figures than the DA35 and the FA43 (despite some odd numbers) has peak sharpness better than any tested lens. Putting aside raw numbers (as photographers should) these lenses produce images with pleasing and distinctive rendering that can be used, by those who learn their attributes, to produce superlative photos.

It is evident that Pentax has lost the will to make lenses of this quality, but thank goodness they had Jun Hirakawa when they did! (Maybe Ricoh will hire him back.)
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

johnriley

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 15:57
You're right Robin, we're still not beyond the limit, but we may have reached it.

The quote is one I noted at the time, but didn't record, so sadly no-one to attribute it to just now.
Best regards, John

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 16:51
rparmar wrote:
johnriley wrote:
Pentax themselves have said that we're at the limit of where these Limited lenses can perform

Is that just from a comment Ned made on his blog? Or is there another source?

I believe the resolution limit of some of the best prime lenses available is somewhere just North of 15MP (16MP?) so adding more resolution to the sensor is basically futile, unless you increase the size of the sensor. The following is quoted from the Canon 7D (18MP) test on Photozone:

"The EOS 7D features the highest resolution APS-C sensor tested to date. For whatever reason Canon wants to be light-years ahead here compared to the competition which is currently using 12mp or max. 14mp sensors. It's surely a great marketing argument but, as always in the real life, there's something called "diminshing return upon investment" and this effect is also hitting the EOS 7D."

"The results aren't really surprising - while the EOS 7D is capable of delivering a slightly higher effective resolution than the lower MP DSLRs it is actually not exceedingly better. The data represents the center resolution @ ISO 200 using our benchmark lens at its sweet spot (Zeiss ZS 50mm f/1.4 @ f/4). It may well be that the camera is able resolve more than that using better SLR lenses but you'll have a hard time finding those actually. There're probably no zoom lenses out there qualifying here."

http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews/478_canon_eos_7d?start=2

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.
Last Edited by johnwhit on 07/07/2011 - 16:54

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 17:33
rparmar wrote:
johnriley wrote:
Pentax themselves have said that we're at the limit of where these Limited lenses can perform

Is that just from a comment Ned made on his blog? Or is there another source?

Or try this, if your brain goes into overload, as mine just did, just skip to the conclusion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.
Last Edited by johnwhit on 07/07/2011 - 17:34

dougf8

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 17:40
johnriley wrote:
You're right Robin, we're still not beyond the limit, but we may have reached it.

So no other way but to build bigger sensors for higher resolutions? APSC+
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 07/07/2011 - 17:41

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 17:45
dougf8 wrote:
So no other way but to build bigger sensors for higher resolutions? APSC+

I think the emphasis will shift to lower noise at higher ISO, better ergonomics etc IMHO

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

japers45

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 17:50
johnriley wrote:

Pentax themselves have said that we're at the limit of where these Limited lenses can perform, but be that as it may I've now formed an overall opinion and I'll post something in a while to summarise how I end up thinking about this and indeed whether or not I'm keeping the three lenses.

how relevant is this for lenses designed specifically for APSC then.

Are you saying that if Pentax bring out a 20mp APSc down the line that none of the current lenses available would be able to take advantage of the extra resolution?

If so I guess the K5 will have a very long shelflife indeed in practical terms at least.

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:07
Yep, better to have larger sensors than cram in extra pixels into the smaller sensors. Just ask the Nikon D700. This has many benefits including lower noise and smaller apertures before diffraction becomes a problem. A discounted version of the 645D with fewer pixels would in many ways be a better camera.

I have written about this a fair amount on my blog recently, as I've been exploring the MFT format.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Last Edited by rparmar on 07/07/2011 - 18:16

japers45

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:13
TBH that is good news in a way.

I would hate to have to get rid of an entire system.

I guess we could have a situation where all the technolgy is behind that of the sensor-

Printers, monitors, lenses. So in a way your camera sensor only needs to be as good as the best performing lens/monitor/printer coupled to it.

johnriley

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:18
Quote:
Are you saying that if Pentax bring out a 20mp APSc down the line that none of the current lenses available would be able to take advantage of the extra resolution?

No, I was just repeating a quote regarding the film-designed lenses.
Best regards, John

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:19
APS-C is good enough for many people all the time, and even more people most of the time. Some will be convinced to chase ever-better specs regardless of what they see in the finished images. This has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with marketing and techno-fetishism. I am sure the manufacturers are salivating at the chance to convince all of us we need to ditch our systems and buy more expensive ones.

(Though the marketing lately seems to be towards photographically inferior systems that have a certain retro cache, gadget fascination and hyped price points.)

Those that really do need the extra quality are already using medium format.

Just like those who need the best from APS-C are already using Voigtlander, Zeiss and FA Limiteds.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Last Edited by rparmar on 07/07/2011 - 18:20
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.