Some new lenses


Don

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:20
japers45 wrote:
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.

most people could get away with 6mp and would NEVER see any difference other than hearing a sales clerk tell them "This has more megapixels, so it's better"
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:31
japers45 wrote:


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?

There are very few lenses that can outresolve the "benchmark lens" (Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZF) the original release date for the Planar was 1896 so producing a better lens is very unlikely, although it has been done a handful of times, we've hit the physical limitation for lens resolution and therefore adding more resolution to the sensor is pointless, it will only reveal the limitations of the lens in use.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 18:40
rparmar wrote:

Just like those who need the best from APS-C are already using Voigtlander, Zeiss and FA Limiteds.

Apparently there's a lot of EOS 7D owners chasing FA Ltd's

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

Algernon

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 19:24
The Zeiss ZM-Biogon 25mm /2.8 T* lens was supposed to be the
sharpest link
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

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

Algi

johnwhit

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 19:31
Algernon wrote:
The Zeiss ZM-Biogon 25mm /2.8 T* lens was supposed to be the
sharpest link

Maybe so, The FA-43 Ltd. FA-31 Ltd and FA-35/2 on the K10D all outresolve the Planar on the Nikon D200, both 10MP cameras. I'm only saying the Planar is the benchmark they use. There are only a handful of lenses thet outresolve the Planar at f/4.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.
Last Edited by johnwhit on 07/07/2011 - 19:32

japers45

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 20:55
Now I am perplexed.

The resolution numbers as tested are not necessarily up to the expected levels and yet these lens are regarded as the zenith of resolution performance?

I thought we were dealing with science here? How come we dont have a standard that can be reliable measured? Is there a way of saying definatively that lens X is 20% sharper than lens Y at a given aperture or lens Z has 12% better resolution than lens Q ?

Surely sharpness contrast and resolution can be quantified.

I accept that lens have "character" and this will be the main reason why I and many others would purchase- but this is subjective choice and certainly cannot be properly measured

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 22:27
Well the lenses do score very well on this and other tests. The controversy seems to be that the epz test doesn't quite agree with some of the other reviews in some cases. Maybe this is down to copy variability (the FA samples were second hand) or maybe, heavens forbid, a testing error!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 23:28
I for one do not dispute the test findings in general, which seem quite in accordance with previous tests and images from the lenses. It is only the rather odd finding of exceedingly low MTF50 in the corners of the FA43 that seems out of kilter. I would not expect this to be so bad when stopped down.

MTF tests are very useful, especially those Leica and others publish, which show sagittal and meridonial measurements. The relationship between these can even predict how pleasing the bokeh might be. If all manufacturers were as open in providing these, it would be great aid to intelligent buying decisions.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

rparmar

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 23:35
Algernon wrote:
The Zeiss ZM-Biogon 25mm /2.8 T* lens was supposed to be the
sharpest link

Comparing across systems is even more impossible than comparing across sensors in the same system.

To be clear the FA 50/2.8 macro is likely the sharpest Pentax lens from f/2.8 to f/4 (according to Yoshihiko), equalled at f/5.6 by the FA43. Of all the lenses tested for the K10D by Photozone the FA43 is tops. But there's little point in arguing a few points one way or another when so many other factors are equally if not more important.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

johnriley

Link Posted 07/07/2011 - 23:56
The trouble is that manufacturers often don't explain what their lenses are designed for. If you read an M series Lenses and Accessories booklet, almost every lens listed is "the most versatile in the range" and it's meaningless.

If a lens is a portrait lens, softer wide open but sharp when stopped down, then saying so avoids disappointment. If we want a lens that's critically sharp wide open it will be a quite different design to the portrait lens.
Best regards, John

rparmar

Link Posted 08/07/2011 - 03:40
But read the Leica literature and they actually discuss the weaknesses of different lenses and the compromises of using the cheaper ones compared to the more expensive and (we assume) better designed. It's terribly refreshing!
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

johnriley

Link Posted 08/07/2011 - 08:15
That's good, but cheaper doesn't always mean worse.

For example, a 400mm f5.6 lens will be cheaper than a 400mm f2.8, but might even be optically better.
Best regards, John

K10D

Link Posted 08/07/2011 - 08:34
rparmar wrote:
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.

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

Maybe they liked the idea of having a full range of own brand lenses from ultra wide to super telephoto with excellent flash systems and good manufacturer support when needed?

Maybe not?

Best regards

rparmar

Link Posted 08/07/2011 - 13:28
K10D, I don't get your point and assume you are misreading mine.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.