The answer to a question from a PDML member with extra info about the handeling of raw images.
I've used Adobe CameraRaw with the default setting and no automatic correction. Sharpening was set to 20. This could affect test results, although this amount of sharping is normal in every day use. All images where
judged with the same settings.
I've tested the setting of sharpening before setting it to 20. And I found it a good point making a fair compare of the resolution. No sharpening made it a bit more difficult to make repeatable judgment of resolution.
Setting it higher then 30 created artifacts and would lead to false conclusions. I found 20 good, and also the sharping I mostly apply seem to be between 15 and 25.
I know this isn't a perfect test, none is, but I already made these test for myself and want to share them with the world. The figure that I've got seems to confirm my subjective feeling about some lenses.
Pascal.
zaterdag 24 oktober 2009
vrijdag 2 oktober 2009
K85/1.8
This is a typical portrait lens which I love very much. I've made some great shot from my kids. And when you put this lens on the camera, it's like someone has put the light on. It's quiet heavy (330gr) and a bit bigger then the FA50/1.4 and very usable on the digital camera's, thanks to the green button for stop-down metering and I used it a lot on the Ist*D also because you don't have to look at taking another picture. The depth of field is very narrow wide open, so focusing need to very precise. Thanks to the good focus-screens on the Ist*D and Kx0 camera's with a pentaprisma it's not a bit issue. I think it's more difficult on a Kx00 body, like it was on my Z70.
On a digital body it becomes a 125mm which I personally find even better then 85mm for portraits. I find the bokeh nicer then on the 50/1.4 and prefer this lens to the 50/1.4. The only thing I mis is AF from time to time especially with kids.
Permformance.
The lensperformace has the typical curve with the max performance at around f8. As you can see the performance is comparable to the 50/1.4 with better corner performance and this lens is also about one stop slower. I find it usable wide open, but most of the time the dof is to narrow to be used for head/shoulder shot's. Most of the shot I make are at f2.8 and the graph below show's a bit why. There is very little difference between f2.8 and f4. Above f4 it's better then the Ist*D can record, probably also on the K10D. On the K20D en K7 maybe the lens will become the bottleneck, but I think there aren't a lot of full-frame lenses capable to deliver enough resolution for these sensors.
On a FF body there is a bit vignettering wide open but at f2.8 It's almost completely gone. On a APS body it's even wide open not a bit issue.
There is a bit of CA (I'll given it a 8 in my test notes) and contrast is high (gave it a 9).
Overall a good lens, although I'm dreaming of the other great pentax lenses like the A*85/1.4, FA85/1.4 and the terrific FA77/1.8.
This site seems to confirm my results and here the K85 seems to be even better then the FA77: Yoshihiko website .
This is a typical portrait lens which I love very much. I've made some great shot from my kids. And when you put this lens on the camera, it's like someone has put the light on. It's quiet heavy (330gr) and a bit bigger then the FA50/1.4 and very usable on the digital camera's, thanks to the green button for stop-down metering and I used it a lot on the Ist*D also because you don't have to look at taking another picture. The depth of field is very narrow wide open, so focusing need to very precise. Thanks to the good focus-screens on the Ist*D and Kx0 camera's with a pentaprisma it's not a bit issue. I think it's more difficult on a Kx00 body, like it was on my Z70.
On a digital body it becomes a 125mm which I personally find even better then 85mm for portraits. I find the bokeh nicer then on the 50/1.4 and prefer this lens to the 50/1.4. The only thing I mis is AF from time to time especially with kids.
Permformance.
The lensperformace has the typical curve with the max performance at around f8. As you can see the performance is comparable to the 50/1.4 with better corner performance and this lens is also about one stop slower. I find it usable wide open, but most of the time the dof is to narrow to be used for head/shoulder shot's. Most of the shot I make are at f2.8 and the graph below show's a bit why. There is very little difference between f2.8 and f4. Above f4 it's better then the Ist*D can record, probably also on the K10D. On the K20D en K7 maybe the lens will become the bottleneck, but I think there aren't a lot of full-frame lenses capable to deliver enough resolution for these sensors.
On a FF body there is a bit vignettering wide open but at f2.8 It's almost completely gone. On a APS body it's even wide open not a bit issue.
There is a bit of CA (I'll given it a 8 in my test notes) and contrast is high (gave it a 9).
Overall a good lens, although I'm dreaming of the other great pentax lenses like the A*85/1.4, FA85/1.4 and the terrific FA77/1.8.
This site seems to confirm my results and here the K85 seems to be even better then the FA77: Yoshihiko website .
zaterdag 26 september 2009
K 35/2
This lens has been my favorite prime lens for a long time on film camera. Especially on events. On a digital crop camera it becomes a std. lens (±50mm). Although it's very usable on the digital camera's, thanks to the green button for stop-down metering, I haven't used it a lot since I've got the 16-45mm zoom lens.
Permformance.
As you can see below the center performance is great even wide open, but the corners are an other story. Although they look bad, in real life it's not that bad on a crop camera. Especially because I looked at the extreme corners for testing. The only bad thing is that the corners are not getting a lot better when stopping down till f4. Overall this lens looks a bit like FA50/1.4 in performance with better center performance. After testing I was a bit surprised about the good center performance, I forgot a bit how good this lens is.
On a FF camera the corner-sharpness is of course worse. And then it needs f5.6 to get sharp corners, but as mentioned before I didn't find it a problem in every day use.
Distortion is very good, so usable for landmark photo's.
CA is among the best getting a 9 and contrast is just a bit lower then on the FA50.
This is a very rare lens and I need to note that the M35/2 and A35/2 have a different design (7-7 vs 8-7 elemnts/group) and they are much lighter.
If you find a good sample and don't need AF, this can be a good lens. The FA35/1.8 and DA35/2.8 macro are probably a lot better and expensive. There is also a FA35/2.0 AL which must have better corner performance thanks to the Aspheric-lens element.
This lens has been my favorite prime lens for a long time on film camera. Especially on events. On a digital crop camera it becomes a std. lens (±50mm). Although it's very usable on the digital camera's, thanks to the green button for stop-down metering, I haven't used it a lot since I've got the 16-45mm zoom lens.
Permformance.
As you can see below the center performance is great even wide open, but the corners are an other story. Although they look bad, in real life it's not that bad on a crop camera. Especially because I looked at the extreme corners for testing. The only bad thing is that the corners are not getting a lot better when stopping down till f4. Overall this lens looks a bit like FA50/1.4 in performance with better center performance. After testing I was a bit surprised about the good center performance, I forgot a bit how good this lens is.
On a FF camera the corner-sharpness is of course worse. And then it needs f5.6 to get sharp corners, but as mentioned before I didn't find it a problem in every day use.
Distortion is very good, so usable for landmark photo's.
CA is among the best getting a 9 and contrast is just a bit lower then on the FA50.
This is a very rare lens and I need to note that the M35/2 and A35/2 have a different design (7-7 vs 8-7 elemnts/group) and they are much lighter.
If you find a good sample and don't need AF, this can be a good lens. The FA35/1.8 and DA35/2.8 macro are probably a lot better and expensive. There is also a FA35/2.0 AL which must have better corner performance thanks to the Aspheric-lens element.
dinsdag 15 september 2009
Testnote:
For testing I used a ISO 12233 resolution chart as testing object with the camera mounted on tripod using the self-timer and mirror-lockup. I'm also commenting using the lens in day to day use and subjective feeling (like bokeh, flare resistant..etz)FA 50/f1.4
Now about the performance:
Full open the lens is soft especially at the corners, but still usable for portaits. On a crop camera the vignettering is not a great issue. From f2.0 on the lens becomes great, where it's still soft in the corners at f2 from f2.8 on it's tack sharp.
On the FF camera I'll find the difference greater between f2.0 and f2.8 then on the Ist*D.
Probably there will be a bigger difference when using this lens on the K20D or K7.
There is a bit of CA (I'll given it a 8 in my test notes). And contrast is very high together with the FA28-70/4 AL.
So overall I can recommend this lens.
The Ist*D max resolution is 2008 lines/h.
Start of my blog
This is my first post and in the next few days I'm going to post my own lenstests.
Hope you enjoy reading further posts.
Hope you enjoy reading further posts.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
