Most interested parties have already committed to memory these comments
from Clover:
"With some friends, I tryed my 85mm f/:1.4 FA IF Pentax , face to 90mm
f/:2 Asph Leica and 85mm f/:1.8 Nikon. You can see the result on
www.pictchallenge.com (in french only). In the CdI Website, there was a
quarrel about the test (the Pentax seems to be the worst of all) and
some people of CDI came and talk with us. And as the matter that we
keep on argueing, they are going to test the 85mm f::1.4
again."
As well as Paal's REPLY:
"This is what I've been saying all along: a) that the CDI test of the
FA* 85/1.4 is way out in the woods, and b) That the FA* 85/1.4 is not a
stellar performer regardless of what CDI says.
"The test clearly show the significant light fall-off at the corner wide
open. Something I've posted here before. However, you did a serious
mistake testing this lens; it performs well at closer focusing
distances. Try testing it close or at infinity and its performance drops
dramatically. At these distances it doesn't really start to shine until
F:8. The 77 Limited is significantly better in this regard. It reaches
the FA* 85/1.4 F:8 quality level at F.4."
My comment:
It may be worth noting that another test supports the CdI results. The
lowly Popular Photography, for what it's worth, gushed that the Carl
Zeiss 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar for the G cameras was "the bench mark of its
class--the best performing medium tele we have so far tested". However,
data from their earlier test of the FA* 85/1.4 show it to be superior
(in terms of Pop's "subjective quality factor", derived from an optical
bench) at apertures from f/4 to f/11, inclusive, and slightly behind it
at f/2.8 and f/16. The Pentax lens was apparently sharper in the corners
at f/2.8 and f/4, but the the CZ lens was better in the centers. I
vaguely remember very positive test results from some other magazine, as
well.
Perhaps, the apparent agreement of the results from what Paal may feel
are two meaningless tests is equally meaningless--but if CdI is "way out
in the woods" with their test results, they've got company.
Three other points:
1) I take Clover's results, too, with several grains of salt:
Clover's lens comparison obviously depends on focusing accuracy. I'm
quite sure that I can focus my rangefinder more accurately at close
distances than my ZX5-N (or, perhaps, Clover's MZ-3) can focus the
85/1.4 with either manual or auto focus. Good as it is, the Leica M lens
still has a built-in advantage in Clover's test.
In the same test, the Nikon lens benefits from increased apparent
sharpness due to lower image magnification compared to the other two
lenses.
2) There is, of course, more to lens performance than resolution. The
Nikon 85/1.8 is reportedly not exactly Leica-esque when it comes to
bokeh (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/4628/bokeh.html), but
the out of focus areas I see on my shots with the FA* 85/1.4 look OK to
me.
3) I agree with Paal that the on-film results each photographer brings
home are what really matter. I happen to like the FA* 85/1.4 very much,
but I've never used the lens at anything close to infinity focus, it's
easily sharp enough for my purposes, and a bit of light fall-off wide
open just saves burning in the edges of my prints. Works for me.
YMMV.
Brian Walsh
Brian
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
