Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 08:17 AM, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: What's worse, that bad habit is like some drugs - your tolerance increases... A friend photographer says the same I say about 30x40 about 40x60cm prints :) At least I don't have that big trays, so I am limited to 30x40cm now ;-) ...and I'm thinking of upgrading to a 44 inch wide printer. ;) Looking forward for those trannies (the fixed lens of my TLRs was limiting to me) and some bashing when you get to Prague :) I've never shot with a Pentacon, so I'm not about to bash it. Actually, had I not been working somewhere that entitled me to both an employee discount and sales spiffs, I'd probably not have a Pentax 67. I wouldn't have been able to afford it. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: I too like to do tack sharp 30x45cm prints, from 35mm, btw. Even more - after I made my first good big prints, I almost don't do small prints now... looking forward to the 6x6 SLR I am getting tomorrow :) Bad habit I got into while in school: 8x10s are 'small' prints. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
While that's reasonably good wisdom, many Leica users are primarily interested in wide aperture performance, and base their lens buying decisions are based on how a lens performs at apertures of 2.8 and wider. Lots of basic truth there, Shel. Selective focus effects are hard to get at f/8. And shooting available light, handheld, demands a lot of performance from wide apertures. If I have to stop down to f/4 or smaller to get good sharpness, I need to look for a different lens. This was why I gave my FA 43 1.9 to my son and replaced it with an FA 50 1.4. Hi, Shel and Len. I just wanted to point out that this here is one ~Pentax~ user who wants good performance wide open. I don't expect my lenses to all be as sharp wide open as they are at f/8 or f/11, but they can't be mush at large apertures, either. While my eyes do benefit from easier focusing by using fast glass whenever I can (which is really only a convenience), I do tend to do a decent amount of shooting under marginal conditions, and so wide open performance is going to be important to me for ~image quality~ (and not merely just for convenience). As for a couple of the lenses under discussion here, I do have to say that the A 50/1.4 seems to be sharper than the FA 43/1.9 Ltd at wider apertures. (I do know that sharpness is not everything...) Fred - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
Monday, April 08, 2002, 5:57:44 PM, Bill wrote: BO IMNSHO all lens tests are pretty much useless. I prefer to use MY judgment BO about what I think of a lens. If I like the results, I could care less BO about somebody's supposedly scientific test. I'm not likely to be out and BO about shooting pictures of test targets. Yes. That's the best way. Hard to do on Ebay though ;) But I purchased almost all my equipment locally so far, and I have tested every single piece of it before purchase. Tested = shot a roll tru it of _my_ favourite subjects at _my_ most used apertures, no resolution/test charts. OTOH, Bill, resolution charts (but not so resolution figures) can give you a rundown of most of the 6 aberations you mentioned, if you do it well... Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
Tuesday, April 09, 2002, 12:19:37 PM, Bob wrote: BR Sorry, Frank BR I guess that I have based my bias on my type of photography. Since I am BR colour blind and a extremely poor colour printer, I have turned to BW. BR For me, a tack sharp negative is required to print, from 35mm, a fully BR detailed 16X20 that invites you to closer look. BR For portraiture, close-ups etc, the quality of the out-of-focus image is BR important as is the overall image quality when shooting wide open. BR Sorry for putting my foot in my mouth. Hi Bob, please, don't take my post you replied to as harsh - it wasn't intended so - that's why it's full of smileys :) I too like to do tack sharp 30x45cm prints, from 35mm, btw. Even more - after I made my first good big prints, I almost don't do small prints now... looking forward to the 6x6 SLR I am getting tomorrow :) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting the data for f2.0: Lens:Center resolution: corner resolution: FA 43/1.9 _ Testen Sie MSN Messenger für Ihren Online-Chat mit Freunden: http://messenger.msn.de - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting the data for f2.0: Lens:Center resolution: corner resolution: (lines per mm) (lines per mm) FA 43/1.955 55 FA 50/1.469 55 FA 35/2.078 69 So from the performance point of view the FA 43/1.9 is actually rather poor. There is a love factor for built quality in the FA 43 (It is also expensive so owner feel it MUST be good). From the performance point of view possibly only the bokeh might actually be better in the FA 43/1.9. For Portrait the FA 43 might give good results, since less sharp (but contrasty) portraits are usually felt to be better. On the other hand 43mm is not the typical portrait lens. At f8 the FA 43 is great. But so are the other two lenses. Hope this helps, Knut _ MSN Fotos ist der einfachste Weg, Ihre Fotos auszudrucken und anderen Benutzern zur Verfügung zu stellen: http://photos.msn.de/support/worldwide.aspx - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
No one basis their performance opinion of a lens based on wide open performqance. Try f8 - the objective of lenses with a focal length of 50 and lower. Above that, try f11. This is for 35mm only. Bob - Original Message - From: Knut Knut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:09 PM Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting the data for f2.0: Lens:Center resolution: corner resolution: (lines per mm) (lines per mm) FA 43/1.955 55 FA 50/1.469 55 FA 35/2.078 69 So from the performance point of view the FA 43/1.9 is actually rather poor. There is a love factor for built quality in the FA 43 (It is also expensive so owner feel it MUST be good). From the performance point of view possibly only the bokeh might actually be better in the FA 43/1.9. For Portrait the FA 43 might give good results, since less sharp (but contrasty) portraits are usually felt to be better. On the other hand 43mm is not the typical portrait lens. At f8 the FA 43 is great. But so are the other two lenses. Hope this helps, Knut _ MSN Fotos ist der einfachste Weg, Ihre Fotos auszudrucken und anderen Benutzern zur Verfügung zu stellen: http://photos.msn.de/support/worldwide.aspx - 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 . - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
No they're not ... they get many people all worked up g Gotta get that heart rate up, find something to believe in, something to argue about. William Robb wrote: Resolution numbers, taken on their own as a lens comparison are pretty useless. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/darkroom-rentals/index.html - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
IMNSHO all lens tests are pretty much useless. I prefer to use MY judgment about what I think of a lens. If I like the results, I could care less about somebody's supposedly scientific test. I'm not likely to be out and about shooting pictures of test targets. Bill KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:28 AM Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? - Original Message - From: Knut Knut Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? This chart only lists one parameter for lens performance, specifically, resolution. It doesn't mention colour fidelity, any of the 6 importand aberations, bokeh, or the quality of subject presentation. Resolution numbers, taken on their own as a lens comparison are pretty useless. William Robb Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting the data for f2.0: Lens:Center resolution: corner resolution: (lines per mm) (lines per mm) FA 43/1.955 55 FA 50/1.469 55 FA 35/2.078 69 So from the performance point of view the FA 43/1.9 is actually rather poor. There is a love factor for built quality in the FA 43 (It is also expensive so owner feel it MUST be good). From the performance point of view possibly only the bokeh might actually be better in the FA 43/1.9. For Portrait the FA 43 might give good results, since less sharp (but contrasty) portraits are usually felt to be better. On the other hand 43mm is not the typical portrait lens. At f8 the FA 43 is great. But so are the other two lenses. Hope this helps, Knut - 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 . - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
Hi ??, Thanks, I guess I should have specified better in my original email, I was actually a bit more of a user review of its sharpness wide open. As I seem to use my lenses wide open quite a bit, so I would require reasonable sharpness. Thanks, Paul - Original Message - From: Knut Knut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:09 PM Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting the data for f2.0: Lens:Center resolution: corner resolution: (lines per mm) (lines per mm) FA 43/1.955 55 FA 50/1.469 55 FA 35/2.078 69 So from the performance point of view the FA 43/1.9 is actually rather poor. There is a love factor for built quality in the FA 43 (It is also expensive so owner feel it MUST be good). From the performance point of view possibly only the bokeh might actually be better in the FA 43/1.9. For Portrait the FA 43 might give good results, since less sharp (but contrasty) portraits are usually felt to be better. On the other hand 43mm is not the typical portrait lens. At f8 the FA 43 is great. But so are the other two lenses. Hope this helps, Knut _ MSN Fotos ist der einfachste Weg, Ihre Fotos auszudrucken und anderen Benutzern zur Verfügung zu stellen: http://photos.msn.de/support/worldwide.aspx - 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 . - 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 .
Re: 43mm wide open comparison?
I'd say so, i've never done any tests with my two 50/1.4s to see how much the improve between 1.4 and 2.0. Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? I have heard on the list a number of times that the 43mm is a bit soft wide open. I am wondering how its performace at F2 compares to the FA35/2 at 2.0 or any of the 50/1.4s at 1.4 or 2.0? No doubt the 50/1.4 is much softer than 43/1.9 at wide open. regards, Alan Chan _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - 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 . - 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 .
