Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> Testing the FA 50/1.4 I have found there's no difference in > sharpness between f/8 and f/5.6, while the f/4 comes very close. > An extraordinary lens that begs for 25 ASA and tripod... An extraordinary lens indeed. Note that in Tim Sherburne's shot in this month's PUG that the optical quality of the "A" version is quite evident even on the monitor. And I hope everybody saw this: http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/11242002.html --Mike "The life of an intellectual should be a permanent reproach to the idea that knowledge can only be handed down to us from authority." (unattributed: unidentified TV talk show guest) Find out about Mike Johnston's unique photography newsletter, "The 37th Frame," at http://www.37thframe.com.
R: Focus bracketing (was: Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited)
- Original Message - From: Arnold Stark To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: Focus bracketing (was: Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited) Hello Dario, my experience is that focus bracketing is absolutely essential. 4 times I have done comparative lens resolution tests (Only my comparison of 77 and 85s is in the WWW so far, see http://www.arnoldstark.de/aufloesung85er.htm). My first test (without focus bracketing) would have led me to believe that the FA50/f2.8 Macro (just replaced by the F50/f2.8) was inferior to 6 other Pentax normal lenses. A newer test with focus bracketing proved that the opposite was true, and that it is only particularly difficult to focus the FA50/f2.8 (and most AF lenses due to their small turning angle of the focusing ring) perfectly.The problem with not focus bracketing is that the result of such test will tell you the perforamnce of the whole system: Focus system + lens + film. If you do focus bracketing, you eliminate the dependance on the quality of the focusing system, thus one gets the performance of lens + film. In my experience with several cameras, a lot of focusing aids/systems are not perfectly aligned. If one does focus bracketing, one gets one picture with optimum performance, and the pictures around it prove that this really was the optimum performance. You have a proof, not just a probability. For my tests with focus bracketing, I choose about 6 (10 would even be better) focusing positions at and very very near the position with a not-split image in the viewfinder. Neighbouring positions typically give 10% difference in resolving power at the image center. Sometimes, due to lack of image flatness, the resoltion goes up in the corners while it goes down in the centre. However, the centre resolution is what determines the "best" focusing.I believe that a lot of contradictory lens performance experiences can be easily explained by imperfect focusing.ArnoldDario Bonazza 2 schrieb: just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my own tests. Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine. No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this. Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image in MX viewfinder. My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject (hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same this time. Suggestions are also accepted. Bye, Dario Bonazza http://www.dariobonazza.com
Re: Focus bracketing (was: Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I've found that using a 2X flip-down eyepiece magnifier improved my focusing, especially when using a lens wider than 50mm. But the more than once the magnifier's rubber eyepiece caught on my hard contact lens, in one case making me lose the lens. For this reason, I no longer use it. It's unsettling how often my beloved Vivitar 28/1.9K shows a reading of only 6 feet when I'm focused on a subject 10 feet away. I really must check out how much of this discrepancy is real, and how much imagined. [EMAIL PROTECTED] <>
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Alan Chan wrote: > I always thought f8 would deliver the sharpest images for primes. only if employed as a "professional photojournalist" !;^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction limited at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction limited camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are a few short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction limited at maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good. Could that be the reason why my Z-1p usually chooses f4-5.6 when it was set to MTF mode? I always thought f8 would deliver the sharpest images for primes. regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
In addition, I wouldn't trust manual focusing with an old camera like the MX unless it has been recently adjusted with the use of a ground glass at the film plane. I'm sure that if you used several bodies with the same lens focused at the same subject the readout for correct focus on the lens with the different bodies will vary. Ironically, my calibrated MX delivers noticeably sharper images than my 3 years old Z-1p which was bought new, manual focus or AF. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:59 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: Dan, "Diffraction limited" means that diffraction is the main aberration--"masking" all others. Since diffraction _can't_ be done away with, when diffraction is the dominant aberration it means that the performance of the lens basically can't get any better. With most (good) lenses, there is an "optimum" f-stop...one at which the principal aberrations have been minimized but diffraction has not yet begun to degrade the image quality too badly. Since diffraction has less of an effect at wider apertures, the optimum aperture of a lens is the _widest_ aperture at which the basic aberrations (spherical, chromatic, etc.) are brought under control. A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction limited at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction limited camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are a few short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction limited at maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good. Hope this helps, --Mike Yes, it does. Thanks, Dan Scott
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you > specified the 77/1.8 in that way. Dan, "Diffraction limited" means that diffraction is the main aberration--"masking" all others. Since diffraction _can't_ be done away with, when diffraction is the dominant aberration it means that the performance of the lens basically can't get any better. With most (good) lenses, there is an "optimum" f-stop...one at which the principal aberrations have been minimized but diffraction has not yet begun to degrade the image quality too badly. Since diffraction has less of an effect at wider apertures, the optimum aperture of a lens is the _widest_ aperture at which the basic aberrations (spherical, chromatic, etc.) are brought under control. A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction limited at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction limited camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are a few short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction limited at maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good. Hope this helps, --Mike
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Dan wrote: > Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you > specified the 77/1.8 in that way. No. The point is what's the limiting factor; the glass quality or the laws of physics. Pål
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:22 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: Dan wrote: What does "its performance is diffraction limited" mean? When light passes though a hole light are getting scattered or "bent". This limites the theoretically possible resolution of a lens. Pål Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you specified the 77/1.8 in that way. Dan Scott
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On 16 Dec 2002 at 4:51, Keith Whaley wrote: > My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then > one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet > and beyond? > In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate > measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is > it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder > will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified? It should work but it would make the experiment far more accurate if one of the measurements was quite close ie a metre or so. However the definitive method is to focus onto ground glass across the film rails (using a loupe for magnification) then comparing that with the image in the finder. If they coincide then you'll be able to trust your finder focus aid. A quick and dirty way to make a "ground glass" plate for placing across 35mm film rails is to stick translucent scotch tape to a piece of glass from a 35mm glass slide mount. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On 16 Dec 2002 at 4:51, Keith Whaley wrote: > My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then > one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet > and beyond? > In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate > measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is > it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder > will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified? It should work but it would make the experiment far more accurate if one of the measurements was quite close ie a metre or so. However the definitive method is to focus onto ground glass across the film rails (using a loupe for magnification) then comparing that with the image in the finder. If they coincide then you'll be able to trust your finder focus aid. A quick and dirty way to make a "ground glass" plate for placing across 35mm film rails is to stick translucent scotch tape to a piece of glass from a 35mm glass slide mount. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet and beyond? In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified? I think not. The reason is that the numbers on the lenses are approximate only. Also, wide angle lenses are more likely to reveal any focus accuracy flaw. To ensure the accuracy of the viewfinder/screen, the only testing distance is infinity (AFAIK). However, the accuracy of the viewfinder is not the same as the accuracy of the film plate (because Pentax 135 SLR bodies employ washers to guide the distance between the mount and the film plane). Missing washers (not uncommon with used Pentax bodies which were serviced by non-Pentax experts) mean lenses would focus beyond infinity (more noticable with wide angle lenses). I had an used Super Program with this exact problem. regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I have a question for the group, along the same lines as the current discussion. My personal preference for focusing is the split image viewfinder screen. If I had any question as to the accuracy of the distance noted thereby, up to some 50 feet, I could actually measure with a tape, and compare that with what the lens says. I haven't taken the time to do that. My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet and beyond? In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified? keith whaley Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: > > Hello Arnold, > > You wrote: > > > just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus > > bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my > > own tests. > > Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the > exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that > we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine. > No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures > don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this. > > Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of > the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic > No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image > in MX viewfinder. > > My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either > infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject > (hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same > this time. Suggestions are also accepted. > > Bye, > > Dario Bonazza > > http://www.dariobonazza.com
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Hello Arnold, You wrote: > just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus > bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my > own tests. Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine. No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this. Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image in MX viewfinder. My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject (hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same this time. Suggestions are also accepted. Bye, Dario Bonazza http://www.dariobonazza.com
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Pål Jensen wrote: > > I've got a 77mm Limited to test (again!) against two different 85mm f/1.4 > > Star lenses (Mr. Lastrucci's one, which was tested by himself some months > > ago, and mine, bought one month ago). > > A pity you don't have two Limiteds as well as your previous opinion on this matter could indicate that you had dog of a 77mm lens. The 77mm I got this time is different (S/No. 327) from that tested last year (S/No. 302). > I was sure that my sample of the FA* 85 was a bad one but Pentax made tests shootout > with another sample and the result was indistinguishable. So we'll see if I get another dog of a star with the second sample I'm going to test alongside the good one. Bye, Dario Bonazza http://www.dariobonazza.com
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On Sunday, December 15, 2002, at 01:18 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: It was nowehere near the quality of the 77 Limited, which is as good as any lenses could be as it's performance is diffraction limited, or the A* 135/1.8 lenes. Hi Pål, What does "its performance is diffraction limited" mean? Dan Scott
RE: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:wlachan@;hotmail.com] > > > During the time I had the FA*85, I found it not quite > useable near wide > open. In fact, it was so soft I tried to stay with f4 or > smaller. I have > never done any formal test, just shooting out and what I > got. Never had such > problem with 77. Interesting. I almost exclusively use it between 1.4 and 2.8. The pictures look pretty sharp to me. They got sharper once I got the MZ-S and could actually see what I was focusing on... > > I know many would consider I am insane, but I have managed > to take some very > nasty bokeh pictures (not every picture btw) with the > FA*85, but never with > the 77. Unfortunately, my 85 was sold years ago so I can > make no direct > comparison. The 85 has "interesting" bokeh. A few years back some folks here surmised the the lens was formulated in such a way that the plane of focus was shifted towards the back of the DOF. In other words, the lens has less DOF behind the plane of focus than a normal lens. I personally like the bokeh. In fact, I think it's unique character gives me a small competitive edge. tv
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Sorry to contradict you, but according to my pictures, things are exactly the other way round, and the 85 FA* wins very easy against the 77 Ltd. The 85mm FA* at f/1.4 (not to speak of f/2) is far better than the 77mm at f/1.8! During the time I had the FA*85, I found it not quite useable near wide open. In fact, it was so soft I tried to stay with f4 or smaller. I have never done any formal test, just shooting out and what I got. Never had such problem with 77. Apart Pentax claims, did you notice any actual difference, by comparing them in same situation? I have no opinion on that topic, as I didn't make proper comparisons. I know many would consider I am insane, but I have managed to take some very nasty bokeh pictures (not every picture btw) with the FA*85, but never with the 77. Unfortunately, my 85 was sold years ago so I can make no direct comparison. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Pål wrote: > Dario wrote: > > > According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, > > the 77 Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at > > least for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color > > rendition is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other > > Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the > > 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true > > advantage of the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. > > > Sorry, but this grossly misleading. I've owned both lenses and so have > many PDML'rs. I've yet to hear about anyone of those who prefers the FA* > lens. Now you've heard of. > There's no difference in color rendition. They are similar to all current > Pentax lenses; slightly on the warm side. The 77 Limited is sharper at all > apertures I'm rather cautious in supporting Carlo's tests 100%, since I wasn't there at time of making them, and something could have gone wrong. However, since I know Carlo and I can hardly think he wants to fool me and AOHC friends, I usually believe his pictures (not just his words). Also, I'm sure that pictures weren't mixed up, as details have different size at infinity. According to Carlo's statements, the 77mm looks like the colder Pentax lens ever tested by him, much different from 85 FA* and even colder than the 35mm f/2 FA (the latter being the second colder Pentax lens among those tested). Unfortunately, I only have B&W pictures here, supplied to me two years ago for being published in Spotmatic magazine. > but they approach each other at F:8 and smaller. OK, we agree here. Around f/8 both lenses show more or less same sharpness and detail. > At wide apertures > the difference is night and day between the 77 and the 85. > Actually, the 77 Limited is as sharp at 2.8 as the 85 is at F:8. Sorry to contradict you, but according to my pictures, things are exactly the other way round, and the 85 FA* wins very easy against the 77 Ltd. The 85mm FA* at f/1.4 (not to speak of f/2) is far better than the 77mm at f/1.8! > The 85 is also optimized for > close range focusing. The 77 use fixed rear element to ensure consistent > quality through the whole focusing range. The FA* lens do not. The FA* 85/14 > is great for shooting test targets or portraits. Our test shots were taken at infinity, shooting houses and trees. > For general use it > basically sucks. It is the only lens I ever owned that I sold dure to the > fact that wasn't good enough; and it isn't even a consumer lens. Is it possible we got a bad 77mm Ltd and you got a bad 85mm FA*? > The 77 has also much better bokeh as bokeh was a design parameter with this lens. Apart Pentax claims, did you notice any actual difference, by comparing them in same situation? I have no opinion on that topic, as I didn't make proper comparisons. > BTW Blacks are supposed to be deep black with Velvia. That's how the film > is designed. All good lenses will have this feature when using Velvia. Pål, please don't misunderstand my words. Of course blacks must be black and I won't discuss that. When I wrote "shades are almost always deep blacks" I meant that near all shades become black, even when they shouldn't. > The part about contrast is excessive doesn't make sense either. Both this and > the rendition of the blacks points towards lab/film variations more than > lens variations. Sorry, same film for both lenses. Cheers, Dario Bonazza http://www.dariobonazza.com
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Dan Scott wrote: > > On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 08:19 PM, Alan Chan wrote: > > >> I can tolerate the "whirring" feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really > >> don't like it on most of the other "clutchless" autofocus lenses > >> I've tried. > > > > Since you brought up this issue, my Limited lenses have been becoming > > noiser, so to my F*300/4.5. This is entirely you fault. ;-) > > > > regards, > > Alan Chan > I've been thinking about my 77/1.8 and it feels less whirry to me than > it used to when it was new. Still has that "ball bearings in a race" > feel to it, buy not as whirry. > > Is it possible for these things to get better as they age? > > Dan Scott < Big smile...? I'm seventy two, and my wife thinks so...What more do you want? > keith whaley ~ Pentaxian
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Is it possible for these things to get better as they age? Certainly, everything wears out eventually, only if you live long enough to see that day. 8-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> Since you brought up this issue, my Limited lenses have been > becoming noiser, so to my F*300/4.5. This is entirely you fault. > ;-) Sorry, Alan. ;-) Fred
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 08:19 PM, Alan Chan wrote: I can tolerate the "whirring" feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really don't like it on most of the other "clutchless" autofocus lenses I've tried. Since you brought up this issue, my Limited lenses have been becoming noiser, so to my F*300/4.5. This is entirely you fault. ;-) regards, Alan Chan I've been thinking about my 77/1.8 and it feels less whirry to me than it used to when it was new. Still has that "ball bearings in a race" feel to it, buy not as whirry. Is it possible for these things to get better as they age? Dan Scott
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Interesting. I wasn't aware of any lack of sharpness in Provia 100F, but I've only recently tried it to any great extent. I've been an Ektachrome user for many years, but in my reply I was trying to be even handed and mentioned both Ektachme and Fuji variants. Which transparency film provides the most apparent sharpness? I wouldn't use any 100ISO film (for lens testing). Particuarly not Provia 100F; a film that trade sharpness for fine grain. My limited experience with Provia 100F is similar to Pal too. Very very fine grain, but not as sharp as other slides like Velvia 50 or Sensia 100 when viewed under a loupe or scanned them at 2820dpi. Perhaps the difference is contrast? regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Something like the discontinued Ektar 25 I think? regards, Alan Chan Perhaps "outside the mainstream" is a poor choice of words. But I would think that for lens testing, one would want a film of average contrast and saturation, so that differences are more readily apparent. Paul _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I can tolerate the "whirring" feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really don't like it on most of the other "clutchless" autofocus lenses I've tried. Since you brought up this issue, my Limited lenses have been becoming noiser, so to my F*300/4.5. This is entirely you fault. ;-) regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Paul wrote: > Interesting. I wasn't aware of any lack of sharpness in Provia 100F, but > I've only recently tried it to any great extent. Its a controversial issue but many apart from me also find the film somewhat fuzzy. Like someone has been applying a softening filter. It has high resolution though. I suspect the film has low accutance and thats whats makes it "soft". I've been an Ektachrome > user for many years, but in my reply I was trying to be even handed and > mentioned both Ektachme and Fuji variants. Which transparency film > provides the most apparent sharpness? Kodachrome offer the most apparent sharpness follwed by Velvia. Pål
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Paul wrote: > Any film of normal saturation and contrast is fine for lens testing. I > would probably use Fuji Provia 100F or Kodak Ektachrome 100S. > Paul Stenquist I wouldn't use any 100ISO film. Particuarly not Provia 100F; a film that trade sharpness for fine grain. Pål
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Perhaps "outside the mainstream" is a poor choice of words. But I would think that for lens testing, one would want a film of average contrast and saturation, so that differences are more readily apparent. Paul Rob Brigham wrote: > > I would never accuse Velvia of being 'outside the mainstream', nor would > just about most people who take landscapes IMHO. It may be an extreme, > but its one of the most used slide films in the world and is pretty much > the definition of mainstream to me. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:keith_w@;dslextreme.com] > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > > I would think that Velvia is not a good test for any lens. > > It has it's > > > applications, and it is a worthy film in that it serves certain > > > purposes very well. But it is so outside the mainstream in terms of > > > contrast and saturation that it should not be used to > > benchmark lens > > > performance. Paul Stenquist > > > > Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or > > films) you feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality > > testing, please. > > > > keith whaley
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Any film of normal saturation and contrast is fine for lens testing. I would probably use Fuji Provia 100F or Kodak Ektachrome 100S. Paul Stenquist Keith Whaley wrote: > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > I would think that Velvia is not a good test for any lens. It has it's > > applications, and it is a worthy film in that it serves certain purposes > > very well. But it is so outside the mainstream in terms of contrast and > > saturation that it should not be used to benchmark lens performance. > > Paul Stenquist > > Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you > feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. > > keith whaley > > > Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: > > > > > > According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, the 77 > > > Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at least > > > for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color rendition > > > is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other > > > Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the > > > 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true advantage of > > > the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dario Bonazza > > > > > > http://www.dariobonazza.com > > > > > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > for general portaiture and landscapes > > > > > which of these is the better lens > > > > > which is better optically > > > > > what is a good used price > > > > > just curious cos they are both on ebay at the moment
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I opened that site, Rod, and there were no pictures (!) so I bookmarked it for later viewing! Thanks for posting it! keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 11 Nov 2002 at 5:06, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you > > feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. > > The following is a good lens testing reference page: > > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/lenstesting.html > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham Subject: RE: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited > I would never accuse Velvia of being 'outside the mainstream', nor would > just about most people who take landscapes IMHO. It may be an extreme, > but its one of the most used slide films in the world and is pretty much > the definition of mainstream to me. Funny you should say that. I shoot a lot of landscapes, a lot on 4x5. I tried Velvia when it came out, and found it to be too contrasty and too saturated. The stuff doesn't look real to me, and has too short a tonal range to be useable IMO. Now I do use very contrasty lenses, which I am sure makes a difference. William Robb
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited > > Be part of the solution, Paul, and recommend a film (or films) you > feel WOULD be more suitable for lens quality testing, please. Try a normal contrast slide film. Is EPN still being made? William Robb
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> Fred wrote: >> The FA* 85/1.4 also has a much nicer focus feel (due to the clutch), >> than the 77 Ltd, in my opinion. > Not in my opinion. The 77 Limited has a more weighty feel closer > to older manual focus lenses. I think I see what you are saying, Paal. The 77/1.8 does have a firmer feel (i.e., more resistance), and I generally prefer that, too. However, as I have pointed out before (and I know that I am in the minority on this one), I strongly dislike the "whirring" feel that many autofocus lenses (including the 77/1.8 and the 43/1.9) produce when being focused manually, due to the gear train that is being forced to move within the lens (unless there is a clutch to take the gear train out for manual focusing). I can tolerate the "whirring" feel on the F* 300/4.5, but I really don't like it on most of the other "clutchless" autofocus lenses I've tried. Fred
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> It was the lens gallery. Thanks for the posts. OK, good, Bruce. (Although I didn't think that there were any 77/1.8 Ltd images in the Lens Gallery - however, there are several of the 85's represented there.) By the way, ordinarily the mirror ( http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/lensgal.html ) has been identical to the Lens Gallery proper ( http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/lensgal.html ), but I noticed that the current mirror doesn't seem to be in complete agreement with the Gallery proper - it probably hasn't been updated in a while, I guess. Fred
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
On the contrary, my real world experience suggests the 77/1.9 is better. ;-) regards, Alan Chan According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, the 77 Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at least for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color rendition is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true advantage of the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
I would think that Velvia is not a good test for any lens. It has it's applications, and it is a worthy film in that it serves certain purposes very well. But it is so outside the mainstream in terms of contrast and saturation that it should not be used to benchmark lens performance. Paul Stenquist Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: > > According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, the 77 > Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at least > for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color rendition > is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other > Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the > 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true advantage of > the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. > > Cheers, > > Dario Bonazza > > http://www.dariobonazza.com > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > > > > for general portaiture and landscapes > > > which of these is the better lens > > > which is better optically > > > what is a good used price > > > just curious cos they are both on ebay at the moment
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
Wayne wrote: > for general portaiture and landscapes > which of these is the better lens > which is better optically > what is a good used price > just curious cos they are both on ebay at the moment The 77 is the better lens. I've owned both. Pål
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> I did quite a bit of testing of the phenomenon and the results > are posted on the Lens Test Evaluation site. Hopefully Fred can post > the site again. I'm not sure just which site you mean, Bruce. (Sorry.) Arnold has a lot of 77mm and 85mm images at: http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm I have some 85mm (but no 77mm) images at: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/ There are some 85's in the Lens Gallery at: http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/lensgal.html The Lens Gallery mirror: http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/lensgal.html Fred
RE: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> > >The FA *85 is more designed for portrait work. It is not all that > >sharp at/near infinity unless you stop down considerably. > It is great > >for portraits but the 77 Limited is more general purpose. > Great for > >both. I did quite a bit of testing of the phenomenon and > the results > >are posted on the Lens Test Evaluation site. Hopefully > Fred can post > >the site again. > > > >If you are looking for just a portrait lens, the 85 or 77. If you > >want to do landscapes also, I would go for the 77. Phrased another wayget the 77 *unless* you need the speed, are a shallow DOF freak, or primarily shoot portraits. I think the 77 is better all-around, but think the 85 is the greatest 35mm portrait lens ever made. And it's a fact that it's a half stop faster. tv
Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited
> for general portaiture and landscapes > which of these is the better lens > which is better optically Personal opinion: The A* 85/1.4 is the best overall for both, between the two 85/1.4's. (The FA* 85/1.4 makes a very fine portrait lens, probably as good as the A*, although different, but it might not be quite as good for scenics.) There's a bit of "apples and oranges" in your question, though, since 85mm is ~not~ the same as 77mm (although the FA* 85/1.4 tends to have a FL somewhat less than 85mm at closer focusing distances - see http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/85boston.jpg and especially http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/85bricks.jpg . Sorry, I've never used the 77 Ltd. Fred
