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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
-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
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton;rcsis.com]
After quite extensive use with my FA *85/1.4, I would say
that for use
at portrait distances, the lens is very sharp - even wide open - but
DOF is so shallow that almost nothing is in focus.
That's a key point. When
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 )
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
- 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
- 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
I opened that site, Rod, and there were no pictures (!) so I
bookmarked it for later viewing! big grin
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
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
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',
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Fred,
It was the lens gallery. Thanks for the posts.
Bruce
Sunday, November 10, 2002, 6:05:23 AM, you wrote:
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.
F I'm not sure just which
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
