I'm sorry to say so about photozone, but to me the whole situation looks a bit contrived. There's no results at his site to consider the same issue in comparable lenses from other brands. There is one particular test shot where it shows up, a pic of a couple walking up a road lined with trees on both sides and just a small area of sky backlighting some of the brances. As a quality minded photographer I would never, ever have shot that scene at f/2.8 like he did. Had he used f/4.5 or smaller it wouldn't have shown at all. For adequate DOF in that situation, I'd say at least f/8.
The really interesting question is how much overexposed that patch of sky actually is. From my tests, it looks like you really need to blow the highlights to lure out the PF in full force. That goes for the cyan fringing in the FA* too, btw. Doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't seen it. Just as you probably wouldn't have seen the PF from the DA* in most normal circumstances either. I too have the 16-45 and find that it has more fringing than have any of the 200's. Not compared it to the 16-50 yet. So little time and so many lenses... <sigh> Jostein 2008/3/13, Toine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Interesting. I have the FA and didn't notice any PF. My 16-45 shows PF > in all high contrast regions. The photozone test and samples of the DA > version amazed me. > > I would like to see samples of the same lens on a K10D vs K20D. If PF > is caused by CCD bleeding the K20D samples should be much better. > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM, AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know I promised some test results last week, but I haven't got > > around to process what I did in the week-end yet. :-( > > > > So here's some text describing my results. Pics will follow if there's > > any interest in the issue. > > > > What I have found is this: > > > > Sharpness and contrast: > > I can't tell them apart. Both are pretty darn good. > > > > AF speed: > > The two lenses are about equal in focus speed on my K10D. On the > > *istD, however, the old FA* is twice as fast as the DA*. I assume this > > would apply to all non-SDM cameras. > > > > >From a classical twig-shot at f/2.8 and f/4: > > There is indeed a bit more PF in the DA* than in the FA*. However, the > > FA* also exhibit some cyan fringing. There is no cyan fringing in the > > DA*. > > I also found that there must be some serious overexposure for the > > fringing to become noticeable in both lenses. Exposure for the > > highlights and then application of "auto levels" in Photoshop gave a > > much better balanced result than dialling in "+2" exposure > > compensation in the camera. > > Why anyone in a legal state of mind wants to shoot scenes with loads > > of twigs against a bright background at f/2.8 beats me, tho... There > > must be better ways to employ either of these lenses. > > > > >From strongly backlit portraits at f/2.8 and f/4: > > Same thing as for twigs, except it seems like a good idea to employ > > the lenses for this purpose. Note also that even the little built-in > > flash in K10D can save the day both with regards to skin tones and to > > balance the foreground face against the light background. > > > > So my conclusion is that unless you defiantly maintain that all your > > Pentax glass must be full frame, the DA* is just as good as the FA*. I > > have not been able to imagine any shooting situation where one would > > fail and the other save the day. Price, availability, weatherproofing > > and AF noise are all in favour of the DA*. And if you get a shot that > > you really, really need to save despite colour fringing, the output > > from a DA* with be easier to post-process because it fringes in only > > one colour where the FA* fringe in two. > > > > > > Best, > > Jostein > > > > > > -- > > http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ > > http://alunfoto.blogspot.com > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > > > -- > Toine > http://www.repiuk.nl > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
