RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: New FA31 Limited Detailed Measurbation Test

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

New FA31 Limited Detailed Measurbation Test

At the Polish Optyczne. As usual, I think the test is professionally done and is good for reference:-

http://www.optyczne.pl/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=235

(Google English Translation Here)

Comments (24)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+2 Vote up Vote down

uray · 702 weeks ago

it is a mythical lens, so mythical price, but not mythical results
But the Japanese version will be better, I'm interested in comparing

-1 Vote up Vote down

Denis · 702 weeks ago

Sample varition, of course. Mine isn't particularly sharp at f1.8 (although it's able to produce images like that: http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-w1K34fl5v6s/TpC.... Once I tried another 31Ltd and it was sharp from f1.8.
But being not particularly sharp at APS-C wide open is based on design, since the larger surface put the lower demand on lens resolution. It will be enough on FF, as usual.

3 replies · active 701 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

RiceHigh 110p · 701 weeks ago

I think it might be AF inaccuracy that comes into play when it is wide opened.

0 Vote up Vote down

Denis · 701 weeks ago

May be. Mine is front focusing all the time.

0 Vote up Vote down

Alan C · 701 weeks ago

Mine is the MIJ version. Had to adjust my K10 a little due to front focusing. After that it was sharp from f1.8.

-1 Vote up Vote down

full_frame · 701 weeks ago

Excellent review.

The FA31. One of the most overrated lenses. It's $1299.95 retail, why there reports of significant sample variations?

10 replies · active 701 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Michael A. · 701 weeks ago

Paid $759.00 new. Depends when you purchased it....

+3 Vote up Vote down

RiceHigh 110p · 701 weeks ago

It simply don't worth that price IMHO, the Samsung NX (APS-C) 30/2.0 is sharper and much compacter and lighter.

The true value of the FA31 is only when it is used on Full Frame!

-1 Vote up Vote down

Michael A. · 701 weeks ago

Yes, you are right. I got it originally for (black) MZ-3. Nice little camera...

-1 Vote up Vote down

Denis · 701 weeks ago

Exactly

0 Vote up Vote down

Chris · 701 weeks ago

"The true value of the FA31 is only when it is used on Full Frame!" - probably true, but my FA31 is definitely sharper than my DA35. Still, I prefer the DA35 because of size and versatility (macro capable).

-1 Vote up Vote down

Chris · 701 weeks ago

On the FA31: Overpriced, yes. Overrated, well not my copy.

On Pentax primes: I love them. Some of my lenses are however rarely used: FA31 - too big / FA77 - terrible flare and CA, highly overrated / FA50 - I am spoiled by the Limiteds and don't like plastics anymore on my skin :-) / DA15 - some CA issues, use it only when I have to. However, I cannot find any fault in any of my other primes: DA 21, 40, 70, DFA100WR, DA*200, and FA43. No point that comes to mind that I don't like about them. It feels as if they had been developed just for me :-)

Well, with a few mods: I leave the hood of the DA70 off (it's not flare-prone anyway) and have added a 49mm snap-on lens cap to the 70 and a 30.5mm snap-on cap to the 40. With these modifications the DA-triple (21, 40, 70) are definitely the perfect and incredibly small prime set to me.

Are the f-numbers of the DA Limiteds big enough for 3D? In my opinion yes, since more would come at the cost of bigger form factors. I would, however, pay more to get DA Limiteds with higher f-numbers at the same form factor (don't know if physics allows it, however).

So, I totally deviated from the article topic. My apologies. Now back to work :-(

0 Vote up Vote down

Denis · 701 weeks ago

You better to start real shooting. I'm printing A4 and never find out the PF and CA to be strong enough to take care of it. On the other hand, the skin rendition of DA Ltds always needs PP to hide face skin inperfections.

0 Vote up Vote down

Chris · 701 weeks ago

Bought my K-5 as soon as it became available in Germany (less than a year ago) and have made about 10k shots with it, none of these were brick walls. I am not a measurebator.

I like to take pictures of landscapes, animals and people (aka "street photography"), as well as the occasional flower or other macro shot. I also like to play with multishot techniques (panorama, HDR, super-resolution and combinations of these).

I occasionally do some PP but prefer to do the shots "just right" so no PP is needed. Imperfections on human skin are human, and outside of fashion photography nothing that would need correction. On the other hand, I noticed PF and CA strong enough to spoil the picture when using the DA15 and FA77 and printing on A2.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Denis · 701 weeks ago

A2?
You chose a wrong gear then. APS-C is unable to provide decent quality for such a large print.

-1 Vote up Vote down

Chris · 701 weeks ago

Denis - you are not 100% correct.
Possible (=sensible) print sizes depend on resolution, not on physical sensor dimensions. It is quite possible to print on A2, with the K-5 resolution (4928x3264) and A2 paper format (594mmx420mm) you still get about 200 dpi without any tricks - enough for anybody. But you are also right that the FA77, used on a FF sensor of the same resolution, would have less PF. This is all pretty simple, isn't it? Add to that that the FA77 was not designed for digital (reflecting) sensors, and my finding suddenly makes sense: the FA77 is highly overrated when used on the K-5. The DA70 is MUCH better.
C

-2 Vote up Vote down

OGL · 701 weeks ago

This Polish site is rather strange tester. Always. Can't trust.
Photozone is much better

2 replies · active 701 weeks ago

-1 Vote up Vote down

parsley · 701 weeks ago

"Can't trust". Why? Any explanation?

0 Vote up Vote down

RiceHigh 110p · 701 weeks ago

Because the tested results are often not good enough. So, it must be the flaws of the testers! ;-)

0 Vote up Vote down

OGL · 701 weeks ago

I see front focus at the samples...How to test lens without calibration? Nonsense.

1 reply · active 701 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

RiceHigh 110p · 701 weeks ago

But it reflects that the autofocus system of the K-5 is not accurate, at least with that sample of the FA31.

0 Vote up Vote down

OGL · 701 weeks ago

Any autofocus system of any brand DSLR could has problems with one lens, and couldn't has with another. There are a lot varition of work of camera + lens. FA31 is very uncertain in terms of AF at non-FF cameras from Pentax. From *ist D time till our days.
But it works fine with film cameras.

That's why semi-pro and pro cameras (and even some low-end) has IN-CAMERA FOCUS CALIBRATION.

This review is not test of AF system, but LENS. Careless work for me.

2 replies · active 701 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

RiceHigh 110p · 701 weeks ago

My adapted FA Limited works dead accurate on my 5D with the EOS focus confirmation for the correct focus. So, it is all about the inadequacy of accuracy of the Pentax focusing system, but nothing else (don't blame a particular lens).

+2 Vote up Vote down

AlexS · 701 weeks ago

Yeah, sure. Even when they're using manual focus and still get it wrong, "it's all about the inadequacy of accuracy of the Pentax focusing system".

Post a new comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Tweet this comment

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

New FA31 Limited Detailed Measurbation Test

Forgot password?

Comments (24)

Post a new comment

Reference Links (by Others)

My Technical Articles (Latest First)