After all those tests and measurements and with much hope in resolving the problem, I quickly acquired an IR block/stop/cut filter to see IF the problem could be eliminated:-


The filter is essential a glass filter with heat reflective coating on it. As such, it is also known as hot mirror, besides calling it a IR blocking filter. (More product brochures can be found here for the B+W and here for the Heliopan.)
A typical wavelength response on the light spectrum is as follows:-

It can be observed that such a filter does reflect red or green light when viewed from a large angle of incidence. In contrast, when it is viewed near perpendicularly, it is clear. Hence, these filters should not be used for wider lenses for an Angle of View greater than 60 degrees, i.e., at about 35mm 135 film equivalent. Theoretically, it has virtually no light loss for visible light and thus the EV drop should be zero and it is negligible.
Now, that's the most important part which we are looking for - the Results! Of course all tests were carried out under the same pure tungsten environment (at the same time). This time I only tested at 35mm of the focal, which was found to have a more dominant effect for the problem than the tele-side:-
Condition | Record of the Focus Scale for where AF was Measured | Result Image (Central 100% Crop) | Result Image (Large and Uncropped) |
Without IR Cut Filter, Optical PMAF | ![]() | View | Download |
With IR Cut Filter, Optical PMAF | ![]() | View | Download |
With IR Cut Filter, Live View CDAF | ![]() | View | Download |
Without IR Cut Filter, Focus Adjust at -10 (Max.), PMAF | ![]() | View | Download |
With IR Cut Filter, Focus Adjust at -10 (Max.), PMAF | ![]() | View | Download |
Well, once again, the best focus was achieved with Live View. With the help of the IR block filter, the front focusing symptom has been relieved somehow, but only partially! :-( Now that the focusing error seems to be halved in this case and indeed it even did slightly better than making Focus Adjust at a full span backwards at -10 as allowed. Most possible focus correction was achieved with the use of IR cut filter together with a Focus Adjust at -10 - but it was still NOT there for exactly where the Live View could reach! :-o
To explain the half-failure (and half-success anyway!) of this IR cutting remedial, there are at least two possibilities:-
1. The IR block filter is not strong enough to reject all the harmful IR lights from tungsten and the SAFOX IX is just too sensitive to those;
2. The harmful IR light or near-IR lights are out of the flat rejection band of the filter such that the filtering is not as effective as desired. As such, some improvement can be seen but yet the problem is not totally eliminated!
No matter how, at the end of the day, Pentax must be blamed for the in-born latent defect and that complete design fault of the SAFOX IX system that they created. In fact, this fault is a very serious one and is unforgivable for the large amount of focusing error that is produced! >:-[
Nevertheless, I am still feeling somehow good to find out and know about the truth and then to report in details here for what I've discovered. It is a tragedy for all we K-r and actually all Pentax users after all as it is seen that Pentax created an inferior AF system like this. I do hope that it should *never* happen again in the Pentaxland, for any new Pentax body to come!
N.B. Last time I used an entry level Canon 550D (for a complete month), it never had this kind of front focusing problem under tungsten and the AF had been dead accurate! >:-(
Related:-
Pentax UK and Pentax Germany Admitted K-r Tungsten Front Focusing Issue (But there is No Solution, as Both Clearly Told)
Still Annoying K-5 and K-r Old Issues, Users are Pissed Off!
SAFOX IX Tungsten/Yellow Light Front Focus Issue Fully Investigated
Jerry · 692 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 692 weeks ago
Jerry · 692 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 691 weeks ago
As for the tungsten FF problem, it is helpless. So, you should debug your K-x to focus correctly with your fast primes under "normal" lights in the first place.
N.B. The tungsten FF problem and amount of the K-x is yet obviously lesser than that of K-r already!
Jerry · 691 weeks ago
And my DA 18-55 AL II needs +80 :-D But thanks I'll try that +130
RiceHigh 110p · 691 weeks ago
Barry F · 692 weeks ago
Pentax are not interested end of story and I say that with a heavy heart because this could be a great camera if this problem were sorted out.
I think RiceHigh is correct Pentax are not likely to do anything about this, and they are not even slightly bothered about it either.
But unlike RiceHigh I'm not prepared to support a company that ignores it's customers so I'll be dumping K mount shortly
Toomas Kadarpik · 692 weeks ago
1. No f 2.8 sensor, so it can not be accurate and used in low light
2. It depends on light spectrum
3. AF points are too large
I think XI+ was developed for 645D and quickly adopted to APS-C. In 645D it performs much better but aps-c version is struggling even in studio strobe pilot lights.
RiceHigh 110p · 692 weeks ago
Barry F · 692 weeks ago
I have a film body with an f2/8 double cross sensor my Dynax 7 35mm body. It's "deadly" accurate even using very fast primes under all lighting conditions, with a great working red pattern AF assist it can lock AF accurately even in complete darkness (if in range of the AF assist) it can even lock AF on pure white walls! (pattern effect on the AF assist works wonders)
Question in my mind is..how come a year 2000 35mm SLR can AF accurately, and here we are in 2011, some 11 years later with a camera (whilst it's not semi pro spec like the Minolta) that just can't AF properly in low kelvin light.
I loved the K-r when I first got it bargain, feature packed impressive. It all fell apart rapidly when trying to shoot in this light. Today I got a full refund for the K-r..but Pentax customer support was non existent it makes it difficult to want to try a K-5 even though I now have lenses with no body!
Ricardo · 691 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 690 weeks ago
Rad Man · 687 weeks ago
I also tried it out on some sports action and it's years ahead of Pentax it actually can track across the frame and the hit rate is high.
Such a shame because the K-r could be a great camera. I can't say I'm impressed with all I've heard about Pentax support, seems as if they don't really care about K-r customers.
Barry F · 686 weeks ago
I was with Pentax just over a year and quite liked it in most ways, but you can have all the bang per buck in the world (spec and features) if you fall down on the basics there isn't a lot of point. Good luck anyway maybe you'll get an updated K-r minus AF problems.
All I can say is Pentax are far behind Canon and NIkon who are much more consistent and sophisticated with the AF
Nublover · 685 weeks ago