Thanks Tariq, looking at the f/11 shots it seems like the 28 holds it's own....at least considering it's a lens made in the mid 70's. Can't argue with the quality of the 31 though.
I think I can keep temptation at bay. Considering that the 28 is noticeably wider, and it's like roulette when you buy these lenses....you never know if you're going to get a dud or a rock star. (And I only paid $85 for my 28.)
Also, my FE 16-35 has more of a flat field at 28....so it would be good at infinity shots with everything in the frame at a large distance (which I don't shoot much being an East coaster.)
The 28/3.5 has the DoF to cover most of what I normally shoot, something that I can't say about a lot of the other 28's I've tested.
Bottom line is that both lenses look like winners for landscape shooting.
-Tim
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I did another comparative test today using a different adapter with the 28/3.5K. I do believe it made a positive difference. Particularly for medium to close distances like you shoot, that Pentax 28 is damn good. Here again in this scene, the 28 offers an extended foreground dof/ sharpness compared to the 31, particularly noticeable in the f5.6 and F8 shots. Focus point for both lenses was the center small tree in the medium distance zone (image center). I also believe I'm seeing that the 31 may somehow be showing diffraction effects at F11 more so than the 28. As for the 31, it does offer sharper side borders at F5.6 and F8 and if one looks at the smaller distant objects, they are sharper with the 31. I think the 31 pretty much peaks by F8 and the 28 at F11 (which works out nicely given it seems to somehow be more resistant to diffraction effects).
For these images as with the previous bunch, I did no additional sharpening (beyond default) or clarity enhancements in ACR.
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks Tariq, looking at the f/11 shots it seems like the 28 holds it's own....at least considering it's a lens made in the mid 70's. Can't argue with the quality of the 31 though.
I think I can keep temptation at bay. Considering that the 28 is noticeably wider, and it's like roulette when you buy these lenses....you never know if you're going to get a dud or a rock star. (And I only paid $85 for my 28.)
Also, my FE 16-35 has more of a flat field at 28....so it would be good at infinity shots with everything in the frame at a large distance (which I don't shoot much being an East coaster.)
The 28/3.5 has the DoF to cover most of what I normally shoot, something that I can't say about a lot of the other 28's I've tested.
Bottom line is that both lenses look like winners for landscape shooting.
Yes, mentally though 28 seems to fit between my ZE 21 and FE 35 better (even if the 35 is a little longer than 35.) And doing waterfall photography, which is something I really enjoy, it's not always easy to foot zoom. Makes shooting primes a challenge sometimes, but I guess that's part of the fun.
In any case if I had the 31, I'd be using it.
-Tim
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Certainly, given that the 28K is a fraction of the cost of a 31, it's a winner.
The actual difference in focal length is not that great at all in use. To get the exact frame as the 28 with the 31 requires backing up 3.5 feet.
tsdevine wrote:
Yes, mentally though 28 seems to fit between my ZE 21 and FE 35 better (even if the 35 is a little longer than 35.) And doing waterfall photography, which is something I really enjoy, it's not always easy to foot zoom. Makes shooting primes a challenge sometimes, but I guess that's part of the fun.
In any case if I had the 31, I'd be using it. ;-)
-Tim
The 31 will basically satisfy my need for a seperate 28 and 35, which works out with my current kit as I also shoot with a CV 40/1.4. I don't often shoot wider but will add a 24 at some point (probably pick up another OM 24/2.8 as I loved that lens on the 5D). If I had found a 35 I was very happy with, I'm sure I would have never considered the 31.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The 31 will basically satisfy my need for a seperate 28 and 35, which works out with my current kit as I also shoot with a CV 40/1.4. I don't often shoot wider but will add a 24 at some point (probably pick up another OM 24/2.8 as I loved that lens on the 5D). If I had found a 35 I was very happy with, I'm sure I would have never considered the 31.
BTW, what adapter did you use for the K 28/3.5 shots?
-Tim
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I did another comparative test today using a different adapter with the 28/3.5K. I do believe it made a positive difference. Particularly for medium to close distances like you shoot, that Pentax 28 is damn good. Here again in this scene, the 28 offers an extended foreground dof/ sharpness compared to the 31, particularly noticeable in the f5.6 and F8 shots. Focus point for both lenses was the center small tree in the medium distance zone (image center). I also believe I'm seeing that the 31 may somehow be showing diffraction effects at F11 more so than the 28. As for the 31, it does offer sharper side borders at F5.6 and F8 and if one looks at the smaller distant objects, they are sharper with the 31. I think the 31 pretty much peaks by F8 and the 28 at F11 (which works out nicely given it seems to somehow be more resistant to diffraction effects).
For these images as with the previous bunch, I did no additional sharpening (beyond default) or clarity enhancements in ACR.
tsdevine wrote:
BTW, what adapter did you use for the K 28/3.5 shots?
-Tim
It is a cheap Fotasy adapter I picked up on Amazon. I have a few of these Fotasy branded adapters and overall they work well. This particular Pentax adapter though has a bit of play with the camera mount. Not sure if it's due to the adapter or the Fotodiox Tough Mount since I don't remember that play previously with the stock mount (oddly though, the Raqual has no play). The Rayqual was used for the 31Ltd.
So I picked up another SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5, and this one appears to be as sharp as my first. BUT, it doesn't exhibit the extreme depth of field, especially in the corners. I haven't exactly figured out how that could be, but it is very noticeable. Still just as sharp though.
Next round. The SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5 vs the Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 on a Sony a7R. The battle of the slow lenses... All processed via Photo Ninja with sharpening, contrast, and CA removal matching across shots with the same aperture. Not sure if anyone really cares....but someone might find it useful. Focus was on the junction box at the light towards the center of the barn.
The Pentax used in the test above is a different copy than the other tests. The other copy had some decentering at wider apertures, although it was mostly gone by f/11.
Hey Tim. Just had a chance to check out the F5.6 and F8 examples and it looks like there is something going on with the Pentax in the top left corner. The Olympus looks noticeably sharper in that corner. It might be worthwhile to shoot a different subject with detail in the top right corner just to see if it's similarly soft (and rule out any adapter/ specific lens issue). I have not shot with my Pentax 28 in a while but I don't believe it's that soft at F8.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hey Tim. Just had a chance to check out the F5.6 and F8 examples and it looks like there is something going on with the Pentax in the top left corner. The Olympus looks noticeably sharper in that corner. It might be worthwhile to shoot a different subject with detail in the top right corner just to see if it's similarly soft (and rule out any adapter/ specific lens issue). I have not shot with my Pentax 28 in a while but I don't believe it's that soft at F8.
the olympus looks sharper in all the corners and softer over the rest of the frame.
I've tried about 6 different adapters and 4 different Pentax 28's....while there may have been slight differences in the upper left corner, this adapter gives the best performance across the frame. The "better" adapters seem too thick. The cheaper ones seem to perform better, but then there's probably less adherence to tolerances so I can't rule that out. So far this is the best of the lenses and adapters.
One thing I will say is that I was focused a little short of infinity, and that may be aggravating that upper left corner. I will say that in other shots it's close in performance to the upper right. Although if there was any corner I've thought might be a little worse, that's the one.
-Tim
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hey Tim. Just had a chance to check out the F5.6 and F8 examples and it looks like there is something going on with the Pentax in the top left corner. The Olympus looks noticeably sharper in that corner. It might be worthwhile to shoot a different subject with detail in the top right corner just to see if it's similarly soft (and rule out any adapter/ specific lens issue). I have not shot with my Pentax 28 in a while but I don't believe it's that soft at F8.
The Pentax doesn't give perfect corners.....but it delivers over so much of the frame I don't care. As you note, the Olympus does well in the corners but doesn't impress as much everywhere else. Could be my copy of the lens, or the adapter I'm using. The lens is a later serial number lens in mint condition, so it could be the adapter. (Or maybe it's just how it performs on the a7r.)
-Tim
sebboh wrote:
the olympus looks sharper in all the corners and softer over the rest of the frame.
