Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, it would be great to compare them together. I may do a test using a different adapter on the 28 as, like mentioned, the Rayqual may be just shy of true infinity focus with the 28 and/ or may just not play well with that lens for some reason. The 31 actually focuses a tiny bit past infinity with the Rayqual.
Here is the same 28/3.5K using a different adapter at F8 taken with the A7r. I'm not 100% sure but there may be a hint of softness at distance in one of the mid frame zones of the image. Things seem to sharpen back up at the border though. It might be interesting for you to test you 28 K at a further distance and see how it behaves. Unfortunately, this scene no longer exists due to development so I can't use it for a direct comparison with the 31 now. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7389/16180611770_02b5dd4760_b.jpgPK28F8 by tariqgibranstudio, on Flickr
The processed image looks pretty good for F11 to me. There is some softening at distance, very noticeable in the SooC version which looks much better in the processed image (particularly the distant trees). Beyond overall exposure (are you using both exposure offset and illumination?) and turning noise reduction down/ off, I'm curious as to what other processing in Photo Ninja you are using (are you adjusting the Detail slider?).
I usually use 5 on the detail slider (the other shots in this thread are at 5.) I actually backed it off to 3 for this shot. I actually turned on more noise reduction than the default, which I usually do. But I try to keep that smoothing setting between 1 and 3 if possible (in this case 2.)
One of the things I love about this lens is the depth of field in seems to be able to produce. Reminds my of my ZE 21. The near corners are sharp, yet things at infinity are reasonably sharp as well, even at the edges. Most of the 28mm lenses I've tested can't keep the bottom corners this sharp while maintaining acceptable sharpness at the edges at distance. It's usually one or the other, sharp at distance on the edges but close corners blurred, or close corners pretty sharp and edges blurred.
tsdevine wrote:
One of the things I love about this lens is the depth of field in seems to be able to produce. Reminds my of my ZE 21. The near corners are sharp, yet things at infinity are reasonably sharp as well, even at the edges. Most of the 28mm lenses I've tested can't keep the bottom corners this sharp while maintaining acceptable sharpness at the edges at distance. It's usually one or the other, sharp at distance on the edges but close corners blurred, or close corners pretty sharp and edges blurred.
-Tim
That's just what I'm finding with the 24mm comparison Tim, the difference in dof. I think the FDn is the best I've seen for this in 24mm. I haven't got the Pentax though, as even the better "A" version isn't supposed to be particularly good cf. the ones I'm comparing.
Gary Clennan wrote:
How does the OM28/2 perform on the A7X camera's? I don't recall seeing many samples....
Pretty good. It sharpens up a lot when stopping down. From F8 it gets very decent across the frame.
It's a low contrast lens that renders nice colors IMHO.
Perhaps I'll have a look at my OM 28/2 cf. OM 28/3.5 (that I've just got.)
On the 5DII the 28/2 was a favourite,(once I found a good copy), but I haven't tried on the A7 yet as I've tended to use the FE 28-70 so far for this fl.
I'm not sure if any of the older Pentax 24's will be as good as this 28. The 28 doesn't have't floating elements though, and I haven't done much testing close range. But at f/11 I can get a pretty amazing amount of near to far DoF.
I have an FDn 24 2.8, and I actually like my Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI a little better. Maybe I have to do more testing. The FDn seems a little nervous on the edges, don't know if it's astigmatism or what it is. The Nikon is better to the edges, but not as good in the deep corners.
But as you note in your 24 tests, it's amazing how different DoF can be with lenses...maybe partially due to the cover glass interaction, but I have to believe a good part of it is just lens behavior.
-Tim
timballic wrote:
That's just what I'm finding with the 24mm comparison Tim, the difference in dof. I think the FDn is the best I've seen for this in 24mm. I haven't got the Pentax though, as even the better "A" version isn't supposed to be particularly good cf. the ones I'm comparing.
tsdevine wrote:
I have an FDn 24 2.8, and I actually like my Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI a little better. Maybe I have to do more testing. The FDn seems a little nervous on the edges, don't know if it's astigmatism or what it is. The Nikon is better to the edges, but not as good in the deep corners.
-Tim
Oh, I wish you hadn't said that Tim, I'd discarded the Nikkor as most reports I came across said the FDn had the better edges!
Perhaps when I've finished "round one", I'll sell off a couple that least please me and get the Nikkor and a ø49mm Fdn and compare those with my favourites. I've got the time, but not the brass!
Well, I think I need to do another test.... And you never know about copy to copy variation. So take my comments as anecdotal until I do some more controlled comparison shots.
And I've heard most people consider the FDn 24 2.8 a better performer on the a7 series than the Nikkor.
-Tim
timballic wrote:
Oh, I wish you hadn't said that Tim, I'd discarded the Nikkor as most reports I came across said the FDn had the better edges!
Perhaps when I've finished "round one", I'll sell off a couple that least please me and get the Nikkor and a ø49mm Fdn and compare those with my favourites. I've got the time, but not the brass!
Well, Just for interest I looked on ebay.eu (always a dangerous thing to do! ;o)) and there was a rather nice 24/2.8 Ai at nearly half the usual price, so for interest I bought it! I can either return it if any real problems or quickly resell if it doesn't measure up. I hope I'm right that the design was unchanged Ai to AiS, apart from possible coating changes. (I know the 28/2.8 did change design)
That's one thing with buying nikon, there's nearly always a good selection.
I usually use 5 on the detail slider (the other shots in this thread are at 5.) I actually backed it off to 3 for this shot. I actually turned on more noise reduction than the default, which I usually do. But I try to keep that smoothing setting between 1 and 3 if possible (in this case 2.)
-Tim
Thanks Tim.
The Pentax 28/3.5 K does seem to have some special powers when it comes to sharpness at closer distances at those near edges/ borders in particular. I have noticed this is well in my comparisons.
Yes, no design changes between the 24mm f/2.8 AI and AI-s. Only the 28mm f/2.8 had changes from the AI to AI-s.
-Tim
timballic wrote:
Well, Just for interest I looked on ebay.eu (always a dangerous thing to do! ;o)) and there was a rather nice 24/2.8 Ai at nearly half the usual price, so for interest I bought it! I can either return it if any real problems or quickly resell if it doesn't measure up. I hope I'm right that the design was unchanged Ai to AiS, apart from possible coating changes. (I know the 28/2.8 did change design)
That's one thing with buying nikon, there's nearly always a good selection.
It seems that the biggest change was the intoduction of SIC coatings (Super integrated coatings) intoduced in late 2004, only the later and most expensive AiS versions have this.
I keep telling myself that and I try not to look at your 31 shots!
-Tim
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks Tim.
The Pentax 28/3.5 K does seem to have some special powers when it comes to sharpness at closer distances at those near edges/ borders in particular. I have noticed this is well in my comparisons.
tsdevine wrote:
I keep telling myself that and I try not to look at your 31 shots!
-Tim
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.
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.
for me, the 28/3.5 does indeed look better there, but the 31ltd is cleaner all the way across the frame, it's pretty impressive.
