Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Pentax-03 Fisheye 3.2mm f/5.6
#1
Really a toy lens but it's fairly cheap at least ...

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/pentaxq/706-pentaxq32f56"]http://www.opticallimits.com/pentaxq/706-pentaxq32f56[/url]
#2
The guys at Pentax are probably smoking some nasty stuff. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> Hope that now that they're under Ricoh's control they'll clean their act up. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />
#3
[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1325553585' post='14232']

The guys at Pentax are probably smoking some nasty stuff. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> Hope that now that they're under Ricoh's control they'll clean their act up. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

[/quote]



Yes, they should have made this one a f/4. They wanted it to make as cheap as possible I suspect. At f/5.6 it makes little sense other than for the usual wow effects of a fisheye.
#4
Where's the diffraction softening zone on this system again? I assume f/5.6 is way into it?



Regardless of that, I did quickly play with some sharpening and noise reduction on the samples, and they can perk up a lot with a little more processing. Certainly well into the "good enough" category.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#5
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1325593776' post='14255']

Where's the diffraction softening zone on this system again? I assume f/5.6 is way into it?



Regardless of that, I did quickly play with some sharpening and noise reduction on the samples, and they can perk up a lot with a little more processing. Certainly well into the "good enough" category.

[/quote]

With its 5.62x crop factor (compared to 135 format), f5.6 translates into f5.6 x 5.6 = f31 on FF. So yes, well into very high diffraction softening. So you are dealing with the same softness for the image some landscape and macro shooters deal with who use f32.

f4 will translate in f22 for FF.



You are right in that you can perk it up to make them passable for non-serious stuff, I agree.
#6
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1325593776' post='14255']

Where's the diffraction softening zone on this system again? I assume f/5.6 is way into it?



Regardless of that, I did quickly play with some sharpening and noise reduction on the samples, and they can perk up a lot with a little more processing. Certainly well into the "good enough" category.

[/quote]

According to my calculations, it is F/5 (F/4.9 to be exact). Which means that for optimimum results the lens shouldn't be stopped down further than F/4.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#7
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1325579726' post='14241']

Yes, they should have made this one a f/4. They wanted it to make as cheap as possible I suspect. At f/5.6 it makes little sense other than for the usual wow effects of a fisheye.

[/quote]

The oddest thing is that they're still asking like $200 for it. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
#8
[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1325619186' post='14266']

The oddest thing is that they're still asking like $200 for it. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[/quote]



I guess they are just in one league with several fisheye adapters of other manufacturers, like for the olympus pen or the sony pancake (E16mm F2,8), and I presume also qualitywise, so nothing to worry about. Take it or leave it, not a big deal <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />
#9
[quote name='Hans Steiner' timestamp='[url="tel:1325620568"]1325620568[/url]' post='14268']

I guess they are just in one league with several fisheye adapters of other manufacturers, like for the olympus pen or the sony pancake (E16mm F2,8), and I presume also qualitywise, so nothing to worry about. Take it or leave it, not a big deal <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />

[/quote]



It is actually quite cheap here in Europe - in Germany at least. I payed about 135EUR.
#10
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1325531116' post='14227']

Really a toy lens but it's fairly cheap at least ...

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/pentaxq/706-pentaxq32f56"]http://www.photozone...06-pentaxq32f56[/url]

[/quote]





Typo: I think on http://www.opticallimits.com/pentaxq you want to call it: "Pentax-03 Fisheye ..."



J.
enjoy
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)