Showing posts with label Pentax 110 Lens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pentax 110 Lens. Show all posts

Sunday, 6 October 2013

newer bigger better faster

Sometimes you can't have everything (well, where would you put it?), and just like my title of 4 words you don't always get all togther.

As mentioned in previous posts I like my compact camera to be compact. Sometimes when I'm out and about I like to have another lens around in case the opportunity arises and my compact 14mm wide angle is not what is needed. With the GF series cameras I like that lens to be small too, something in keeping with the cameras philosophy.

Sometimes bigger isn't better and newer isn't always better either. My case in point today is a small review of my newly purchased Pentax 110 70mm lens. Introduced by Pentax sometime in the late 70's early 80's this little lens is perhaps the best of the 110 series lenses in terms of manufacture quality and feel.



One thing is true this lens sure isn't newer.

In this post I'd like to show the lens to those who may not have seen it, discuss the lens handling and feel and then examine some images made with it. This is not a review in the normal modern manner. There'll be no shots of brick walls to show its ability to hold a square, or MTF curves ...

The lens is made of a mixture of metal and plastic. The lens barrel is metal and the focus grip is beautiful to work with, its rubber which is still looking good more than 30 years later ... I can't say the same of my kit 14-45 (which is an optically good lens btw). The focus turns nicely and with a sense of precision.

Sat beside the more modern more plastic feeling (not that that's any sort of problem for me) Panasonic 14-42 zoom we can see that the little Pentax is quite compact.


Please excuse the softness of this shot it was taken with my FD50 f1.4 on my GH camera, wide open because I was too lazy to get better artifical lighting .... None the less it shows that the lens is really small. This is in my view quite in keeping with the philosophy of the micro 4/3 system compact concepts.

Interestingly the 14-42 zoom extends quite a bit when zooming. Even though it only gives a focal length of 45mm (significantly less than 70mm) it ends up looking like this when zoomed:



With that lens on the camera it starts to look like more of a big lens on a small camera than a than a compact camera system.



To me its looking decidedly less compact ... but then I guess thats what people want ... bigger compact things, because it couldn't possibly be any good if it was small right?

Personally I feel that the GF series cameras (as distinct from my SLR alike GH series camera) benefits from a more compact lens ... and actually the little 70mm looks and feels really nice on the GH too. The Pentax 110 70mm lens is actually not only a compact lens, but a high quality lens that follows the philosophy of small cameras with big image quality.

Faster


so what's the fuzz with faster. For reasons I don't really know people seem to get all confused about this. Well I think that the simplest way to understand this is to do something no one does anymore, and that's look at my light meter. For a given exposure an f5.6 lens will need a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second while the f2.8 lens will snap the shot in a mere 1/125th of a second (that's 4 times faster).



So not only is this little guy faster he's way faster.

But wait, someone says:
Oh who needs speed I can hand hold at a 30th with OIS 
 well sure you can, but if you're photographing people they just might move...

The lens is not only nice to hold but has a very smooth damped feel to the focus and (importantly) a long throw. This means that you have to turn the lens more to get a change in focus. When you're dealing with wanting shallow depth of field smaller movements make it much easier to get exactly what you want in focus.

Portraits


When taking portraits one wants to be a little further away (to not intimidate the subject) and get a smoother rendering of their face. In case anyone is still of the "zoom with your feet" school of thought I would argue that there are differences in portraiture. This shot was done in just such a manner with the subject staying in exactly the same spot and me just 'zooming with my feet' to show what mild telephoto VS wide angle in closer does to a persons face.


so if you want your friends and family looking like the portrait on the right, go on using your iPhone and stop reading this post now ;-) (and yes that's my shadow in the image on the right)

Noone volunteered for being subject on this lens test so sorry to say you won't be getting any people shots with this lens. None the less there are two things I look for in a portrait lens ...
  • shallow Depth of Field
  • soft out of focus rendering
So I thought that I'd explore this with some images. First this one:

shot in available light (because setting up lighting is just so spontaneous) and hand held at about the perfect framing for a head head and shoulders shot. Background is quickly out of focus and yet at the critical point of focus the lens is sharp. A segment of that image shows this.


Sharp enough to see the threads ... Now I have not added any sharpening or contrast control here, so you have room to do some local area masking and selective sharpening also. Ultimately this is not bad for hand held and shows the advantages of that faster lens (so I suppose this means I look for 3 things in a lens then ...)


So next I'd like to answer two questions:
  • is it sharp on the edges
  • is there any point in going from 45mm to 70mm as they're both tele (and how much tele do you need?)

To answer both these questions I took the following shots with the focus at the edge of the image (probably further to the edge than you'd realistically put a portrait) and also use the 14-45 at the 45 end (which btw isn't really fast as its f5.6 at that length) the 70mm in question and for the heck of it a 50mm 110 lens which I also have which at f2.8 is much faster than the 45 end of the zoom while not being that much more telephoto. I wrote a little bit about the 50 in a few pages, for instance in the last blog post here and quite a bit more back a few years ago here, where I compared it to the kit 45 and an OM 50mm f1.8.

So, anyway rendering of depth of field (how it looks). It could be said that because one is in closer with the 45mm that even though its slower that f5.6 may give a similar rendering to the 70mm further away *(since we know that as you move away from the subject DoF around the subject increases)

Now in all these shots I moved back from the position that one needs to be in for the 45mm to see keep the composition of the portrait the same and to see what happens to the image. My focus in all images was the white wooden edge of the house.

The 45 @ f5.6

The 50mm @ f2.8

The 70mm @ 2.8


I think its pretty clear that the DoF between the images varies remarkably and focus is more keenly had on the place where I wanted it. 

I included the 50mm f2.8 to show that even with its more shallow depth of field that by moving further back and using the more telephoto did indeed give a better out of focus effect. Personally I very much like the rendering of the 70mm to give good background / subject separation.

Lets look then to edge sharpness.

The 45mm


The 50mm

The 70mm

Personally I reckon that the edge sharpness (the white board) is plenty, probably more than is needed for portraiture (when the ladies will be asking you to use some Photoshop 'love' to cover the wrinkles and any skin pores).

Conclusions

So there you have it the Pentax 110 70mm from a time long gone does a great job on the micro 4/3 (which is the same size sensor as the  110 film area was BTW) and makes a great lightweight compact lens to add to your micro 4/3 kitbag.

Now I know that Olympus makes a very similar lens (75mm f1.8) which is actually a native lens. This means it will have:
  • auto focus
  • a working aperture
  • better optics
  • is slightly faster at f1.7 (consulting our light meter about double, so 300th)
why not just get that one?

Sure ... if you feel like putting down $1000 for the Olympus I'm quite sure you'll be very pleased with it. But this lens cost only $50. Yes that's right fifty dollars vs a thousand dollars.

I'm a hobby photographer ... so for me if I get 90% of the benefits for 5% of the costs thats only good right? I don't have clients to impress, just family. Of course if you were a business photographer probably you'd be able to build a better business case for the returns on investment on the Olympus 75mm f1.8

Even if you were thinking of getting the Oly, but you weren't sure, well you could try the Pentax and see if you are actually getting much use out of it after a few months.

Won't cost you much ;-)

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

keeping my compact camera compact

One of the reasons I moved to the micro 4/3 in the first place was that it gave me a quality of image equal to my Canon 20D brick but without the weight. There seemed to me to be few compromises and so I ended up (after some time) selling almost all of my EOS stuff and have gone over to micro 4/3. 

 As I started my micro4/3 with the G1 the absolute pocketability of the camera was not my main prioity, and even though that camera was a 'SLR-alike' form factor it was still much lighter on the shoulder than the EOS DSLR's

Liking manual focus (well having grown up on it) I reveled in the availability of low priced Manual Focus legacy lenses (such as Olympus OM or Canon FD) and found the G series (I'm now using a GH1 instead of my trusty G1) to be perfectly suited to it. For some time however I gazed over at the GF series and wondered ... would I benefit from the more compact camera.

Initially I was suspicious feeling that the lack of EVF (and my getting older and needing glasses for anything closer) and the lack of compact lenses would mean it had little benefits for me. When the GF was released there was only the (gosh that's expensive) 20mm pancake. So other than that it was down to using the 14-45 zoom.

Since that time however Panasonic has also released a 14mm pancake (at a more attractive price than the 20mm was) and a compact power zoom (too expensive for my tastes at the moment) making it more attractive. So last year I decided that the only way to know was to do it, so I bought a GF-1 to try it out. I bought one with the 14mm pancake lens (because that's obviously the most compact) and had a go.

I loved it. The GF was slim enough with out the screen / eyepiece / grip to slip into my backpack side pocket, even if it didn't fit into my pocket

However, as expected, as soon as I put my 14-45 lens on it it stopped being compact.

It wouldn't fit in my bag and generally showed how (as I have said before) the micro 4/3 are failing to deliver compact lenses to make an advantage of the compact bodies. Even with the zoom 'retracted' you can see that the zoom tiself is much thicker than the camera. This image (compiled from the great site Camera Size) makes it clear how much bigger the zoom is on the GF series camera.

Bye bye compact ...

In practice it is every bit as non-compact as it looks in that computer generation ... for when you use it at anything but 14mm the end extends out of the zoom ...


So the camera that could previously slip into my backpack side pocket now wouldn't without taking the lens off and on. Not always wanting to use the 14mm pancake, I wanted a bit longer focal length from time to time.

Well having a few legacy lenses around already I thought I'd try some of them.


I had in the past tried the Pentax 110 lenses on my G1. While they were incredibly compact with the G1 camera the form factor didn't seem to give any benefits to using those lenses. In fact the regular 35mm film lenses actually felt better.

But with the GF camera suddenly the size difference was important.  You can see here between the Olympus 50mm lens (for 35mm film) and the Pentax 110 camera 50mm lens (the large-small one on the right) are significantly different in size.

Particularly in light of the size of the adaptor needed for the 35mm SLR film lenses (which were designed for a much greater flange distance) adding to the overall size of the effective lens. Here is the same situation with the Pentax 110 50mm lens...


Well as you can see above suddenly the camera + lens is small again. Also this lens being a 50mm has a slightly better telephoto reach than the kit zoom (which is still only 45mm even when extended as in the further above shot) this shows in the image difference of perspective.

I also have a 24mm which (is a normal focal length) is even more compact than the 50mm is ...


So this gives me a 14mm, a 24mm f2.8 and a 50mm f2.8 which are really compact to use on the compact body, giving me a compact camera system!



As you can see the 50mm is quite small in diameter as well as not being much higher than the 14mm Panasonic lens. I think it looks quite good on the camera too...



Ok ... so now we've got a versatile camera system that is compact ... but can it take pleasing shots? Personally I think it takes excellent shots. Here is one from the 50mm, which being a f2.8 lens is quite a fast lens with a pleasingly shallow DoF and quite nice Bokeh.



and for the pixel peepers who have to know will it tolerate 'enlargement' below is a 100% pixel crop from the image ... so the answer is in my view:


YES! In this above image you can see how shallow the DoF is around the center of that play yard toy. While in the upper image you get a good idea of the out of focus rendering as well as the lenses contrast.

Its a sweet little lens that you can add to a walk around compact outfit and even if you mainly use the 14mm for its excellent purpose in snapshots with the advantages that a native lens has (like AutoFocus) for not much space in your pack (or pocket even) you can add a great lens to your outfit with bloody little money.

Perhaps it is not as perfect in quality as the native Olympus 45mm f1.8 but then again its not as expensive either. Similarly the 24mm can produce some nice images too.


Oh ... money ... that's right. These little Pentax 110 lenses are really cheap and so are the adaptors. I paid something like:
  • $30 for the adaptor,
  • $40 for the 50mm
  • $20 for the 24mm
Which is much less than any native possibility you can name.

Sure its not for everyone, but for a photographer who wants to play around a little with creative photography and not spend a fortune its a compelling option.

Enjoy :-)

Saturday, 21 September 2013

Autumn Lenses

Even in their autumn years some lenses just seem to keep on looking good, the little Pentax 110 are just such lenses. Here is a sample taken with my 24mm f2.8 Pentax 110 lens... (see my page on them)



Initially intended for a life on a strange camera system (the Pentax 110 SLR) these little guys just keep on keeping on.

I say "strange" because  back in the late 1970's the 110 film format was really aimed at the quick snap pocket cameras. That a company like Pentax invested such time and effort into that tiny film format was astounding. Clearly they recognised way back then that not everyone wanted a big lumbering camera, but did still want some control over their images.

The 110 camera is actually quite tiny in comparison to my micro 4/3 camera (which sadly now days is thought of as small), and yet the lenses actually cover the same area of film that the 4/3 sensor uses. Meaning that they don't darken at the corners.

This is great because you can get a small lens to it onto your m4/3 camera helping make the camera even more pocket-able.

The image there shows the fifty mm lens and the image above was taken with the 24mm lens. The 24mm is actually a "standard" view lens on the 110 / micro 4/3 cameras. Its even smaller than the 50mm. Here it is mounted on my G1


its quite the tiny thing isn't it. Makes me wonder why such snug lenses can't be made today? I mean after all the entire purpose of micro 4/3 was to make compact cameras ... rather than the big DSLR's which had roamed the earth in the end of the last millennium. Its even more tragic that micro 4/3 seems to be getting bigger in body too ... oh well.

Anyway, the the top image was take today in the autum forest understory here in Finland with the 24mm mounted on my GF-1. Initially bought into Pentax 110 series the because I didn't want to spend hundreds on the Panasonic 20 f1.7 just to get Auto Focus. I questioned if there was any great benefits for me. The Pentax 110 SLR lenses are f2.8 (so not as shallow DoF) but at under 20 bucks ... I reckoned that for the occasional shot where I'd want to emphasize focus (where such a lens as either the Pana 20 or the Pentax 24 really make sence) that I would not really benefit from fast AF as much as interesting look and feel ...


The Pentax 110 and the GF-1 its a sweet combo that fits into my small daypack side pocket and costs a lot less than the Panasonic 20mm f1.8 does. Its a sweet little lens.

Monday, 2 May 2011

Alternative "normal" - Pentax 110 24mm

One of the things I've looked for is a reasonable "normal" lens for my G1 that's reasonably fast. now keep in mind when reading this, that this is under 'ideal' conditoins. I had plenty of time to focus and focused carefully using the magnification on screen in the GH1. On a GF you may miss the focal point and have nothing focused at all ...

Ok lets start off with the kit 14-45 zoom at about 24mm at f4.8 (wide open)

kit-24

now, lets look at the Pentax 110 24mm lens ... there is no aperture, so its at f2.8

110-24


you don't even need to be pixel peeping to see that its reasonably soft around the edges. Just take a look at the green fabric in the middle foreground

At this overview size there isn't much obvious advantage in DoF between f2.8 and 4.8 ... in fact its really only just over a stop.

So lets have a quick pixel peep at the middle of the image where I focused on (manually) with each of the lenses. These images are about 50% scaled on this page, but if you click the image you'll get a 100% screen grab of the image.

The Kit zoom at 24mm

100pct-kit

and then the 110 24mm lens

100pct-24


now lets look at the middle edge of the frame ... the Kit zoom
100pct-kitb

and the 110 24mm
100pct-24b

hmmm ... not my thing, but maybe yours

summary:


for me I just don't see any significant advantage in the DoF found in the Pentax 110 lens over the kit zoom. These images really should show this more as the target is quite close to the camera, when compared to shallow normal depth of field on full fame 35mm images the difference here is not so much.

The 110 lenses are certainly nice and compact, almost absurdly so on the G1 / GH1 cameras ..
110-kit

Perhaps on the GF it may be a more sensible alternative. However for me at least the Olympus 17mm or the Panasonic 20mm (despite it being more expensive) would be a better choice for a fixed focal length lens.

Why? well you get
  • AF
  • immediate zoom to confirm focus by just turning the lens (you need to press a few buttons)
  • something other than "wide open" (you know, you can stop down to 5.6 and really sharpen up)
Personally I still like the Pentax 110 50mm lens, as this is a bit longer than the kit 14-45, brighter by a few stops and really is compact.

110-50mm

I'm sure it makes even more sence on the GF. So for travllling light you can stick the 50mm lens in your pocket easily and when you pack that with either a normal (like the Oly 17mm or the Panasonic 20mm) you get a great compact two lens outfit.

The 18mm or the 24mm Pentax 110 ... well in my view you its sota fun to play with (and you'll need the adaptor for the 50mm, but you can leave home without it.

If you can get through the Japanese, I recommend reading this site. It was written before there were even commercial adaptors for mounting the 11o lenses on the G1

:-)

Thursday, 25 February 2010

Penta 110 24mm: flare and softness

Hi

I've seen some pentax 110 lenses now (bought a few, looked at a few) and noticed that many are dirty (back and front) and need a little love.

With a clean-up they aren't very prone to flare (as has been mentioned in some forums). I took these today with my 24mm in what can only be called provocative circumstances

parkBridge

now, orienting the camera into portrait you can see that direct sun is falling on the lens ... look at the wood under the bridge which the handrail is attached to for detail and contrast changes.

fullFlare

but if I cast a shadow over the lens I get just a small reduction in contrast (and a colour change cos I had AWB set ...

shieldedFlare

exposure was 1/4000th for all

so if you're seeing way more flare than this then your lens may be grubby.

You can also see that the edges don't look really soft on this lens. Well I've found that it depends on what you're photographing. For instance here:

winterBridgeSoftEdges

softness is quite apparent but here:

snowHandRail

doesn't really intrude much

Personally its better than C mount stuff and if you have the 24 and an adaptor then just go get the 50mm as its a great portrait lens. This is about as close as you can go

tiger110

naturally you should be careful with a tiger in your bed

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

micro four thirds: four fifties flare

For no apparent reason I decided I would test my lenses for flare. I'm not sure if this method is the most ideal, but I lined up the lenses against my kitchen wall under a fluro tube. I put a black circle with a hole cut in it on the left and a lens bottom cap (with the depth of the bucket facing me) on the right.

Lenses are:
  • Canon FD 50mm f1.4 (top left)
  • Canon FD 50mm f1.8 (top right
  • Pentax 110 50mm f2.8 (bottom left)
  • Olympus OM 50mm f1.8 (bottom right)

Method


all lenses were tested wide open and the camera (Panasonic G1) set to AWB and, camera on a tripod unmoving between each shot. (Note the Pentax 110 lens does not actually have any aperture control, so wide open is all you can pick from)

results

firstly lets look at the overview of each image, then zoom in for details:

overview

I find it interesting the colour renditions are quite different between the lenses. The lens absent from the group confirms which lens is on the camera at the time (to help me remember

the focus point
I used the following lens to confirm focus as best as I could using the magnifier to focus.

what is interesting here is at screen sizes the Pentax 110 looks to have the best contrast and sharpness, but when pixel peeping (click any image to load a full screen snapshot) I would have picked the FD 50 f1.4 ... just goes to show you need to evaluate things at something other than 100% magnification to see other factors than total resolution.

the rubber ring



The lower row seems to show better contrast to me than the top row, but the Pentax 110 lens (lower left) has significant CA purple fringing on the high contrast area, but mainly towards the outer side (away from the lens center). Makes sense.


the base cap

again purple fringing CA on the 110 lens shows up, but with better contrast than the two FD's

outside of the extreme contrast of being against the fluro the CA stops being obvious and you can get some detail in the blacks inside the caps.

Lastly, it was pointed out to me that perhaps my exposure was too short for reliable colour rendition on artificial light. Since its snowing outside and there is plenty of ambient light spill from all the street lights I would try one last thing.

On this I set the colour balance manually to be "cloudy" and manually focused the lenses to infinity. I used an exposure of 2 seconds for all of them and set all to f2.8 This puts the Pentax to a disadvantage as f2.8 is wide open. I then picked up my 3 led ultra-bright headlight so that it shone straight into the lens for the entire 2 seconds of the exposure. I tried to hold the torch in exactly the same spot.

Below are the results


Its interesting looking through the halo of light trying to see my face and how big the halo is. Then there is the secondary flare ... man the FD1.4 is really flaring. Interestingly there is a really large though less obvious purple flare on the 110 lens (lower left)

There are still colour differences, although its really hard to see colours in the outside in that sort of light.

conclusions

Well personally I like the OM and the itty bitty better and the FD's least. The FD 1.4 and 1.8 are almost dead ringers with the 1.8 showing better colour rendition in this situation to my eyes. I know from previous tests however that the FD 1.4 cleans up immensely when stopped down to 1.8 or 2 and shows itself as being much better than the 1.8 in a typical outdoor sunny day.


See my other tests of some of these lenses:


So, hope this was useful to someone (as it was to me). If you have a better suggestion for contrast and flare testing please put a comment in and I'll try to do that if I get time in the future (like I have now)

I think I'll have to try this again on a sunny day ...



Post scriptum (today is sunny) so I thought I would repeat this with better "natural" light.

Please note that the order is:
Top row FD 50 1.4 left and 1.8 right
Bottom row OM50 f1.8 left and Pentax 110 50f2.8 right
(this is also visible on the frame in the names)

some 100% segments from the middle of the frame


and some 50% segments up closer to where the flare is stronger

Again I find myself liking the looks and contrasts of the Pentax 110 lens wide open better than the others.

Next I picked a strongly backlight scene and put the tree trunk to block the direct sun from hitting my lens:

overview


zooming in on the segment on which I focused ...

its clear that the Pentax (lower right) has better contrast (the FD1.4 is softer at 1.4) and the DoF is less (because its a f2.8 lens).

Throwing the Kit zoom into the mix:


which (being 45mm) has a smaller feature size and looks harsher and of course at 5.6 has different DoF ...

Lastly (for what its worth) there are complete image overviews of each of these images linked to a flickr account

P1070418.fd.1.4

P1070420.fd.1.8

P1070421.om.1.8

P1070422.p.2.8

P1070423.fd.1.4

P1070424.fd.1.8

P1070425.om.1.8

P1070426.p.2.8