DA 21/3.2 and bokeh

<p>I have seriously been considering purchasing the DA21/3.2, however once I

started researching I have found some very disturbing images made with the

DA21/3.2, a quick web search turned this <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?

forum=1036&thread=20179232">post</a>

on dpreview. </p>

<p>I

find the images, which are taken by Doyle Shafer, To have really odd and outright disturbing out-of-focus

areas. particularly this one :</p>

<p><img name="weird red" src="http://www.customminds.com/photos/d/1667-2/Wierd+Red.jpg""></

p>

<p>Can anybody comment on their findings with the DA21?</p>

I have one and I love it. It is very sharp and characterful.

 

My comment on the above photo is that it should not have been shown to the public at all. It is not a usable shot. The focal length is not suitable for this type of shots. If I have shot this (and I have shot many similar ones) I would have deleted it, either in camera or in the computer.

The other pics in the Shafer thread look much better than this. I think this is just a very difficult subject and doesn't represent the typical performance of the lens.

 

If it worries you so much, delay your purchase until more reviews and experiences are posted to the web and then decide.

To me a red background seems to be a real challenge in a attempt to judge bokeh. I tried desaturating the pic and discovered a bunch of JPG artifacts, so I'm reluctant to judge the lens at all.

It is not so much the red flowers in center which bother me, but rather the green corners:

upper left is particularly bad. The second picture posted also shows the same business

which is distracting difficult to look at.

 

Anyhow, I agree their are no particular merits to this photograph, it was simply what I

found as example, and was wonderning if anyone here who has used the lens could

comment on the frequency of such crazed bokeh.

 

Nee Sung, how often do you see this kind of bokeh in your photographs?

<i>My comment on the above photo is that it should not have been shown to the public at all. It is not a usable shot. The focal length is not suitable for this type of shots.</i><b>--nee sung </b>

<br><br>

this comment is absurd. sure, the picture could have been better composed, but it is the atrocious bokeh that ruins it above all else. according to the author, i should never have attempted to shoot this pic: <a href='http://www.qstatistic.com/foto/g08/Duckie.htm'>http://www.qstatistic.com/foto/g08/Duckie.htm</a>

Jason,

<p>

For me you might have put the bokeh cart before the horse. I've shot with Leica M cameras for a long time, before bokeh became a holy war. What draws me to the DA21 is its small size and FOV that approximates a 35 lens on a film camera. I'm not that worried about the bokeh as the other factors I mentioned weigh more. If I were going to isolate a subject I would tend to go with a 40 or 50mm lens, which is the longest lens I'm apt to get if I buy a K10D. I'm looking at the 21 as a great carry all the time snapshot lens, much like a 35 on my Leica M. It's easy to get obsessed by things like this. I have to applaud Pentax for even making the pancakes.

<p>

Here is a test that shows bokeh I found on Flickr that might be of interest. Same image shot at two apertures:<p>

 

<a href=" @ F3.2 (Wide Open)</a>

<p>

<a href="http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=220781791&context=set-72157594245294792&size=o">DA21 @ F5.6</a><p>

 

A few more DA21 images at large apertures via Flickr:<p>

 

<a href="http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=191743586&size=l">DA21 @ 3.2</a><p>

 

<a href="http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=191743078&size=l">DA21 @ 4.5</a><p>

 

<a href="http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=191742931&size=l">DA21 @ 3.2</a><p>

Jim A,

 

Thanks for pointing the the Flickr examples; these are very helpful.

 

In any case, I certainly do not mean to start any holy wars about anything as banal and

subjective as bokeh, and agree that a medium wide lens is not the best 'isolator'.

 

Thanks to all for their imput.

 

jason

are you saying that i am banal in my photographic judgment? bokeh is a primary concern for me when evaluating/selecting a lens and the effects are not only present in obvious "isolation" situations.

 

vuk.

No Vuk, I am not saying anything of the sort.

I would say that from looking at these images I'm a bit disappointed. I currently don't use digital cameras but I'm shopping for a system and had hoped that this lens would offer something signficiant over other systems (I generally use lenses between 25mm and 100mm in 35mm format with a strong preference towards 30-35mm - ala 21mm in 1.5 format).

 

Oh well...

Yes, unfortunately I too have decided that this lens won't work for me.

 

Too many compromises appear to have been made to keep the lens so tiny; a slow

maximum aperture and this weird bokeh, which I have also seen (although less

pronounced) in the earlier M-version of the 40mm Pancake. As Jim A comments, we all

have to choose our priorities, and for me speed and bokeh come before size (although

having a small lens is certainly a big plus). Too bad, since the other option for a medium-

wide autofocus, the FA* 24/2, is longer in manufacture and is a much larger lens. It also

has a huge lens hood and that crazy silver-plasticy finish which so attention-grabbing.

 

Anybody using a one of the manual focus lenses this wide? Can they comment of focusing

speed with the smaller viewfinder and no split screen?

>Anybody using a one of the manual focus lenses this wide? Can they >comment of focusing speed with the smaller viewfinder and no split >screen?

 

I use a Soligor A 2.8/20. I am quite satisfied by this lens. It's not the focal length I use most, but when using it the Soligor never let me down. OK, I've never used it in a situation where bokeh was an issue, for that I use other lenses (like the Jupiter J9). The Soligor focusses at the same level as my other manual focus lenses. When I compare manual focus lenses on my istDs with the various old school manual focus camera's I have, the istDs performs best when focussing on the screen in general, and is only beaten by the old and venerable Praktica MTL5B when focussing in low light conditions relying on the split-screen. All my other camera's which don't have a split screen are considerably harder in focussing as my istDs.

The bokeh of this particular sample of the 21F3.2 is indeed atrocious! However, it is entirely conceivable that this sample is defective, hence a wait for more evidence is in order. Also, it would be very interesting to know how the new 21F3.2 fares (in sharpness and bokeh) against the older 20F4.0 M lens and two of the latest zooms--the 16-45 and 12-24 DA zooms.