DA* 55mm F1.4 review on dpreview - Page 7

*jbinpg* · 08-06-2009, 10:04 PM

I offer this as an example of when the FA 50/1.4's supposed faults can work in your favour:

At the window on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

High contrast black and white cat at a window where the sunlight is reflected off snow on the deck. Taken wide open at 1600 ISO on my K20D. And remember the Nat Geo maxim: if the eyes aren't in focus, it's a tosser.

Jack

Class A · 08-06-2009, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by nostatic

I do however try to see both sides of the argument.

Same here. In the thread I referenced, I only tried to question the reasoning some have put forward about the K-7's metering and admitted that I could be wrong about it.

Originally Posted by nostatic

And I also can take a joke at my expense.

Luckily for me, you cannot joke about any club I belong to because I'd never join a club which would accept me as a member.

Class A · 08-06-2009, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by jbinpg

I offer this as an example of when the FA 50/1.4's supposed faults can work in your favour:

Nice example. Seems like some sharpening took place but the end result is not to be sniffed at.

kunik · 08-07-2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Class A

Only just, though:

APS-C, 50/1.4, d=1.5m -> 5.1cm DOF
FF, 200/2.0, d=3.99m -> 4.8 cm DOF
(using reasonable assumptions about output size and viewer acuity)

Even on a FF camera, you have to use a larger distance (d=3.99) to get the same FOV of a 50mm on APS-C at 1.5m. This increase in distance also increases the DOF.

Thanks for doing the math. It is sometimes difficult to get your point across on these boards because "few" words are insufficient but "many words" are not carefully read and therefore mis-understood.

The point I was (apparently) failing to make was that F2 on FF had a smaller DOF than F2 on crop sensor. So without doing the math (as you kindly did for me) I was pretty sure F2 on FF was somewhat similar to F1.4 on crop (x1.5) sensor so it was reasonable to compare the results of the 2 very different lenses.

*cousinsane* · 08-07-2009, 03:57 PM

Why are you comparing two totally different lenses?

Originally Posted by Class A

Only just, though:

APS-C, 50/1.4, d=1.5m -> 5.1cm DOF
FF, 200/2.0, d=3.99m -> 4.8 cm DOF
(using reasonable assumptions about output size and viewer acuity)

Even on a FF camera, you have to use a larger distance (d=3.99) to get the same FOV of a 50mm on APS-C at 1.5m. This increase in distance also increases the DOF.

kunik · 08-07-2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by cousinsane

Why are you comparing two totally different lenses?

I know threads can be difficult to follow but if you look back this was in response to someone saying "It's such a rarity that anyone shoots this wide open. If .02% of all shots ever taken are at f1.4 than why would lens manufacturers care about making a lens sharp at that f stop?"

The closest example I had at hand of an exceptional set of images shot "wide open" happened to be a 200/2 on a Canon FF. It just so happens that it has a very similar DOF to the 55/1.4 - but the point being that wide open shots on "fast glass" can produce very nice results so many people (myself included) would not buy a lens that was not sharp wide open...

*cousinsane* · 08-07-2009, 04:43 PM

Well I guess I agree with you then

I shoot all my prime lenses wide open or close to wide open all the time. The only exception is the FA50, which IMHO has to be stopped down to F2.8 to be acceptable.

Originally Posted by kunik

I know threads can be difficult to follow but if you look back this was in response to someone saying "It's such a rarity that anyone shoots this wide open. If .02% of all shots ever taken are at f1.4 than why would lens manufacturers care about making a lens sharp at that f stop?"

The closest example I had at hand of an exceptional set of images shot "wide open" happened to be a 200/2 on a Canon FF. It just so happens that it has a very similar DOF to the 55/1.4 - but the point being that wide open shots on "fast glass" can produce very nice results so many people (myself included) would not buy a lens that was not sharp wide open...

K-9 · 08-08-2009, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by kunik

I know threads can be difficult to follow but if you look back this was in response to someone saying "It's such a rarity that anyone shoots this wide open. If .02% of all shots ever taken are at f1.4 than why would lens manufacturers care about making a lens sharp at that f stop?"

The closest example I had at hand of an exceptional set of images shot "wide open" happened to be a 200/2 on a Canon FF. It just so happens that it has a very similar DOF to the 55/1.4 - but the point being that wide open shots on "fast glass" can produce very nice results so many people (myself included) would not buy a lens that was not sharp wide open...

Bottom line is, don't buy a lens that's not sharp wide open, if you need it wide open. Buy a lens a stop faster and then shoot at the f stop you would have shot with the other one, or buy a lens that is sharp wide open. Shooting a stop up from wide open is usually always going to be sharper than using any lens wide open. If you like shooting at f 1.4, I'd buy an f1.2 lens, as it's most likely going to be sharper at f1.4 than an f1.4 lens wide open.

Originally Posted by kunik

I can't tell if you are being serious or not? There was a page linked in to another part of the forum recently with a guy that shot portraits with a 200mm F2 lens and always shot it wide open. On full frame (Canon 1Ds) the DOF is thinner than on our crop pentax. Here's his gallery.
Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums
You may or may not like the shots but he is apparently somewhat successful and seems to shoot wide open quite a lot. Fortunately for him his 200mm F2 is sharp wide open. I guess thats why fast and sharp lenses cost so damn much eh?

Some of his shots work, some don't. I personally would never shoot portraits at 200mm, as it flattens the facial features too much. This guy even commented that an 85mm makes noses bulbous looking, so he's pretty extreme if he thinks that.

melander · 08-08-2009, 02:52 AM

80% of all my DA*55 shots are done at f1.4 to f2.0. Whats the point in having a fast lens if you dont use it at those f-stops?

Dont use flash if you dont have to

Rondec · 08-08-2009, 06:31 AM

When I first got the FA 50, I used it a lot. It was my fastest lens, but now I seldom use it because by the time it gets sharp, I would have been just as well using my 50-135, which is sharp from wide open and has the flexibility of a zoom. I haven't shot with the DA* 55, but the shots I have seen with it have been quite sharp from wide open -- significantly different from that FA 50. Whether that is worth 350 dollars is up to the buyer.

*Wheatfield* · 08-08-2009, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by K-9

Bottom line is, don't buy a lens that's not sharp wide open, if you need it wide open. Buy a lens a stop faster and then shoot at the f stop you would have shot with the other one, or buy a lens that is sharp wide open. Shooting a stop up from wide open is usually always going to be sharper than using any lens wide open. If you like shooting at f 1.4, I'd buy an f1.2 lens, as it's most likely going to be sharper at f1.4 than an f1.4 lens wide open.

Show me a 50mm f/1.2 AF lens for Pentax.
FWIW, my DA* 50/1.4 gives up something like a third of a stop to my A50/1.2 and is sharper wide open than my A50/1.2 is at f/1.8.

mickdann · 08-08-2009, 07:25 AM

I bought my DA*55 a few months after I got my K20D, now I'm using it on my K-7. Unless I'm traveling very light with the DA40 or DA21 the DA*55 is almost always on the body, I use it for almost everything unless circumstances call for a wider perspective or macro is required. I've had no focussing issues and if I switch to AF-C and half-press the shutter I can pan around and the camera keeps up very well.
I bought this lens because of the *-designation, I wanted a(nother) high quality fast prime lens (LBA!) and all the other *-designated primes I own have produced very good images. I don't do much portrait work but the few I have done have turned out very well.
The best advantage as far as I'm concerned is that I can go hill-walking with the K-7 and the DA*55 and not worry about the rain - the 31, 43 and 77 can all stay safely at home on those trips !

Mick

K-9 · 08-08-2009, 08:23 AM

Interesting poll results a while back here:

PentaxForums.com - View Poll Results

Seems like the majority were in favor of not upgrading from the FA 50.

*Wheatfield* · 08-08-2009, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by K-9

Interesting poll results a while back here:

PentaxForums.com - View Poll Results

Seems like the majority were in favor of not upgrading from the FA 50.

This say more about the users of Pentax cameras than it does about the DA*55/1.4.
Unfortunately, it doesn't say very much good about the majority of them.

*dugrant153* · 08-08-2009, 10:00 AM

I think that we should only read reviews with a grain of salt. Go and try the lens out for yourself and see if you like it.
I read all the reviews of the DA*55 before buying the lens, but when I went to the store to try it out... oh man... all the reviews went out the window and I realized that this was a real gem of a lens.

So I bought one.