|
|
|
smc PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
Average Rating
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$320.60
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
supersize
|
|
Description:
|
This lens features 1:1 macro capabilites.
| Weight | Length | Filter Diameter | Min. Focus | Max. Magnification | | 265 g | 6 cm | 49 mm | 20 cm | 1.0x | | Diagonal FOV (APS-C) | Horizontal FOV (APS-C) | Max. Aperture | Min. Aperture | Optical Construction | | 32 degrees | 27 degrees | f/2.8 | f/32 | 8 elements, 7 groups, 8 blades | | Diagonal FOV (24x36) | Horizontal FOV (24x36) | | | | | 47 degrees | 40 degrees | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
Author
|
|
eljustino
New Member
Registered: June 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Tue June 12, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautifully built, very easy to use, very sharp indeed
|
|
Cons:
|
Bokeh pretty at f2.8 but iris has very straight edged octagon shape when stopped down at all
|
|
This is my first macro lens, the only comparison I can make is a Canon 50mm prime with extension tubes on my last camera.
This Pentax macro lens is a joy to use. My only complaints would be
- wider aperture would be nice to have
- a "rounder" iris would give nicer bokeh effect with OOF points of light, which appear as clearly defined octagons due to the very straight edges of the iris.
But these are small points. It's a VERY sharp lens, nicely made, nice to use.
I'd recommend it without reservation.
|
|
|
|
|
Bramela
Site Supporter
Registered: January 2007
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 2976
|
|
Review Date: Wed March 12, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $425.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent. Sharp and great bokeh. Great Macro lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wider aperture would help. (A minor consideration)
|
|
This is a really nice 50mm macro lens.
I find it to be very sharp and gives excellent Macro results.
I leave it on the camera most of the time and find its versatility very convenient (as a prime lens.)
I highly recommend this lens.
Cons: I suggest a 100mm Macro would be a better purchase but this is the next best alternative prime length IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Youngster
Site Supporter
Registered: August 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 133
|
|
Review Date: Fri March 21, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Super Sharp. Great contrast and colors. Focus Clamp. Quick Shift Focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Much bigger than other 50's. Front element only minimally recessed. No Focus Limiter.
|
|
I bought this lens with slight misgivings because I already had so many other 50's 1.4's, 1.7's you name em. I also had a perfectly good 100mm manual focus macro. But, I really wanted to see the legendary sharpest Pentax 50 available (the FA 50 model, but this is supposedly even improved over that, this one has no problem with f32 on digital).
I am very impressed with this lens. It rivals the FA1.7 in center sharpness at f2.8 and higher and it beats the 1.7 in edge and corner sharpness by a fair margin until around f5.6. (I believe the FA1.7 to be the sharpest 50 in the Pentax stable after having used almost every other 50 they had.)
Autofocus turned out to be a great boon if you want to take just quick macros anywhere without the big setups and adjustments.
People always recommend 100mm Macros because you can get farther away from the subject, but they forget that shorter focal lengths are much better for hand-held shots. But that is purely a matter of preference.
However, The biggest benefit of the D-FA lens is the quick shift focus adjustment. Users of older macros don't know what they are missing. Having the ability to manual focus without disengaging the autofocus through the camera control is the most incredible feature. I have quick shift focus on all my DA lenses, but they were never as useful to me because I could always just choose another autofocus point very easily. In macros, you are frequently unable to shift as easily due to the effort it takes to properly position the lens. Quick-shift really saves the day. In addition the DFA autofocus doesn't move the autofocus ring when it focuses making holding the lens so much easier. Most people don't even think about this but this makes taking macro pictures so much easier.
The focusing clamp is also really helpful when you are set on taking a 1:1, you just turn on the clamp, get the right distance and take your shot, no need to disengage the autofocus.
On the negative side, I dislike the fact that the front element is not recessed on this lens. This has two major drawbacks. One, you need to use a hood on normal 50mm shots. Two, due to the close focus distances for macro shots, you can easily bump into the front element if you are autofocusing or in a hurry (a filter is a must).
A focus limiter would also have been nice. Occassionally if you are using autofocus on macro subjects, it zooms away and won't come back so you end up having to refocus manually.
Some people complain about its polycarbonate construction (rather than the old metal one on the FA). I for one, find it to be a blessing. The old macros were very heavy. This is still a very sturdy lens, no wobble, and perfectly fine construction. Even the current DA*'s are made of polycarbonate and no one complains about that. So what's the problem? Constructionwise, I just wish they engraved rather than printed the lettering for a lens which costs this much.
The lens itself is about twice the size of any other 50mm, but it really is a specialty lens. If you plan on using it for non-macro shots mostly, then I would say you are better off getting the FA50 1.4 or 1.7 (because of the size and weight). This lens takes wonderful shots outdoors, but then so do the other 50's, so why bother with the extra size weight and expense?
All in all. A wonderful lens. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
|
|
creampuff
Pentaxian
Registered: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2235
|
|
Review Date: Sun January 4, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrasty, Quick shift, light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Highlighes can bloom, no focus limiter, build quality
|
|
Very compact and light weight compared to my FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro. The build quality is mainly polycarbonate plastic and it shows. Only a focus clamp is available for locking focus, a focus limiter would have been good to limit the AF range. Quick Shift is very useful feature which obviates the need for switching to manual focusing for macro subjects. Lens has a deep hood to cater for the long barrel extension at the macro focusing range.
Optically it shows a little more overall contrast compared to the FA version. Images are slightly brighter overall, typical of the rendering of DA lenses. A sharp lens but if shot in direct backlighting macro subjects, the highlights can tend to "bloom."
Overall this is a lens well suited for food photography, flowers, abstract close-ups and as a general walkabout lens. My only grouse is the build quality could have been better, which is clear when comparing macro lenses from other makes.
|
|
|
|
|
InKeepingSecrets
New Member
Registered: February 2009
Location: Toowoomba, Australia
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Wed March 11, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $384.91
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
This is my my first macro lens and I am very happy with the quality of pictures it produces. I have used it from everything from insects to food and any problems i have had has been with my inexperience rather than from the lens itself.
Compared with the kit sigma 70-300mm with pseudo macro this lens is fair superior in its sharpness and clarity. As already pointed out if you were serious in insect photography i would definitely recommended the 100mm as you are almost standing on top of your subject at 1:1 magnification.
examples of photo's i have taken with lens can be seen:
http://viewfromthemirror.deviantart....-III-115557797 and http://viewfromthemirror.deviantart....gfly-114825458
This is now almost my most used lens behind my 50mm f1.4.
|
|
|
|
|
InKeepingSecrets
New Member
Registered: February 2009
Location: Toowoomba, Australia
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Wed March 11, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $384.91
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
This is my my first macro lens and I am very happy with the quality of pictures it produces. I have used it from everything from insects to food and any problems i have had has been with my inexperience rather than from the lens itself.
Compared with the kit sigma 70-300mm with pseudo macro this lens is fair superior in its sharpness and clarity. As already pointed out if you were serious in insect photography i would definitely recommended the 100mm as you are almost standing on top of your subject at 1:1 magnification.
examples of photo's i have taken with lens can be seen:
http://viewfromthemirror.deviantart....-III-115557797 and http://viewfromthemirror.deviantart....gfly-114825458
This is now almost my most used lens behind my 50mm f1.4.
|
|
|
|
|
yyyzzz
Site Supporter
Registered: March 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Mon September 21, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, high image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
could be better built
|
|
I have a Vivitar 105mm Macro (made by Kiron). The image quality is comparable between the two lens. The Vivitar's rear element does not move when focusing. So it might have a better control for distortion. This lens is much lighter (I know it is a 50mm lens). It has a much better control of PF at the largest aperture. You can shot at f2.8. The focusing throw is much shorter (only one rotation).
I wish that it has slightly better built quality. In particular, it would be better to have all the aperture numbers etched instead of printed. However, we do not manually control aperture anymore. So this should not be a big problem.
I am not talking about wight. But it does not feel as sturdy as a K or M lens.
The clamp is useless to me, since I can manually disengage AF on my K10d by pressing a pre-programed button.
|
|
|
|
|
terminator
New Member
Registered: December 2008
Location: California
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Fri November 6, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $170.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, 1:1, focus fast, decent build quality, small and lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
front element extends, slight barrel distortion, no distance limit
|
|
Generally speaking, macro lens are very good. This little lens is no exception. Very sharp even wide open. Unlike other brands (e.g., Canon), it is 1:1, which is a big plus. AF is very fast for this non-SDM lens. Build quality is decent even though it's plastic. My favorite lens to replace the scanner. However there is slight barrel distortion. And a distance limit may improve the AF speed in some situations. My biggest complain is that it is not IF design and the front element extends during focusing.
|
|
|
|
|
GeneV
Site Supporter
Registered: October 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 586
|
|
Review Date: Fri January 8, 2010
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack-sharp, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
Could be a stop faster to perfection
|
|
This lens is just the ticket for macro, indoor shots or any application where high resolution is a must. Shoots nicely wide open, and is impressive at smaller stops. It is also a joy to use as a manual focus lens. Because of the macro focussing, it may take a moment longer and cause a bit more noise to focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:49 AM.
|
