[paperbag846]

I wouldn't get any of those, I'd get the DA70 instead. Then the DA15. That way you'll have 15/30/70. Not a bad mix. I think 4 primes in that range is overkill, and I say this from experience

I think this is the best advice so far. While I find a good use for my DA 40 and A 28mm, I would get more mileage out of a 28mm / 70mm combo.

For low DOF, the 70mm at 2.4 beats any 50mm over f1.8, where you will use the 50's most frequently in order to get proper sharpness.

[sterretje]

Without knowing the reasons for a 50mm:
To make it worthwhile from a focal length perspective, I would take the longest one (so DA*55).
If you want macro, get the macro version.
If budget is a bit of a concern, get the cheapest one.
Quality wise I don't know which one is the best; just check reviews and try to find images.

If it's just to get more reach, I would skip 50mm and go for 70mm or even longer.

I have the FA31Ltd and I'm also looking at something longer. To make it worthwhile for me, it should definitely be 70mm or longer. Else I can just as well zoom with my feet in most of my cases. I have pretty much made up my mind to get the DFA100WR.

[Pentaxor]

I'm not sure what the intention of the OP is for using the 50mm, but personally I would recommend either DA70 (focal length) or Sigma 70 (focal length and macro), if not Tamron 90 (focal length and macro).

DA70 for size,

Sigma 70 for purpose and focal length

Tamron 90 for additional focal length need, purpose and budget.

[RioRico]

Without knowing the reasons for a 50mm:
To make it worthwhile from a focal length perspective, I would take the longest one (so DA*55).
If you want macro, get the macro version.
If budget is a bit of a concern, get the cheapest one.
Quality wise I don't know which one is the best; just check reviews and try to find images.
If it's just to get more reach, I would skip 50mm and go for 70mm or even longer.

IMHO the main reason for a fast fifty is cost-effectiveness. My classic case is the M42 Tomioka 55/1.4 that I bought for TWO BUCKS!! not that long ago. And yes, a Fifty is a short tele, and I find it handy in many situations. There are days when I want to wander around with just one lens in the 45-105mm range. That's me. YMMV.

The basic question is: Why ANY specific focal length? And I guess the answer is: Because I want it. But do I want it enough to pay for it? 70mm or longer? AFAIK most fast glass up there costs rather more than most fast 50's. I was exceptionally lucky to get an 85/2 for US$9; that'll never happen again.

Thus, my advice: A cheap manual Fast Fifty to see if that's a comfortable focal length. If it isn't, then no great loss. Resell at a profit, even. And if it is comfy, then think about the DA*55/1.4 or whatever.

[paperbag846]

Thus, my advice: A cheap manual Fast Fifty to see if that's a comfortable focal length. If it isn't, then no great loss. Resell at a profit, even. And if it is comfy, then think about the DA*55/1.4 or whatever.

The other thing here is that a lot of old 50mm's are just as good as the DA* 55 at a small fraction of the cost, at least as far as image quality is concerned. The old 55mm f1.8 is a good example of a killer budget portrait lens for under 50.

[Skullsroad]

In my experience, the DA* is much better optically than the FA. Especially wide open, which is what matters for such a fast lens. Weather resistance was a key selling point for me as well. I've been through 5 rainy days in San Francisco and two days of rain at the beach with no issues. Watching everyone hide their gear while you keep snapping away puts a proud feeling in your heart. If you don't care about that sort of thing, have you looked into the Sigma 50 1.4?

[rparmar]

For cost effectiveness I prefer the A 50/1.7 because you do not have to give up aperture control to get a fine sharp lens. And I don't need auto-focus. If you need AF it'll narrow your choices a lot. If you don't need "A" mode it'll widen your choices a lot... to near infinity.

As for shooting in poor weather... I don't worry about this with a prime. People have used primes in the rain for decades; it's all about being sensible. Zooms are another matter since there are more ways moisture can get inside the lens. A weatherproof DA12-24 would be nice... but I took mine under Niagara Falls anyway. Photography is a state of mind.

As for the DA* being "better optically than the FA"... no way. I have not had the pleasure of using the DA*55, which I am sure is an excellent lens. But none of the hundreds of shots I have inspected look anything like what is (sometimes) achievable with the FA Limiteds. That set were simply designed to different optical objectives.

The DA*55 is, of course, faster, and should be your choice if that is your main priority.

Nice to have choice, huh?

[MrK5]

Plus the OP pop money for a 30 f/1.4, he probably don't need cheap stuff .

Wish this was true

[MrK5]

Hmm. Lots of options I see. But the suggestion to skip the 50 and get a 70 mm is probably the most tempting one. The da 70 looks nice. I currently own the Tamron sp af 28- 75mm f2.8, this one covers both the 50 and the 70. But I do like primes. Would it be sensible to trade the Tamron for a DA 70 mm?

[Stringmike]

The Voigtlander would be my suggestion for portraits if you don't mind manual focus. It's a really well-built nice-feeling lens that is optically as good or better than the Pentax and a bargain at around $300.

If you want to go longer, then the 70mm would be my choice.

Mike

[ferguner]

I'm not sure what the intention of the OP is for using the 50mm, but personally I would recommend either DA70 (focal length) or Sigma 70 (focal length and macro), if not Tamron 90 (focal length and macro).

DA70 for size,

Sigma 70 for purpose and focal length

Tamron 90 for additional focal length need, purpose and budget.

I was looking for a 50mm f/1.4 which i though good dof and low light usage?

what would you prefer?

[axl]

since you have Sigma 30/1.4, I'd go with DA*55. It gives you the best spread and it's terrific lens IMO.

[sterretje]

@MrK5

If you only want to shoot with primes, it is sensible.

@ferguner

It's in general not considered polite to hijack another thread for your question. One of the problems that many people have with it is that it can become very confusing to which question an answer was given. And the opening poster might think "hey, great, new answer to my question", only to find out that it was not for him.

So better to start your own thread.

[sterretje]

So axl, towho are you replying

[Pentaxor]

Hmm. Lots of options I see. But the suggestion to skip the 50 and get a 70 mm is probably the most tempting one. The da 70 looks nice. I currently own the Tamron sp af 28- 75mm f2.8, this one covers both the 50 and the 70. But I do like primes. Would it be sensible to trade the Tamron for a DA 70 mm?

it depends on how much you love the Tamron. if you do love the Tamron, it wouldn't make sense to buy the DA70 and get a Tamron 90 macro instead.