A* 50mm f/1.2 and DA* 55mm f/1.4 shootout

dgaies · 06-10-2011, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Quite bad bokeh on that DA*
I'd rather have the 55mm focal length on my K 50mm F/1.2 though

Originally posted by Ubuntu_user

OOF (or bokeh) is subjective. I don't think there's such a thing as "bad bokeh" (well, maybe there is, but...) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bad."

Originally posted by yeatzee

Since when were you the opinion police? I think it looks bad so im going to say it looks bad. Just look at the lettering! If you disagree than you disagree, I honestly don't care because that is your opinion.

Relax, no where did Ubuntu_user suggest you aren't entitled to your opinion. All he said was that he didn't feel there was such a thing as "bad bokeh" because it is a subjective attribute. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that statement, but the statement itself wasn't suggesting that you aren't entitled to say it looks bad.

yeatzee · 06-10-2011, 12:10 PM

Im sorry im just having a really crappy day and getting pissed off at just about everything. I read it wrong, my bad ubuntu.

As for the thread, I dont think I'd ever buy the DA* because of its bokeh wideopen. I shoot my lenses wide open more than any aperture combined and bokeh is obviously a key aspect of my images. Its to harsh and defined *for me*

Winder · 06-10-2011, 12:25 PM

There is definitely such a thing as bad bokeh. What is considered bad is a matter of taste and is relative to what you are familiar with.

Without using the word "bad" I will say that the A* 50mm looks a little smoother. The colors a little better, and the exposure is little brighter. The difference is in the margins and it is hard to know what the actual colors or exposure are without actually being there.

The A* lenses were the pinnacle of Pentax optical quality. I'm not sure we will ever see Pentax produce glass of that quality again. I guess that is why used A* lenses sell for so much more than current production lenses.

Docrwm · 06-10-2011, 12:37 PM

I can't quite tell from the photos online. Please forward the lenses to me for a more objective appraisal of their relative merits. Thanks.

Asahiflex · 06-10-2011, 12:38 PM

FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too

paperbag846 · 06-10-2011, 12:47 PM

For all intents and purposes, I think that these lenses are much more similar than they are different. The longer focal length makes up for the aperture difference (assuming you don't need it for low low low light).

Blue · 06-10-2011, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too

While it isn't an A*, it probably should have been except it did not have any ED or Lanthanum elements in it. Perhaps the next batch the surprise release should have the Opti Bright coating and called A*.

Ubuntu_user · 06-10-2011, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Im sorry im just having a really crappy day and getting pissed off at just about everything. I read it wrong, my bad ubuntu.

As for the thread, I dont think I'd ever buy the DA* because of its bokeh wideopen. I shoot my lenses wide open more than any aperture combined and bokeh is obviously a key aspect of my images. Its to harsh and defined *for me*

Hey, no problem yeatzee. I wasn't meaning to tell you that you should like the DA* bokeh. Like you say, everyone has his/her own opinion. That's all I was saying...

Originally posted by Winder

There is definitely such a thing as bad bokeh. What is considered bad is a matter of taste and is relative to what you are familiar with.

Without using the word "bad" I will say that the A* 50mm looks a little smoother.

"Smoother" is the right word for the A. And yes, there is such a thing as "bad bokeh." However, what I dislike, someone else might like. Therefore, the "bad" is subjective.

That's just belief.

Originally posted by Docrwm

I can't quite tell from the photos online. Please forward the lenses to me for a more objective appraisal of their relative merits. Thanks.

Okay. Do you have $1100? I'll ship them out as first-priority overnight!

Originally posted by Asahiflex

FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too

You know, I realized this earlier today when I took a look at the lens. I was going to go back and fix it in my previous posts, but then I figured I'd leave it so you guys could laugh at me!

Originally posted by paperbag846

For all intents and purposes, I think that these lenses are much more similar than they are different. The longer focal length makes up for the aperture difference (assuming you don't need it for low low low light).

Paperbag, this is really the conclusion I have come to. Yes, there are small differences, but pretty much they are similar. Both are absolutely fantastic lenses! I've got to let one of them go because I don't need redundancy in this FL, but I fear that I'll regret it... :ugh:

Pentaxor · 06-10-2011, 04:57 PM

both are great lenses. if you prefer AF, get the 55. if you want to get a consistently smooth and out of this world bokeh, get the 1.2.

sjwaldron · 06-10-2011, 07:34 PM

The focus doesn't appear to be at the same point, but the A 50 f1.2 looks like it has smoother blur at the same aperture settings.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-10-2011, 11:01 PM

Just an observation: while the A looks better than the DA* right behind the focal plane, where the box lettering is, the farther background is defocused in a smoother fashion by the DA* - just check those frames on the wall. I guess the latter might be due to the slightly longer FL of the DA*.

Nervous bokeh can look bad in some situations, but in others it can add character to a shot. I would agree with ubuntu that there is no bad bokeh.

It would also be interesting to test these lenses in more challenging light. My experience is that old fast lenses are superb in dim interior light, but take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects.

Pentaxor · 06-10-2011, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

My experience is that old fast lenses are superb in dim interior light, but take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects.

that's just the way old fast lenses are, well not just old but new ones as well. and people have to understand and live by any imperfections that any fast lenses would render. although they display such CA, that doesn't make them unusable for outdoors.

having said that, the fast Samsung 85 however is rumoured not to display such CA. I'm not sure if this was optically corrected or camera corrected. we'll just have to wait and see a few months from now.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-10-2011, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

having said that, the fast Samsung 85 however is rumoured not to display such CA. I'm not sure if this was optically corrected or camera corrected. we'll just have to wait and see a few months from now.

I'm confused. The Samyang 85 has been around for some years. It indeed has practically no CA issues and it also has great flare resistance - I used a friend's copy for an afternoon and found nothing to complain about.

**Digitalis** · 06-10-2011, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects.

this is from the K 50mm f/1.2 slightly stopped down on an overcast day - uncorrected - deliberately oversharpened 100% crop from LR3 (oversharpening makes CA really stand out)

the canon 50mm f/1.2L which is a modern design would have made a purple mess of all the chrome on this car at the same aperture.

m42man · 06-11-2011, 12:30 AM

I think when people use the term "bad bokeh", they're probably referring to distracting (as opposed to smooth, blurry) bokeh. A lot of people actually prefer the "bad bokeh" because it makes for a more "interesting" background, for perhaps a more artistic effect. The Helios 44M comes to mind.

Anyway, the DA* 55/1.4 will always look "bad" against the 50/1.2, because the latter has some of the smoothest bokeh I've seen...

06-10-2011, 12:10 PM	#17
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Im sorry im just having a really crappy day and getting pissed off at just about everything. I read it wrong, my bad ubuntu. As for the thread, I dont think I'd ever buy the DA* because of its bokeh wideopen. I shoot my lenses wide open more than any aperture combined and bokeh is obviously a key aspect of my images. Its to harsh and defined for me Last edited by yeatzee; 06-10-2011 at 12:33 PM.

06-10-2011, 11:56 PM	#29
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects. this is from the K 50mm f/1.2 slightly stopped down on an overcast day - uncorrected - deliberately oversharpened 100% crop from LR3 (oversharpening makes CA really stand out) the canon 50mm f/1.2L which is a modern design would have made a purple mess of all the chrome on this car at the same aperture. Last edited by Digitalis; 01-28-2015 at 12:36 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
50mm shootout: F1.2, F1.4 or F1.7?	Spock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	03-14-2017 09:40 PM
Pentax heavy weights shootout - part I 31ltd vs 50mm/1.2	axl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	02-01-2011 10:04 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax M 28mm 3.5, Sears 55mm 1.4, Ricoh P 50mm 1.7, Chinon 50mm 1.9 (Worldwid	causey	Sold Items	17	01-08-2011 11:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10D + grip + 18-55mm, DA 12-24mm, FA 50mm/1.7, D FA 50mm/2.8 macro (Worldwide	dgaies	Sold Items	6	07-17-2010 03:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist DL, FA 50mm f/1.4, DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro, DA 18-55mm, A 50mm f/2.0	chemxaj	Sold Items	14	05-31-2010 09:34 AM

06-10-2011, 11:39 AM	#16
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by yeatzee Quite bad bokeh on that DA* I'd rather have the 55mm focal length on my K 50mm F/1.2 though Originally posted by Ubuntu_user OOF (or bokeh) is subjective. I don't think there's such a thing as "bad bokeh" (well, maybe there is, but...) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bad." Originally posted by yeatzee Since when were you the opinion police? I think it looks bad so im going to say it looks bad. Just look at the lettering! If you disagree than you disagree, I honestly don't care because that is your opinion. Relax, no where did Ubuntu_user suggest you aren't entitled to your opinion. All he said was that he didn't feel there was such a thing as "bad bokeh" because it is a subjective attribute. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that statement, but the statement itself wasn't suggesting that you aren't entitled to say it looks bad.

06-10-2011, 12:25 PM	#18
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	There is definitely such a thing as bad bokeh. What is considered bad is a matter of taste and is relative to what you are familiar with. Without using the word "bad" I will say that the A* 50mm looks a little smoother. The colors a little better, and the exposure is little brighter. The difference is in the margins and it is hard to know what the actual colors or exposure are without actually being there. The A* lenses were the pinnacle of Pentax optical quality. I'm not sure we will ever see Pentax produce glass of that quality again. I guess that is why used A* lenses sell for so much more than current production lenses.

06-10-2011, 12:37 PM	#19
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I can't quite tell from the photos online. Please forward the lenses to me for a more objective appraisal of their relative merits. Thanks.

06-10-2011, 12:38 PM	#20
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too

06-10-2011, 12:47 PM	#21
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	For all intents and purposes, I think that these lenses are much more similar than they are different. The longer focal length makes up for the aperture difference (assuming you don't need it for low low low light).

06-10-2011, 02:06 PM	#22
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Asahiflex FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too While it isn't an A, it probably should have been except it did not have any ED or Lanthanum elements in it. Perhaps the next batch the surprise release should have the Opti Bright coating and called A.

06-10-2011, 04:21 PM	#23
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545 Original Poster	Originally posted by yeatzee Im sorry im just having a really crappy day and getting pissed off at just about everything. I read it wrong, my bad ubuntu. As for the thread, I dont think I'd ever buy the DA* because of its bokeh wideopen. I shoot my lenses wide open more than any aperture combined and bokeh is obviously a key aspect of my images. Its to harsh and defined for me Hey, no problem yeatzee. I wasn't meaning to tell you that you should like the DA* bokeh. Like you say, everyone has his/her own opinion. That's all I was saying... Originally posted by Winder There is definitely such a thing as bad bokeh. What is considered bad is a matter of taste and is relative to what you are familiar with. Without using the word "bad" I will say that the A* 50mm looks a little smoother. "Smoother" is the right word for the A. And yes, there is such a thing as "bad bokeh." However, what I dislike, someone else might like. Therefore, the "bad" is subjective. That's just belief. Originally posted by Docrwm I can't quite tell from the photos online. Please forward the lenses to me for a more objective appraisal of their relative merits. Thanks. Okay. Do you have $1100? I'll ship them out as first-priority overnight! Originally posted by Asahiflex FYI: there's no such thing as an A* 50/1.2. It's just a plain "A" lens. Not that it is bad; far from it. And I want one too You know, I realized this earlier today when I took a look at the lens. I was going to go back and fix it in my previous posts, but then I figured I'd leave it so you guys could laugh at me! Originally posted by paperbag846 For all intents and purposes, I think that these lenses are much more similar than they are different. The longer focal length makes up for the aperture difference (assuming you don't need it for low low low light). Paperbag, this is really the conclusion I have come to. Yes, there are small differences, but pretty much they are similar. Both are absolutely fantastic lenses! I've got to let one of them go because I don't need redundancy in this FL, but I fear that I'll regret it... :ugh:

06-10-2011, 04:57 PM	#24
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	both are great lenses. if you prefer AF, get the 55. if you want to get a consistently smooth and out of this world bokeh, get the 1.2.

06-10-2011, 07:34 PM	#25
sjwaldron Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,235	The focus doesn't appear to be at the same point, but the A 50 f1.2 looks like it has smoother blur at the same aperture settings.

06-10-2011, 11:01 PM	#26
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Just an observation: while the A looks better than the DA* right behind the focal plane, where the box lettering is, the farther background is defocused in a smoother fashion by the DA* - just check those frames on the wall. I guess the latter might be due to the slightly longer FL of the DA*. Nervous bokeh can look bad in some situations, but in others it can add character to a shot. I would agree with ubuntu that there is no bad bokeh. It would also be interesting to test these lenses in more challenging light. My experience is that old fast lenses are superb in dim interior light, but take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects.

06-10-2011, 11:29 PM	#27
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor My experience is that old fast lenses are superb in dim interior light, but take them outside on a bright day, and boy, do you get a lesson in chromatic aberrations. I would try a scene with shiny reflections on metallic objects. that's just the way old fast lenses are, well not just old but new ones as well. and people have to understand and live by any imperfections that any fast lenses would render. although they display such CA, that doesn't make them unusable for outdoors. having said that, the fast Samsung 85 however is rumoured not to display such CA. I'm not sure if this was optically corrected or camera corrected. we'll just have to wait and see a few months from now.

06-10-2011, 11:54 PM	#28
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Pentaxor having said that, the fast Samsung 85 however is rumoured not to display such CA. I'm not sure if this was optically corrected or camera corrected. we'll just have to wait and see a few months from now. I'm confused. The Samyang 85 has been around for some years. It indeed has practically no CA issues and it also has great flare resistance - I used a friend's copy for an afternoon and found nothing to complain about.

06-11-2011, 12:30 AM	#30
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	I think when people use the term "bad bokeh", they're probably referring to distracting (as opposed to smooth, blurry) bokeh. A lot of people actually prefer the "bad bokeh" because it makes for a more "interesting" background, for perhaps a more artistic effect. The Helios 44M comes to mind. Anyway, the DA* 55/1.4 will always look "bad" against the 50/1.2, because the latter has some of the smoothest bokeh I've seen...