[Ubuntu_user]

Okay, so I've got both of these fast gems in my hands right now and I thought I'd do a little comparison. Mind you, this is no scientific test. These were all shot raw, and were converted to jpeg (unedited). Just thought it'd be interesting for reference. The one is designed for film, the other for digital. How do they line up against each other? Obliviously, the one is faster than the other, but in all other respects... see for yourself:

A* f/1.2


A* f/1.4


DA* f1.4


A* f/2


DA* f/2


A* f/2.8


DA* f/2.8


A* f/4


DA* f/4


A* f/5.6


DA* f/5.6


A* f/7.1


DA* f/7.1

---

Last edited by Ubuntu_user; 06-09-2011 at 06:18 PM. Reason: photo problems

[Ubuntu_user]

Oh, a few more details: these were shot on a tripod and exposure was the same for all images.

[paperbag846]

Cool test.

Its encouraging to see that the difference in focal length makes up for the difference in max aperture, at least to my eyes.

Oh how I lust for the DA* 55.

[yeatzee]

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

[Cambo]

Okay, so I've got both of these fast gems in my hands right now and I thought I'd do a little comparison. Mind you, this is no scientific test. These were all shot raw, and were converted to jpeg (unedited). Just thought it'd be interesting for reference. The one is designed for film, the other for digital. How do they line up against each other? Obliviously, the one is faster than the other, but in all other respects... see for yourself:

It's interesting how the A* starts out slightly underexposed, with less contrast, then goes over and with more contrast as you stop down, and the DA* does the opposite. DA* seems to start sharper and stays there, whereas the A* start out slightly soft, then sharpens up like crazy at F=4. DA* slightly more consistent throughout the range, A* more quirky and character prone. Great comparison, thanks very much for doing this...like to see the same at longer shorter distances, and right down to F=22. When you get more time.

I'd love to do an FA*85 vs DA*55 shootout sometime, with subject size matched for the crop size.

So, subjectively, which do YOU like using better, for what subjects, and why? How are they both with flash?

Cheers,
Cameron

[dgaies]

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

From my own tests and observations, the A50/1.2 fairly easily has the edge in bokeh. That said, there are many things about the DA*55 I prefer to the A50/1.2 including AF, WR, longer FL, sharper at f/1.4, great included hood.

[Winder]

I like the colors of the A* a little better and it appears to be a little brighter, but it is hard to tell on the notebook I am using right now.

[Digitalis]

interesting the bokeh quality of the DA* only catches up to the 50mm f/1.2 at f/4 - I find that f/2 on the A/K 50mm f/1.2 lenses is the trifecta - where sharpness, bokeh and contrast and beautiful images can be made.

real-world example of the K 50mm f/1.2 @ f/2

[Rondec]

I don't know. I really don't see that much difference, except it feels to me like the DA * 55 is front focusing. Depth of field actually looks less with the DA than with the A 50, but I think that is because of front focusing?

[RonHendriks1966]

Always hard to compare since they differ in FOV and therefor to some extend to DOF. For me I would buy the DA*55. Lucky me, I have that in my bag

[Ubuntu_user]

So, subjectively, which do YOU like using better, for what subjects, and why? How are they both with flash?

Cheers,
Cameron

dgaies summed up why I prefer the DA* pretty well:

From my own tests and observations, the A50/1.2 fairly easily has the edge in bokeh. That said, there are many things about the DA*55 I prefer to the A50/1.2 including AF, WR, longer FL, sharper at f/1.4, great included hood.

interesting the bokeh quality of the DA* only catches up to the 50mm f/1.2 at f/4 - I find that f/2 on the A/K 50mm f/1.2 lenses is the trifecta - where sharpness, bokeh and contrast and beautiful images can be made.

real-world example of the K 50mm f/1.2 @ f/2

That's an artistic-quality image, Digialis. The A* definitely does have smooth OOF.

I don't know. I really don't see that much difference, except it feels to me like the DA * 55 is front focusing. Depth of field actually looks less with the DA than with the A 50, but I think that is because of front focusing?

Like Ron says, it's hard to totally tell because 5mm throws things up a little...

Always hard to compare since they differ in FOV and therefor to some extend to DOF. For me I would buy the DA*55. Lucky me, I have that in my bag

[Ubuntu_user]

Quite bad bokeh on that DA*

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."

[tygerbyte]

AF is great.

[axl]

I'll have to have a look at this at home on my PC as I'm on the phone now. The DA* does have rather harsh OOF rendering when compared to 50/1.2 but on the other side it's sharper and has more contrast IMO uop to f2. I still think optically the 50/1.2 formula is superior to that of DA*55 (and I prefer colour rendering out of K series over A series) but overall the 55 has lot more going for it. As others said: WR, AF, hood and fantastic arangement of filter thread that stays free of any moving part of the lens. Some may not think it's a big deal but I beg to differ. My K50/1.2 fell victim to it's age and constant screwing, unscrewing of the hood and CPL. The little screws holding the filter ring gave in and the whole thing just came off leaving unprotected fron element. Repair was costly... This definitelly won't happen on DA*

[yeatzee]

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."

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.