Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Why is 55mm/f1.2 so important over 50mm/f1.2?
Glad you asked
. Most people don't seem to care, but I notice it quite a bit.
I have a K55 and a FA 50. The FA 50 is the better lens 6 times out of 10... but it's just a little short for portraiture. 85mm is the old standard for the short end of portraiture, I think for good reason. A 55 lens gets you to 82.5mm.... close enough. A 50mm lens brings you to 75mm.
In other words, I need to crop shots from my 50 to get the framing I see in my head. The autofocus/autoexposure/sharpness of the 50 1.4 makes this generally worth it, but it's not an ideal situation. The DA* 55 tells me they already know how to make a better 50....
I understand that you can use a short telephoto for lots of things, but I generally think of it as a portrait lens. And that 5mm really helps for portraits. It provides a creamier OOF area, and better control of perspective distortion (I prefer the look of a 55mm lens over the longer variants, which tend to flatten things out quite a bit).
The DA* 55mm almost gets me there... but how often am I shooting portraits in the rain?? The urban consumer should have a portrait lens option at the proper focal length that isn't as huge as a DA* lens. It's just bulk and expense I don't need... and I'm WITH Pentax because I want access to their lovely small primes!
If I wanted a big bulky lens, I would just get a Nikon system. I would have to deal with a lot less in the way of other headaches if I jumped ship. The tiny primes are keeping me around - but my *favourite* focal length is only offered as a DA*! Yarrrr.
Now, why 55mm 1.2? Well, I figure if Pentax is so intent on their WR + SDM wrapped nonsense, then the alternative could be a premium lens. I suppose they could go the other way with it though. They could make the lens smaller, and f1.8. Sharp wide open, like a proper limited. They could price it on par, or for a little less, than the DA*. It would be the choice betwen WR+SDM, and compact/limited build.