FA 55mm f1.2 LTD

Blue · 06-23-2011, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

I have to agree with Ron, here. The DA*55 really isn't very big. In fact, when you consider that it's AF, WR, f/1.4 and SDM, it's pretty amazingly small and light. Not to mention a flat-out great lens. It is for these reasons that Pentax will not produce another 55 until the DA* is replaced. Because why should they?

Paperbag, you have a thing about not paying for WR and SDM, but the lens you are proposing would cost much more than the DA*55. I think you just want another FA Ltd. so you can tell everybody how it's over-rated on digital and better on film.

BTW, I think the f/1.2 lenses are lost on me. I've only ever seen a couple of images from them that I liked. To me, there's such a thing as TOO shallow DOF. They have to be pin-sharp on the focus point to work, and most times, they just aren't. I personally almost never shoot below f/2 (numerically speaking).

Well, "big" is relative here because it is bigger than my A 50/1.2 and any other Asahi Optical/Pentax 50 or 55mm lens. However, the real point was an f1.2 version was going to have to have larger diameter elements .

creampuff · 06-23-2011, 07:13 PM

Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it.

dgaies · 06-23-2011, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it.

Which is the reason why Pentax won't/shouldn't produce it.

Blue · 06-23-2011, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it.

They don't fork out the money for the FA 31 or the DA* series . . . .

or k-5 bodies or silver K-5 bodies . . .

They can't sell anything but the DA 35/2.4 AL.

sarcasm

In all seriousness, and AF version of the 50/1.2 would sell if the price was in the ball park of the FA 31mm Ltd. Frank would get the silver version for his Silver K-2 full-frame dSLR.

paperbag846 · 06-23-2011, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Paperbag, you have a thing about not paying for WR and SDM, but the lens you are proposing would cost much more than the DA*55. I think you just want another FA Ltd. so you can tell everybody how it's over-rated on digital and better on film.

Ha!

I would love a fast 55mm lens... period. Voightlander seems like the way to go (would prefer autofocus).

It's that I would prefer to spend the same money on a screw-drive, compact prime, rather than a WR + SDM lens... because I would prefer that. I don't want a fat rubber lens, I want a crafted metal one

. And my arguements against the FA ltd line up do not really hold up here (and only hold up in general from a value point of view). I like portraits, like 55mm, would like a fast prime in that range. 50mm works but is not 100% (good value, though). My K55 is quite phenomenal and needs a modern version... but one that is small and metal and nice like a good old 1970's Pentax prime (what makes the limited's so nice to use).

My major issue with the 43 and 77 is focal length. I think those focal lengths just make more sense on film, but that's simply my opinion. I don't see tonnes of people here talking about 55mm, but I gravitate towards that FL.

I'm also intrigued by an f1.2 autofocus in the pentax line up, but I would honestly be happy with a 55mm f1.8 DA ltd type prime, about the size of the macro. Priced the same as the DA*, but with a different goal in mind.

---

Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss.

So that's why I'm so interested in this...

RonHendriks1966 · 06-24-2011, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss.

So that's why I'm so interested in this...

Well that 28mm is also hi on my list, why I made it up as part of DA Ltd lensline. You are unlucky since only one lens is in production. For 28 you can look at Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2,0 that is manual focus and will cost you an armlengt and is a big lens. In shop for 1099 euro.

MSD · 06-24-2011, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss. So that's why I'm so interested in this...

This is very logical and although FL preferences might differ a little person to person, your logic is echoed in most of us I would think.
Have you tried looking at the K30/2.8 for the middle? Not very fast, but optically surprises many. Then again, you find autofocus helpful, so maybe we're just waiting out on a 28/2 to come out once again here? That's up to Hoya. For now, I guess we continue discussing what else there is.

Adam · 06-24-2011, 03:57 AM

You can get an A 50mm F1.2 Special- but the price is up there

axl · 06-24-2011, 04:43 AM

I don't think 55 is really big. It's just about the same size as 31ltd. What really makes it big is the hood but that's fine by me. I think the hood is excellent.

If you guys want to see big glass just look at Sigma's offerings. 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 and even the new 85/1.4 dwarf the Pentax counterparts...
@paperbag - I don't thinks WR makes this lens bigger. The WR kit lenses are as their predecesors AFAIK, maube a few grams here and there...
SDM? Well, definitely slow on this lens but my 8 weeks old and his mom sure appreciate it's quietness, before, with 43ltd, by the time I focused whole house was up...
Your line up intentions are good but I don't think it happens any time soon. As discussed here, I don't think Pentax will be releasing new 50/55 as long as DA*55 and FA50 kick around, if so, it would be DA L50/2 or 1.7 so nowhere near the ltd standards... And 28? As long as 31 is out there I don't think it will happen...
And I agree on the 43+77 assesment. They are amazing lenses but the APSC format kills it IMO. The FOVs are just tad off

Personally I prefer to pair my 55 with 24. Terrific combo if you ask me...

TOUGEFC · 06-24-2011, 05:00 AM

FWIW, Some dimensions-
Sigma 20mm 1.8- Diameter 88.6mm X Length 89.5mm
Sigma 24mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm
Sigma 28mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm
Sigma 30mm 1.4- Diameter 75.5mm X Length 59mm
Pentax 55mm1.4- Diameter 70.5mm X Length 66.0mm

The only big glass is the Sigma 20,24,28 which are FF glass, the 2 smallest is the Pentax 55 and Sigma 30 which both are for APS-C, the 30mm is 5mm larger in diameter but the 55 is 7mm longer

**Rondec** · 06-24-2011, 05:15 AM

Depth of field with the DA *55 f1.4 is roughly equivalent to that of the A 50 f1.2 lens. I don't see the f1.2 aperture really adding anything to the package, unless somehow it was sharper at equivalent apertures than the DA 55. I don't believe that pitching SDM and WR would change the cost of the lens or significantly decrease its size, is probably not accurate. Currently, the FA 43 and DA *55 are priced really close to each other.

I don't know that auto focus and f1.2 lenses do that well with each other anyway. Auto focus has to know where you want focus to be and odds are it will pick the end of the nose, or the collar of the shirt rather than the eyes. Better to manual focus if you want that narrow depth of field.

paperbag846 · 06-24-2011, 08:10 AM

Thank for your help everyone.

Looks like I might have to track down one of these 55mm's in real life and try it out myself.

If not, Voightlander or Helios might be the answer

.

DogLover · 06-24-2011, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Well that 28mm is also hi on my list, why I made it up as part of DA Ltd lensline. You are unlucky since only one lens is in production. For 28 you can look at Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2,0 that is manual focus and will cost you an armlengt and is a big lens. In shop for 1099 euro.

The Zeiss 28 is actually almost exactly the same size as the FA31, which I don't consider to be a particularly big lens. It is quite a bit heftier, though. A good thing, in my book. I paid over $100 less for mine brand new than I did for my 31. I'll probably never get rid of it, either.

Originally posted by axl

And 28? As long as 31 is out there I don't think it will happen...

I agree, even though the 31 is actually closer to 32. If they did bring out a 28 it would probably be of a more budget quality, but I think even that is unlikely.

Originally posted by Rondec

I don't know that auto focus and f1.2 lenses do that well with each other anyway. Auto focus has to know where you want focus to be and odds are it will pick the end of the nose, or the collar of the shirt rather than the eyes. Better to manual focus if you want that narrow depth of field.

Exactly. Good point.

axl · 06-24-2011, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

FWIW, Some dimensions-
Sigma 20mm 1.8- Diameter 88.6mm X Length 89.5mm
Sigma 24mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm
Sigma 28mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm
Sigma 30mm 1.4- Diameter 75.5mm X Length 59mm
Pentax 55mm1.4- Diameter 70.5mm X Length 66.0mm

The only big glass is the Sigma 20,24,28 which are FF glass, the 2 smallest is the Pentax 55 and Sigma 30 which both are for APS-C, the 30mm is 5mm larger in diameter but the 55 is 7mm longer

What's the filter ring diameter of 30/1.4? I don't think it's 58mm or smaller.
And you skipped Sigma 50/1.4 which is the direct competitor. Plus the fact that despite DA*55 is designated as APSC lens only there are reports (with pictures) that it actually covers 135 format sensor size!

farfisa · 06-24-2011, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by axl

What's the filter ring diameter of 30/1.4? I don't think it's 58mm or smaller.
And you skipped Sigma 50/1.4 which is the direct competitor. Plus the fact that despite DA*55 is designated as APSC lens only there are reports (with pictures) that it actually covers 135 format sensor size!

The 30/1.4 has a filter diameter of 62mm, and their 50/1.4 (which is a FF lens) has a filter diameter of 77mm.

And I think you're right axl--I've seen pics from the DA*55 and it does cover the full frame. The rear element is actually slightly larger than that of the FA 50, which is obviously a FF lens. I remember comparing a couple of lenses with the Pentax rep at a local photo show when the DA*55 was released--he was asking around the office to see if full frame was coming when he first handled that lens!

I also agree with Rondec about the AF system potentially having a hard time with a 1.2 lens. Don't we bitch about AF enough already?

06-23-2011, 07:47 PM	#49
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by creampuff Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it. They don't fork out the money for the FA 31 or the DA* series . . . . or k-5 bodies or silver K-5 bodies . . . They can't sell anything but the DA 35/2.4 AL. In all seriousness, and AF version of the 50/1.2 would sell if the price was in the ball park of the FA 31mm Ltd. Frank would get the silver version for his Silver K-2 full-frame dSLR.

06-23-2011, 10:34 PM	#50
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Originally posted by Blue Paperbag, you have a thing about not paying for WR and SDM, but the lens you are proposing would cost much more than the DA55. I think you just want another FA Ltd. so you can tell everybody how it's over-rated on digital and better on film. Ha! I would love a fast 55mm lens... period. Voightlander seems like the way to go (would prefer autofocus). It's that I would prefer to spend the same money on a screw-drive, compact prime, rather than a WR + SDM lens... because I would prefer that. I don't want a fat rubber lens, I want a crafted metal one . And my arguements against the FA ltd line up do not really hold up here (and only hold up in general from a value point of view). I like portraits, like 55mm, would like a fast prime in that range. 50mm works but is not 100% (good value, though). My K55 is quite phenomenal and needs a modern version... but one that is small and metal and nice like a good old 1970's Pentax prime (what makes the limited's so nice to use). My major issue with the 43 and 77 is focal length. I think those focal lengths just make more sense on film, but that's simply my opinion. I don't see tonnes of people here talking about 55mm, but I gravitate towards that FL. I'm also intrigued by an f1.2 autofocus in the pentax line up, but I would honestly be happy with a 55mm f1.8 DA ltd type prime, about the size of the macro. Priced the same as the DA, but with a different goal in mind. --- Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss. So that's why I'm so interested in this... Last edited by paperbag846; 06-23-2011 at 10:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Takumar 55mm/135mm/200mm, Vivitar 55mm, Pentax-F 70-210mm	sposnjak	Sold Items	4	01-11-2011 12:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K20d+DA 18-55mm II+ DA*55mm/1.4+DAL 55-300mm (Worldwide)	ljay1129	Sold Items	15	11-22-2010 07:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: K20D - DBG Grip - DA18-55mm WR - 18-55mm DAL	VaughnA	Sold Items	7	03-13-2010 05:40 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-08-2010 02:06 PM

06-23-2011, 06:07 PM	#46
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by DogLover I have to agree with Ron, here. The DA55 really isn't very big. In fact, when you consider that it's AF, WR, f/1.4 and SDM, it's pretty amazingly small and light. Not to mention a flat-out great lens. It is for these reasons that Pentax will not produce another 55 until the DA is replaced. Because why should they? Paperbag, you have a thing about not paying for WR and SDM, but the lens you are proposing would cost much more than the DA*55. I think you just want another FA Ltd. so you can tell everybody how it's over-rated on digital and better on film. BTW, I think the f/1.2 lenses are lost on me. I've only ever seen a couple of images from them that I liked. To me, there's such a thing as TOO shallow DOF. They have to be pin-sharp on the focus point to work, and most times, they just aren't. I personally almost never shoot below f/2 (numerically speaking). Well, "big" is relative here because it is bigger than my A 50/1.2 and any other Asahi Optical/Pentax 50 or 55mm lens. However, the real point was an f1.2 version was going to have to have larger diameter elements .

06-23-2011, 07:13 PM	#47
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it.

06-23-2011, 07:16 PM	#48
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by creampuff Even if Pentax does produce the lens, the likelihood is most Pentax users won't or can't fork out the money for it. Which is the reason why Pentax won't/shouldn't produce it.

06-24-2011, 01:33 AM	#51
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by paperbag846 Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss. So that's why I'm so interested in this... Well that 28mm is also hi on my list, why I made it up as part of DA Ltd lensline. You are unlucky since only one lens is in production. For 28 you can look at Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2,0 that is manual focus and will cost you an armlengt and is a big lens. In shop for 1099 euro.

06-24-2011, 02:41 AM	#52
MSD Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 163	Originally posted by paperbag846 Most of this has to do with my preference of focal lengths. I want my 3 prime set up to (eventually be) 15mm - 28mm - 55mm. Maybe short for some people, but this is my favourite spread... but I want high quality versions of each. The toughest one will be the 28mm (the same FOV as the 43 on film), because I have not be incredibly impressed with the 28mm's I've had the opportunity to try. It would be a simple landscape - normal - portrait configuration... I'll let zooms cover the still I miss. So that's why I'm so interested in this... This is very logical and although FL preferences might differ a little person to person, your logic is echoed in most of us I would think. Have you tried looking at the K30/2.8 for the middle? Not very fast, but optically surprises many. Then again, you find autofocus helpful, so maybe we're just waiting out on a 28/2 to come out once again here? That's up to Hoya. For now, I guess we continue discussing what else there is.

06-24-2011, 03:57 AM	#53
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	You can get an A 50mm F1.2 Special- but the price is up there

06-24-2011, 04:43 AM	#54
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I don't think 55 is really big. It's just about the same size as 31ltd. What really makes it big is the hood but that's fine by me. I think the hood is excellent. If you guys want to see big glass just look at Sigma's offerings. 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 and even the new 85/1.4 dwarf the Pentax counterparts... @paperbag - I don't thinks WR makes this lens bigger. The WR kit lenses are as their predecesors AFAIK, maube a few grams here and there... SDM? Well, definitely slow on this lens but my 8 weeks old and his mom sure appreciate it's quietness, before, with 43ltd, by the time I focused whole house was up... Your line up intentions are good but I don't think it happens any time soon. As discussed here, I don't think Pentax will be releasing new 50/55 as long as DA*55 and FA50 kick around, if so, it would be DA L50/2 or 1.7 so nowhere near the ltd standards... And 28? As long as 31 is out there I don't think it will happen... And I agree on the 43+77 assesment. They are amazing lenses but the APSC format kills it IMO. The FOVs are just tad off Personally I prefer to pair my 55 with 24. Terrific combo if you ask me...

06-24-2011, 05:00 AM	#55
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	FWIW, Some dimensions- Sigma 20mm 1.8- Diameter 88.6mm X Length 89.5mm Sigma 24mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm Sigma 28mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm Sigma 30mm 1.4- Diameter 75.5mm X Length 59mm Pentax 55mm1.4- Diameter 70.5mm X Length 66.0mm The only big glass is the Sigma 20,24,28 which are FF glass, the 2 smallest is the Pentax 55 and Sigma 30 which both are for APS-C, the 30mm is 5mm larger in diameter but the 55 is 7mm longer

06-24-2011, 05:15 AM	#56
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Depth of field with the DA 55 f1.4 is roughly equivalent to that of the A 50 f1.2 lens. I don't see the f1.2 aperture really adding anything to the package, unless somehow it was sharper at equivalent apertures than the DA 55. I don't believe that pitching SDM and WR would change the cost of the lens or significantly decrease its size, is probably not accurate. Currently, the FA 43 and DA 55 are priced really close to each other. I don't know that auto focus and f1.2 lenses do that well with each other anyway. Auto focus has to know where you want focus to be and odds are it will pick the end of the nose, or the collar of the shirt rather than the eyes. Better to manual focus if you want that narrow depth of field.

06-24-2011, 08:10 AM	#57
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Thank for your help everyone. Looks like I might have to track down one of these 55mm's in real life and try it out myself. If not, Voightlander or Helios might be the answer .

06-24-2011, 08:49 AM	#58
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Well that 28mm is also hi on my list, why I made it up as part of DA Ltd lensline. You are unlucky since only one lens is in production. For 28 you can look at Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2,0 that is manual focus and will cost you an armlengt and is a big lens. In shop for 1099 euro. The Zeiss 28 is actually almost exactly the same size as the FA31, which I don't consider to be a particularly big lens. It is quite a bit heftier, though. A good thing, in my book. I paid over $100 less for mine brand new than I did for my 31. I'll probably never get rid of it, either. Originally posted by axl And 28? As long as 31 is out there I don't think it will happen... I agree, even though the 31 is actually closer to 32. If they did bring out a 28 it would probably be of a more budget quality, but I think even that is unlikely. Originally posted by Rondec I don't know that auto focus and f1.2 lenses do that well with each other anyway. Auto focus has to know where you want focus to be and odds are it will pick the end of the nose, or the collar of the shirt rather than the eyes. Better to manual focus if you want that narrow depth of field. Exactly. Good point.

06-24-2011, 09:03 AM	#59
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by TOUGEFC FWIW, Some dimensions- Sigma 20mm 1.8- Diameter 88.6mm X Length 89.5mm Sigma 24mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm Sigma 28mm 1.8- Diameter 83.6mm X Length 82.5mm Sigma 30mm 1.4- Diameter 75.5mm X Length 59mm Pentax 55mm1.4- Diameter 70.5mm X Length 66.0mm The only big glass is the Sigma 20,24,28 which are FF glass, the 2 smallest is the Pentax 55 and Sigma 30 which both are for APS-C, the 30mm is 5mm larger in diameter but the 55 is 7mm longer What's the filter ring diameter of 30/1.4? I don't think it's 58mm or smaller. And you skipped Sigma 50/1.4 which is the direct competitor. Plus the fact that despite DA*55 is designated as APSC lens only there are reports (with pictures) that it actually covers 135 format sensor size!

06-24-2011, 09:48 AM	#60
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by axl What's the filter ring diameter of 30/1.4? I don't think it's 58mm or smaller. And you skipped Sigma 50/1.4 which is the direct competitor. Plus the fact that despite DA55 is designated as APSC lens only there are reports (with pictures) that it actually covers 135 format sensor size! The 30/1.4 has a filter diameter of 62mm, and their 50/1.4 (which is a FF lens) has a filter diameter of 77mm. And I think you're right axl--I've seen pics from the DA55 and it does cover the full frame. The rear element is actually slightly larger than that of the FA 50, which is obviously a FF lens. I remember comparing a couple of lenses with the Pentax rep at a local photo show when the DA*55 was released--he was asking around the office to see if full frame was coming when he first handled that lens! I also agree with Rondec about the AF system potentially having a hard time with a 1.2 lens. Don't we bitch about AF enough already?