DA*55 vs EF50/1.4

axl · 01-15-2012, 03:32 PM

I was asked to compare the two so here it comes.
3 pictures form each. Manual exposure, the same exposure times and f stops ISO fixed at 100. Cameras on tripod on the same spot.
First observation K mount set up underexposed compared to the Canon (one could easily say Canon overexposed

)

Anyway, I will leave rest of the observations for you. Make of it what you will.

side by side, left is DA* right is EF

@f1.4

@f2.8

@f5.6

TOUGEFC · 01-15-2012, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the comparison, obviously the EF is no DA* but it doesnt do too bad. I will keep it on my list for FF.

jsherman999 · 01-15-2012, 04:10 PM

I love the creamy bokeh of the EF at f/1.4, but prefer the bokeh of the DA* at f/2.8.

Nice comparison, thanks. Nothing like a new mount to kick in a huge case of LBA, huh?

I hear you also picked up the 100 f/2!

.

**maxfield_photo** · 01-15-2012, 05:47 PM

The bokeh of the DA* 55 puts it in a league of its own. Also, the DoF at f/1.4 of the Pentax lens looks considerably shallower, or maybe it's because of the extra 5mm of focal length which makes the aperture about 4mm wider, but you might have a touch of back focus.

Last edited by maxfield_photo; 01-15-2012 at 07:00 PM.

axl · 01-16-2012, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

The bokeh of the DA* 55 puts it in a league of its own. Also, the DoF at f/1.4 of the Pentax lens looks considerably shallower, or maybe it's because of the extra 5mm of focal length which makes the aperture about 4mm wider, but you might have a touch of back focus.

It's bit of both I believe. The DOF is thinner + I think the shots are touch back focused.

As for the OOF rendering. I agree when the DA* is stopped down. I never warmed up to it's highlights rendreing while wide open...

axl · 01-16-2012, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I love the creamy bokeh of the EF at f/1.4, but prefer the bokeh of the DA* at f/2.8.

Nice comparison, thanks. Nothing like a new mount to kick in a huge case of LBA, huh?

I hear you also picked up the 100 f/2!

.

I agree on the EF wide open here. And since that's where it's going to be used like 80% of the time, I'm very pleased with the results...

LBA? Oh yes, problem is that with 9 months old at home and Mrs at home with him, there's no spare cash...

but one day soon

As for 100/2, beautiful lens. Just about the size of FA135/2.8. Nice sharpness, fast AF. Really nice lens...but I might end up selling it to fund my wide angle side of things (24/1.4L ideally

)

**Rondec** · 01-16-2012, 05:57 AM

I prefer the DA *55 rendering myself, but certainly the EF 50 isn't too shabby either.

DaveHolmes · 01-16-2012, 07:08 AM

Is it just me that thinks the EF looks MUCH sharper then?

Something can't be right with the test set-up as some of TOUGEFC's (a member here) shots with DA*55 are much sharper at f1.4...

JinDesu · 01-16-2012, 07:19 AM

I think OP said the shots are back focused

Ubuntu_user · 01-16-2012, 09:43 AM

In the wide open shot the DA* is significantly back focused. I personally prefer the DA*'s rendering... Canon has a tendency to overexpose.

Rico · 01-16-2012, 11:24 AM

This comparison shows just how shallow a depth of field the DA*55 produces wide open. The figurines eyes are in focus but the beard is not. Isn't this exactly what people want who crave shooting wide open? By f2.8 the DA*55 is showing just how much better a lens it is from the EF50.

The DA*55 from this comparison is a much better portrait lens than the EF50. There is better color and contrast in the DA*55 images. The out of focus areas in all cases are better in the DA*55 unless you prefer the hexagon highlights from the EF50. There is a better sense of isolation of the subject by the DA*55 in all the images. The sharpness of the DA*55 renders much more naturally than the EF50 as well. Much more film like which is one of Pentax's strengths in their sensor algorithms. The EF50 has a plastic look which is more of Canon sensor trait.

axl · 01-16-2012, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

Is it just me that thinks the EF looks MUCH sharper then?

Something can't be right with the test set-up as some of TOUGEFC's (a member here) shots with DA*55 are much sharper at f1.4...

As I have admitted, the shots are smidge badckfocused. But truth is it was very, sorry but VERY hard job to coax the sharpnes and detail from K-7 + DA*55 that would compare to Simon's (TOUGEFC's) shots from K-5 + DA*55. On the other side, I do have quite destructive PPing to get the colours I like. Having said that, these shots have 0 PPing save from RAW>JPEG conversion and resixe for web...

axl · 01-16-2012, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Ubuntu_user

In the wide open shot the DA* is significantly back focused. I personally prefer the DA*'s rendering... Canon has a tendency to overexpose.

Canon exposes much brighter, but I don't mind...I actually prefer it

DaveHolmes · 01-16-2012, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by axl

As I have admitted, the shots are smidge badckfocused

Sorry man... I missed that in your second post... I will try and pay more attention to detail...

Yeah, his shots make me: a) want to spend a lot of money and b) just be better...

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-16-2012, 08:37 PM

There is something else that looks interesting to me in the Canon 1.4 shot (which I agree that it seems better focused): the shape of the three out of focus highlights at the top right - their interior side is irregular, as if the lens was actually stopped down a bit.

01-15-2012, 03:32 PM	#1
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	*DA55 vs EF50/1.4** I was asked to compare the two so here it comes. 3 pictures form each. Manual exposure, the same exposure times and f stops ISO fixed at 100. Cameras on tripod on the same spot. First observation K mount set up underexposed compared to the Canon (one could easily say Canon overexposed ) Anyway, I will leave rest of the observations for you. Make of it what you will. side by side, left is DA* right is EF @f1.4 @f2.8 @f5.6

01-15-2012, 03:39 PM	#2
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Thanks for the comparison, obviously the EF is no DA* but it doesnt do too bad. I will keep it on my list for FF.

01-15-2012, 04:10 PM	#3
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I love the creamy bokeh of the EF at f/1.4, but prefer the bokeh of the DA* at f/2.8. Nice comparison, thanks. Nothing like a new mount to kick in a huge case of LBA, huh? I hear you also picked up the 100 f/2! .

01-15-2012, 05:47 PM	#4
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	The bokeh of the DA* 55 puts it in a league of its own. Also, the DoF at f/1.4 of the Pentax lens looks considerably shallower, or maybe it's because of the extra 5mm of focal length which makes the aperture about 4mm wider, but you might have a touch of back focus. Last edited by maxfield_photo; 01-15-2012 at 07:00 PM.

01-16-2012, 01:42 AM	#5
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by maxfield_photo The bokeh of the DA* 55 puts it in a league of its own. Also, the DoF at f/1.4 of the Pentax lens looks considerably shallower, or maybe it's because of the extra 5mm of focal length which makes the aperture about 4mm wider, but you might have a touch of back focus. It's bit of both I believe. The DOF is thinner + I think the shots are touch back focused. As for the OOF rendering. I agree when the DA* is stopped down. I never warmed up to it's highlights rendreing while wide open...

01-16-2012, 01:46 AM	#6
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 I love the creamy bokeh of the EF at f/1.4, but prefer the bokeh of the DA* at f/2.8. Nice comparison, thanks. Nothing like a new mount to kick in a huge case of LBA, huh? I hear you also picked up the 100 f/2! . I agree on the EF wide open here. And since that's where it's going to be used like 80% of the time, I'm very pleased with the results... LBA? Oh yes, problem is that with 9 months old at home and Mrs at home with him, there's no spare cash... but one day soon As for 100/2, beautiful lens. Just about the size of FA135/2.8. Nice sharpness, fast AF. Really nice lens...but I might end up selling it to fund my wide angle side of things (24/1.4L ideally )

01-16-2012, 05:57 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	I prefer the DA *55 rendering myself, but certainly the EF 50 isn't too shabby either.

01-16-2012, 07:08 AM	#8
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Is it just me that thinks the EF looks MUCH sharper then? Something can't be right with the test set-up as some of TOUGEFC's (a member here) shots with DA*55 are much sharper at f1.4...

01-16-2012, 07:19 AM	#9
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I think OP said the shots are back focused

01-16-2012, 09:43 AM	#10
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	In the wide open shot the DA* is significantly back focused. I personally prefer the DA*'s rendering... Canon has a tendency to overexpose.

01-16-2012, 11:24 AM	#11
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,204	This comparison shows just how shallow a depth of field the DA55 produces wide open. The figurines eyes are in focus but the beard is not. Isn't this exactly what people want who crave shooting wide open? By f2.8 the DA55 is showing just how much better a lens it is from the EF50. The DA55 from this comparison is a much better portrait lens than the EF50. There is better color and contrast in the DA55 images. The out of focus areas in all cases are better in the DA55 unless you prefer the hexagon highlights from the EF50. There is a better sense of isolation of the subject by the DA55 in all the images. The sharpness of the DA*55 renders much more naturally than the EF50 as well. Much more film like which is one of Pentax's strengths in their sensor algorithms. The EF50 has a plastic look which is more of Canon sensor trait.

01-16-2012, 12:09 PM	#12
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by DaveHolmes Is it just me that thinks the EF looks MUCH sharper then? Something can't be right with the test set-up as some of TOUGEFC's (a member here) shots with DA55 are much sharper at f1.4... As I have admitted, the shots are smidge badckfocused. But truth is it was very, sorry but VERY hard job to coax the sharpnes and detail from K-7 + DA55 that would compare to Simon's (TOUGEFC's) shots from K-5 + DA*55. On the other side, I do have quite destructive PPing to get the colours I like. Having said that, these shots have 0 PPing save from RAW>JPEG conversion and resixe for web...

01-16-2012, 12:11 PM	#13
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ubuntu_user In the wide open shot the DA* is significantly back focused. I personally prefer the DA*'s rendering... Canon has a tendency to overexpose. Canon exposes much brighter, but I don't mind...I actually prefer it

01-16-2012, 04:14 PM	#14
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by axl As I have admitted, the shots are smidge badckfocused Sorry man... I missed that in your second post... I will try and pay more attention to detail... Yeah, his shots make me: a) want to spend a lot of money and b) just be better...

01-16-2012, 08:37 PM	#15
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	There is something else that looks interesting to me in the Canon 1.4 shot (which I agree that it seems better focused): the shape of the three out of focus highlights at the top right - their interior side is irregular, as if the lens was actually stopped down a bit.