DA 40mm f/2.8 or DA 50mm f/1.8 as go-to affordable lens?

**Aristophanes** · 08-28-2013, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by twitch

The DA40 is a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't shrink your DSLR into a m43's or NEX sized camera. I owned a DA40 for a while and traded it for a FA50 which I've been very happy with.

In this range if you go for a prime then it needs to be f/2 or faster; so I'd suggest a FA43, FA50 or FA35. Otherwise you may as well buy a Tamron 17-50.

I can get my K-x + DA 40 into my 3" wide work briefcase. The only other lens that comes close is the DA 21. FA 44 next.

It also focuses wicked fast. Nothing much to turn.

Primes4ever · 08-28-2013, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by twitch

The DA40 is a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't shrink your DSLR into a m43's or NEX sized camera. I owned a DA40 for a while and traded it for a FA50 which I've been very happy with.

In this range if you go for a prime then it needs to be f/2 or faster; so I'd suggest a FA43, FA50 or FA35. Otherwise you may as well buy a Tamron 17-50.

I have to disagree, the 40 is an excellent lens for IQ and is a valuable part of a high quality, light, and versatile group of primes. Not all lenses have to be f2 or better in the era of sensors found in the latest cameras. It is a great performer wide open and no zoom will hold up (I have had the Tamron mentioned, the DA 17-70, DA*16-50) in IQ and carry ability. I have the FA31 and F50 1.7 for low light if needed but use the 50 mostly for portraits. The FA31 gets use for a lot of reasons beyond its speed. The FA 43 is a good lens but considerably heavier, more than the 40 and 70 combined. It is a matter of personal preference. I frequently travel light with the 15,21,40,70 combination and would not give up any of them which means I value weight highly in the equation. But back to the 40. It was my first limited and I don't consider it a solution looking for a problem. It gets good use in a stable of eight primes and three zooms.

twitch · 08-28-2013, 07:53 PM

The problem is the DA40 is double the price and it's over a stop slower compared to a DA50/1.8. At $550 it's now getting ridiculous for this lens, I can't believe I bought the FA43 new from B&H just 6 months ago for the now new price of the DA40 HD.

kitestring · 08-28-2013, 08:05 PM

Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image.

twitch · 08-28-2013, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by kitestring

Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image.

Because they charge a premium for the metal build and the compactness for the limiteds, and effectively a premium (for whatever reaon, economies of scale comared to Canon/Nikon maybe) for the Pentax name in general.

Na Horuk · 08-29-2013, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by kitestring

Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image.

Um, Nikon makes more than one 50mm lens, and there is a huge difference in quality. The Pentax 55mm f1.4 is expensive, but there are reasons for it, check its reviews and sample photos. There were some reviews that show that the DA 50mm f1.8 is comparatively better at most of the measured things than the Nikon f1.8..
The other thing is, Nikon has way more volume. Nikon sells more lenses than Pentax, which means Nikon can lower their price.
There are third party lenses available for Pentax, just as they are for the other brands. And you can still get a K-mount Horus Bennu 50mm f1.7, brand newor a Zenitar 50mm f2.0 brand new or even a used Pentax M 50mm f1.7 for under $70. But if its cheaper, it has its limitations.
But you are right, Pentax is not the "super cheap" brand, even though it often delivers best bang for buck (certain primes, mid tier camera bodies..)

fevbusch · 02-21-2014, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

Sorry to say, but this is nonsense.

definitely nonsense. The DA35mm 2.4 is one of the best lenses out there , and at a bargain price

reeftool · 02-21-2014, 11:09 AM

I have a DA 40 Limited and several 50 and 55 mm MF primes. I don't use either size very much. If I was to do it over again, I think the DA 35 Limited would be my choice over the 40. The plastic 35 is said to be very good also. The problem with asking a question like this is that everybody's photography is different and what works for me isn't going to work for someone else. The nice thing about buying Limiteds is the size. They aren't cheap but good glass never is. Limited lenses can be carried in your pocket. The DA 40 is small enough to fit in a shirt pocket. I will probably add the 35 to my collection at some point but I will keep the 40. I use the DA 15 for landscapes rather than the 21. This is my preference and no knock on the 21 at all. I still use a zoom as a walk around for travel.

ChristianRock · 02-21-2014, 11:19 AM

The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others. Me, I'd rather have a 28 or 35 as a normal lens, and a 50 or 55 as a short telephoto in my bag. But others here have said the 40 can be really useful as the only lens if you need to take just one. For me, that's my 35 2.4. I find it's perfect as the only lens if I don't want to take others with me.

lytrytyr · 02-21-2014, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others.

Back in the age of 35mm film,
58mm used to be considered as the longest of the "standard" focal lengths.
The Voigtlaender 58/1.4 Nokton is a current relic of those days.
So you can think of 40mm as the APS-C equivalent.

ChristianRock · 02-21-2014, 02:24 PM

But the 40mm is more like a 61 or 62 on the current APS-C sensors... so it's getting a bit on the long side for a normal.

Again, it seems to be working very well for some people, so I guess one just has to try and see how they like it

fevbusch · 02-21-2014, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others. Me, I'd rather have a 28 or 35 as a normal lens, and a 50 or 55 as a short telephoto in my bag. But others here have said the 40 can be really useful as the only lens if you need to take just one. For me, that's my 35 2.4. I find it's perfect as the only lens if I don't want to take others with me.

I agree. The 35mm is definitely a better walk-around lens over the 40. I had the 40mm and never really bonded with it. It was kind of an in between unnecessary range. Freddy

Eyewanders · 02-21-2014, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by fevbusch

definitely nonsense. The DA35mm 2.4 is one of the best lenses out there , and at a bargain price

I surely agree with you, but sort of an odd reason to resurrect a 6 month old thread.

02-21-2014, 02:24 PM	#41
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,911	But the 40mm is more like a 61 or 62 on the current APS-C sensors... so it's getting a bit on the long side for a normal. Again, it seems to be working very well for some people, so I guess one just has to try and see how they like it Last edited by ChristianRock; 02-21-2014 at 02:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 15mm Limited, 50mm SMC-F f/1.7, 28mm SMC-F f/2.8, 50mm DA 1.8	si_film	Sold Items	4	05-18-2013 03:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC A 35mm f/2.0 (Rare!), DA 40mm Ltd, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, SMC A 50mm f/1.7	leadfoot	Sold Items	5	02-18-2012 12:19 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Macro lens and Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited lens	Nick Siebers	Sold Items	5	02-10-2012 01:22 PM
DA 40mm f/2.8 or tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for K-x	torchdoc	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	42	02-15-2010 06:25 PM
Pentax SMC-DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited or Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM DG ?	Big G	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-24-2009 03:03 PM

08-28-2013, 06:47 PM	#31
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by twitch The DA40 is a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't shrink your DSLR into a m43's or NEX sized camera. I owned a DA40 for a while and traded it for a FA50 which I've been very happy with. In this range if you go for a prime then it needs to be f/2 or faster; so I'd suggest a FA43, FA50 or FA35. Otherwise you may as well buy a Tamron 17-50. I can get my K-x + DA 40 into my 3" wide work briefcase. The only other lens that comes close is the DA 21. FA 44 next. It also focuses wicked fast. Nothing much to turn.

08-28-2013, 07:23 PM	#32
Primes4ever Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Cambridge, Ontario Posts: 179	Originally posted by twitch The DA40 is a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't shrink your DSLR into a m43's or NEX sized camera. I owned a DA40 for a while and traded it for a FA50 which I've been very happy with. In this range if you go for a prime then it needs to be f/2 or faster; so I'd suggest a FA43, FA50 or FA35. Otherwise you may as well buy a Tamron 17-50. I have to disagree, the 40 is an excellent lens for IQ and is a valuable part of a high quality, light, and versatile group of primes. Not all lenses have to be f2 or better in the era of sensors found in the latest cameras. It is a great performer wide open and no zoom will hold up (I have had the Tamron mentioned, the DA 17-70, DA*16-50) in IQ and carry ability. I have the FA31 and F50 1.7 for low light if needed but use the 50 mostly for portraits. The FA31 gets use for a lot of reasons beyond its speed. The FA 43 is a good lens but considerably heavier, more than the 40 and 70 combined. It is a matter of personal preference. I frequently travel light with the 15,21,40,70 combination and would not give up any of them which means I value weight highly in the equation. But back to the 40. It was my first limited and I don't consider it a solution looking for a problem. It gets good use in a stable of eight primes and three zooms.

08-28-2013, 07:53 PM	#33
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	The problem is the DA40 is double the price and it's over a stop slower compared to a DA50/1.8. At $550 it's now getting ridiculous for this lens, I can't believe I bought the FA43 new from B&H just 6 months ago for the now new price of the DA40 HD.

08-28-2013, 08:05 PM	#34
kitestring New Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 15 Original Poster	Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image.

08-28-2013, 08:23 PM	#35
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by kitestring Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image. Because they charge a premium for the metal build and the compactness for the limiteds, and effectively a premium (for whatever reaon, economies of scale comared to Canon/Nikon maybe) for the Pentax name in general.

08-29-2013, 05:03 AM	#36
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by kitestring Why Pentax lenses are so ridiculously overpriced? I can pick up Nikon 50/1.4 cheaper than Pentax 50/1.4 (let alone 55/1.4) and it would even render better quality image. Um, Nikon makes more than one 50mm lens, and there is a huge difference in quality. The Pentax 55mm f1.4 is expensive, but there are reasons for it, check its reviews and sample photos. There were some reviews that show that the DA 50mm f1.8 is comparatively better at most of the measured things than the Nikon f1.8.. The other thing is, Nikon has way more volume. Nikon sells more lenses than Pentax, which means Nikon can lower their price. There are third party lenses available for Pentax, just as they are for the other brands. And you can still get a K-mount Horus Bennu 50mm f1.7, brand newor a Zenitar 50mm f2.0 brand new or even a used Pentax M 50mm f1.7 for under $70. But if its cheaper, it has its limitations. But you are right, Pentax is not the "super cheap" brand, even though it often delivers best bang for buck (certain primes, mid tier camera bodies..)

02-21-2014, 08:55 AM	#37
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064	Originally posted by carrrlangas Sorry to say, but this is nonsense. definitely nonsense. The DA35mm 2.4 is one of the best lenses out there , and at a bargain price

02-21-2014, 11:09 AM	#38
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	I have a DA 40 Limited and several 50 and 55 mm MF primes. I don't use either size very much. If I was to do it over again, I think the DA 35 Limited would be my choice over the 40. The plastic 35 is said to be very good also. The problem with asking a question like this is that everybody's photography is different and what works for me isn't going to work for someone else. The nice thing about buying Limiteds is the size. They aren't cheap but good glass never is. Limited lenses can be carried in your pocket. The DA 40 is small enough to fit in a shirt pocket. I will probably add the 35 to my collection at some point but I will keep the 40. I use the DA 15 for landscapes rather than the 21. This is my preference and no knock on the 21 at all. I still use a zoom as a walk around for travel.

02-21-2014, 11:19 AM	#39
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,911	The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others. Me, I'd rather have a 28 or 35 as a normal lens, and a 50 or 55 as a short telephoto in my bag. But others here have said the 40 can be really useful as the only lens if you need to take just one. For me, that's my 35 2.4. I find it's perfect as the only lens if I don't want to take others with me.

02-21-2014, 02:18 PM	#40
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by ChristianRock The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others. Back in the age of 35mm film, 58mm used to be considered as the longest of the "standard" focal lengths. The Voigtlaender 58/1.4 Nokton is a current relic of those days. So you can think of 40mm as the APS-C equivalent.

02-21-2014, 02:29 PM	#42
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064	Originally posted by ChristianRock The 40 is an interesting length. It works very well for some, not so well for others. Me, I'd rather have a 28 or 35 as a normal lens, and a 50 or 55 as a short telephoto in my bag. But others here have said the 40 can be really useful as the only lens if you need to take just one. For me, that's my 35 2.4. I find it's perfect as the only lens if I don't want to take others with me. I agree. The 35mm is definitely a better walk-around lens over the 40. I had the 40mm and never really bonded with it. It was kind of an in between unnecessary range. Freddy

02-21-2014, 04:10 PM	#43
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by fevbusch definitely nonsense. The DA35mm 2.4 is one of the best lenses out there , and at a bargain price I surely agree with you, but sort of an odd reason to resurrect a 6 month old thread.