[starjedi]

at $1000, will you buy it? Even the corner is very sharp at wide open according to DPreview... It sounds amazing...

[hks_kansei]

There is/was the Pentax 55mm F1.4 (DA* or somehting?)

Then the FA* 50mm F1.4
The DA 50mm F1.8
The A 50mm F2
The A 50mm F1.7
The A 50mm F1.4
The A 50mm F1.2

And all the M series.

[starjedi]

There is/was the Pentax 55mm F1.4 (DA* or somehting?)

Then the FA* 50mm F1.4
The DA 50mm F1.8
The A 50mm F2
The A 50mm F1.7
The A 50mm F1.4
The A 50mm F1.2

And all the M series.

MTF50 for the center DA*55 1.4 at F2 is around 1750 and at the corner is around 1350. For Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*, at F1.8, the center is around 2400 and the corner is 1900, which is sharper thatn the center of DA*55. For the paper value, I do not find any pentax lens can be comparable with that. Of course, in paper :-).

But apparently the 24MP censor of Pentax K3 needs lens with better digital optimization... It is a little bit of disappoint that the HD version of DA limited did not improve the performance...

[Na Horuk]

Keep in mind you cannot compare lenses tested on different cameras. For the comparison between DA* 55mm and the Sony 55mm, you would need to test them both on the same camera/sensor/medium. You can see the problem if you look at tests of the same lens on different cameras - the measured value changes
But I am also interested in the comparison. I wrote in another thread about this lens. The DA* 55mm has a number of advantages, so I wonder if the IQ difference is big enough

[manishved]

Let's not forget the magical FA 43

[pinholecam]

The FE55 is hard to beat on paper and on sharpness.

I find that it gives a very clinical o/p catered for sharpness and not much else interesting about it.
I have a A7 and am on a forum where I see photos taken by our on a daily basis.

It's also very big and expensive for a 55mm f1.8.
Not that it's a bad lens.
It's certainly worth the money.
But not interesting to me.

A lens like the DA*55 is a lens designed for portraits.
Likely has field curvature for that purpose too.
So we can't compare them as like for like.


To me, most 50mm are decently sharp wide open to do good photos
So not that big an incentive this FE55 for the price

[mikemike]

Small marginal gain for a big marginal cost.

[stevebrot]

It's also very big and expensive for a 55mm f1.8.

It would be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison with the Pentax-K 55/1.8 on the A7.


Steve

[Rondec]

I really like the DA *55, but I have no idea how it compares to the Sony FE. Probably a better portrait lens, but I use mine plenty for landscape and stopped down it is quite nice.

[aurele]

Honestly, i've made some picture with the DA*55/1.4, wide open, on film (ilford Delta 3200).

The level of details is truly amazing, eyes sharp, all the crisp details of the iris are visible distincly (i did a 30*40 print of it, and the outcome was truely amazing).

I honestly don't imagine how a fast lens can be sharper.

1,000$ for a normal lens, even razor sharp, is too expensive to my eyes. Is it that much better than a 250$ 50/1.8, i guess probably not.
And even so, could you even notice it ? and would your prints really allow you to enjoy this expensive gain ?

[JinDesu]

MTF50 for the center DA*55 1.4 at F2 is around 1750 and at the corner is around 1350. For Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*, at F1.8, the center is around 2400 and the corner is 1900, which is sharper thatn the center of DA*55. For the paper value, I do not find any pentax lens can be comparable with that. Of course, in paper :-).

But apparently the 24MP censor of Pentax K3 needs lens with better digital optimization... It is a little bit of disappoint that the HD version of DA limited did not improve the performance...

May I ask where these numbers come from?

The flaw that I've seen in lens comparisons when using resolution numbers is that full frame sensors give a bit of an advantage over crop sensors - and higher resolution sensors give a bit of an advantage over lower resolution sensors. This coupled with the lack of Pentax lens test data from most reviewers on the k-5 (and now k-3) makes it difficult to just declare a position based on the values on the internet. For example - Pentax SMC DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM - Review / Test Report - Analysis - Photozone puts the DA*55 at 2318LWPH at MTF50 on a K-10D, which higher than the DA 70 F2.4 (which is a sharp lens) at 2238LWPH. On a k-5, the DA 70 F2.4 hits 2698 LWPH, so the DA*55 should exceed 2800 on Photozone's tests.

To provide even further comparisons - the Tamron 90 F2.8 macro only hits 2181LWPH at MTF50 on the K-10D. On the 8MP EOS 350D, it scores 2027LWPH. The Sigma 50 F1.4 on the EOS 350D scores 2128LWPH, while the Sigma 50 F1.4 on 21MP 5D Mk2 scores 3748LWPH. And this is the same Sigma 50 F1.4 that I find my DA*55 F1.4 to be as sharp in the center.

So please provide your source so we can properly evaluate the values.

[boriscleto]

Why bother with all the measurbation? Find a lens that fits your photographic style and use it.

[normhead]

May I ask where these numbers come from?

The flaw that I've seen in lens comparisons when using resolution numbers is that full frame sensors give a bit of an advantage over crop sensors - and higher resolution sensors give a bit of an advantage over lower resolution sensors. This coupled with the lack of Pentax lens test data from most reviewers on the k-5 (and now k-3) makes it difficult to just declare a position based on the values on the internet. For example - Pentax SMC DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM - Review / Test Report - Analysis - Photozone puts the DA*55 at 2318LWPH at MTF50 on a K-10D, which higher than the DA 70 F2.4 (which is a sharp lens) at 2238LWPH. On a k-5, the DA 70 F2.4 hits 2698 LWPH, so the DA*55 should exceed 2800 on Photozone's tests.

To provide even further comparisons - the Tamron 90 F2.8 macro only hits 2181LWPH at MTF50 on the K-10D. On the 8MP EOS 350D, it scores 2027LWPH. The Sigma 50 F1.4 on the EOS 350D scores 2128LWPH, while the Sigma 50 F1.4 on 21MP 5D Mk2 scores 3748LWPH. And this is the same Sigma 50 F1.4 that I find my DA*55 F1.4 to be as sharp in the center.

So please provide your source so we can properly evaluate the values.

Exactly... I really wish someone would start doing those tests on a Sony A7r with appropriate adapters, and just end all the confusion. There is absolutely no excuse these days for publishing lens tests done on different bodies. That might give Sony lenses a slight advantage... but it would still be better than what's done now.

We need a new site with a fresh outlook.

[JinDesu]

Why bother with all the measurbation? Find a lens that fits your photographic style and use it.

To me, it's that if someone uses numbers and measurements to make their point, I'd like to at least review the methods and results so I can understand better. Personally, I chose the DA*55 F1.4 because people said it was pretty sharp, has lovely bokeh, and is WR. And once I saw the lens in person I fell in love with it. So numbers don't really mean all that much to me - but I understand that other people like to compare by numbers, and I'd like to at least be technically capable enough to retort.

[Tanzer]

Honestly, i've made some picture with the DA*55/1.4, wide open, on film (ilford Delta 3200).

The level of details is truly amazing, eyes sharp, all the crisp details of the iris are visible distincly (i did a 30*40 print of it, and the outcome was truely amazing).

I honestly don't imagine how a fast lens can be sharper.

1,000$ for a normal lens, even razor sharp, is too expensive to my eyes. Is it that much better than a 250$ 50/1.8, i guess probably not.
And even so, could you even notice it ? and would your prints really allow you to enjoy this expensive gain ?

I'd have to agree with aurele here. The images I've seen from the DA*55 are so sharp, I can't see how they could be any sharper, or what difference it would make.

Some folks (including some of my family members ) have complained that this lens is perhaps too sharp for a portrait lens.