Originally posted by stevebrot It would be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison with the Pentax-K 55/1.8 on the A7.
Steve
I don't think there is a FE55 at the store here yet, but I am going to pit my FA35 vs the FE35 there (likely this weekend)
AFAIK from my SMC Tak 55/1.8, its still a 'classic' 50mm in the sense that its sharp enough in the center wide open, but not sharper than the modern optics (based off my experience with those like the m4/3 lenses)
I must add that being sharper does not mean much at all in most real world shots.
Once it gets past the point of being 'not sharp', its just the picts that counts to me.
Originally posted by 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 ?
The FE55 is sharp even on the edges wide open and that amounts to some of the good scores.
Its resolution/design is also catered for the 36mp sensor and what higher mp camera that comes out as the 'future' of cameras.
But sharp enough to the eye is sharp enough.
There is much more to a lens that sharpness.
A lot of these 'ego apes' who hail the new Otus and FE55 as the 'greatest lenses' don't take the lens out of their house where they do do 'test shots'
Once outside, carried for a day or week on a tour with a bag of similar sized lenses, they start to hail m4/3 or X-series as the 'game changer'