[mtux]

I do love my DA50mm on APSC.

[condor27596]

I use it a lot when I am in the point and click mode (auto) focus with my feet.

[reeftool]

I have several 50 and 55 mm lenses I have accumulated over the years. I use them on occasion but not on a daily basis, mostly because the focal length is too long for much of what I shoot. That said, the DP3 sells for a reasonable price and isn't too much more than the Pentax DA 50/2.8 Macro so I would base my decision on whether you use that size enough to justify either. Personally, I prefer a longer macro so I don't have to move in as close. (Arthritis. I'm not too flexible any more.) The DP3 is a pretty impressive camera.

My 50 and 58 mm are my most used lenses on my APS-C. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of getting rid of my 10-20 mm because I never use it. I know seasoned photographers who prefer 70-85 mm on their full frame.

[Kerrowdown]

My "Special Lady" (SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.2) has a place in my heart no matter which camera body she's bolted on to.

[ericlparker]

I use mine whenever I am in a low light situation. Fast lenses are pretty expensive especially in the longer focal lengths. I don't like iso numbers higher than 800 so when the light is low I move closer.

I did an experiment with my 18-135 some months back where I took the same shot at various focal lengths, "zooming with my feet" as it were to keep the framing more or less the same. I evaluated the results based on POV only, and not sharpness or bokeh or some other characteristic of the lens. What I found, for me, almost never was 50mm just right. Plenty of times I liked 24mm, or 35, or 70, etc. That said, I do have an old 8-element super Tak 50 and a Tak55 that I just love to pieces, but more for their rendering rather than POV.

85mm on full frame as a landscape lens:

diglloyd blog - Zeiss ZF / Zeiss ZE 85mm f/1.4 Planar as a lens for landscape

Other shots with 85mm:

http://www.disneymike.com/photoblog/

http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/portfolio/ladakh/leh_ladakh-09-15-21-18-47-2/

[carrrlangas]

85mm on full frame as a landscape lens:

Great focal length for landscape. I like 50mm (and 70mm) very much and they are edge to edge sharp by f/4... And I know you are not talking about this but why would diglloyd want an f/1.4 for daylight landscapes? hauling all that weight... perhaps at night, but I would still choose 50/2.8 or f/1.7, 70/2.4 or 77/1.8 and 85/2 in 135 format just because of the reduced size and weight.

Great focal length for landscape. I like 50mm (and 70mm) very much and they are edge to edge sharp by f/4... And I know you are not talking about this but why would diglloyd want an f/1.4 for daylight landscapes? hauling all that weight... perhaps at night, but I would still choose 50/2.8 or f/1.7, 70/2.4 or 77/1.8 and 85/2 in 135 format just because of the reduced size and weight.

I guess Mr Lloyd was doing some marketing on behalf of someone. Sigma 50 2.8 macro and its Pentax equivalent are excellent all purpose lenses - on APS-C.

[GateCityRadio]

I use my DA 50 more than any other lens on digital. The FA 28-70 f4 comes in second. I just got a FA77 but I feel its really long on a crop sensor and I mostly got it for film use. It will probably get some digital use though. Hopefully I'll get the FA43 soon, then it can battle it out with the DA 50 for time on the digital.

Honestly though, 50 on aps-c is perfect for portraits. If I need to go wider I use the FA 28-70 or DA 18-55.

[docsbo]

When I had a Canon 7d, I used my super takumar 50/1.4 For soft portrait - was unbeatable !

[ivanvernon]

My 50mm friends are:

Auto Sears 50 mm f 2.0 -- sharp as a tack and renders beautifully for landscape work
Rikenon 50 mm f 1.4 -- great for low light and blurred backgrounds with portraits
Pentax 50 mm macro f 2.8 -- the sharpest lens I own, real truthful lens in rendering, general purpose inside & good for landscape outside.
Helios 58 mm f 2.0 -- these Russians grow on you for rendering though not as sharp as the Pentax 2.8
Canon FL 55 mm f 1.2 -- low light queen, rendering queen, blurred background artist, at f 1.2 the focal plane lets you do really interesting things. Just use on Canon film cameras so far, but am having the mount replaced with a K-mount for Pentax digital use, I think will become my favortite 50.

[stevebrot]

Helios 58 mm f 2.0 -- these Russians grow on you for rendering though not as sharp as the Pentax 2.8

Thanks for mentioning the Helios 44 variants. I blushingly admit that my Helios 44M 58/2 is my "go to" lens when I want to do "artsy" work. Three of my PPG images were done with that lens.


Steve

[ivanvernon]

Thanks for mentioning the Helios 44 variants. I blushingly admit that my Helios 44M 58/2 is my "go to" lens when I want to do "artsy" work. Three of my PPG images were done with that lens.


Steve

Yes, I agree. When I am just puttering around with nothing specific in mind, my hand has developed a tendency to reach for my Helios 44 K-Mount. I have had some very nice results with landscape photos, and you might see some posted in the Russian Lens Club. It seems that I sometimes get some interesting and unexpected results with the Helios, where the auto-everything Pentax D FA 50 mm is technically perfect, tack sharp, and not always quite as interesting. So I say the Pentax 50 2.8 is the lens that tells the honest truth in sharp outline, but the Helios has a bit of rendering variation that is often more interesting.

On the K-5II with catch in focus in Av mode, I find the Helios and M-type lenses in general to be quite simple to use. If automated photography had never evolved past that point, I would still be content!