Originally posted by Barry Pearson Perhaps it is indeed bad. If so, I suspect there isn't much I can do after 4.5 years, and I now have no real use for another one, so I'll have to forget about it.
In APS-C I got sharp photos with it corner to corner at f/4. Then just one stop made the corners sharp at FF. So it wasn't all bad.
I've just tested the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 against both the DA* 55mm and the D FA 28-105mm, all at 55mm.
My conclusion, based on
my copies of all these lenses, is:
The 24-70mm is good in the corners at f/2.8 on the K-1 at about 55mm. Far better than DA* 55mm at f/2.8. If light levels or depth of field demands it, I'll happily use the 24-70mm wide open at this part of the focal length range.
My test suggests that the 28-105mm has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 at 55mm, so it can't be compared with the 24-70mm anywhere near the latter's maximum aperture.
Stopped down to f/3.5, the 24-70mm lens (at 55mm) is better in the corners than the DA* 55mm is at f/5.6, or the 28-105mm (at 55mm) is at f/5.6. It justifies its size and weight where I'm not having to carry other heavy lenses around, (and in my opinion justifies its cost).
When the weight and size of the D FA 24-70mm are not a problem, it is the mid-range zoom I'll use. It remains to be seen whether there will ever be cases where having it on the K-1 "allows" me to be parted from the lovely 28-105mm for a short time!
So my DA* 55mm has too much stacked against it. Sharpness (for one reason or another), and lowish-light working of the 24-70mm used at f/2.8. I'm personally talking about the K-1 here, so with its "quiet" (opposite of "noisy") sensor and 5-stop SR, I think shooting at f/2.8 will be sufficient for me, before I use flash.
I see your point and after reviewing some of my pictures I think you are right. The 55 was designed as a portrait lens and this is what it is good at. For best corner to corner sharpness probably the 50mm 2.8 would be the right choice. For versatility the 24-70 or 28-105 would be best.
For me personally the 24-70 was just out of my price range with triple the cost of the 55. The 28-105 costs here ~40% more than the 55 and my focus was on a good weather sealed lens for portrait and landscape (here it is stopped down to F8+ anyway). So the 55 was the winner over the 28-105 for me, mainly because of the better "bokeh-balls", F1.4 and the better weather sealing.
Here 100% crop of 105@5.6:
and here 100% with the DA55@1.8
Last edited by Snakeisthestuff; 07-10-2016 at 06:58 AM.