[DSLRnovice]

Obviously the OP has no sign of LBA. In the time this thread has taken many of us would have already bought (and possibly sold) a half dozen 50mm lenses.

OP: part of the fun with these old lenses for many of us is trying them out to see if they fit our particular vision of what a good image is. The advantage of them being 30 years old is that there is no 'new' depreciation. The value is fairly well set by the used market and if you pay attention to the price you can sell on a lens you do not like for only the cost of the shipping. So for under $350 you might get a Pentax-A 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8 and try them all out. Then keep the one you like best and sell on the rest.

One of the things I enjoy about this forum is the interest in older lenses and their possibilities. OTOH I am hearing about the newer designs and am curious to find if some of them might bring out some aspects of the K-1 that I might otherwise miss.

[jatrax]

One of the things I enjoy about this forum is the interest in older lenses and their possibilities. OTOH I am hearing about the newer designs and am curious to find if some of them might bring out some aspects of the K-1 that I might otherwise miss.

I have great fun using the Takumars and old k-mount lenses in my collection. But when I am working I want a modern zoom. So I have both and use them as appropriate.

[awscreo]

I shoot most of my landscapes with DFA 28-105, it's sharper than any of my fifties. If you don't need wide aperture, why not go for convenience

[Digitalis]

Isco-Gottingen Westanar isn't great either. Stiffest focus ring and worst quality at infinity of all of my lenses.

The old Leica 50mm f/3.5 Anastigmats [based upon the 1890 Zeiss protar design] aren't much to write home about. It seems most third party f/2.8 ~ f/3.5 50mm lenses are often the worst performers, when we get to f/4, the bar of performance is raised again to lofty heights: many 50mm f/4 macro lenses tend to be quite good.

[clackers]

You've got me curious. Are there any comparison shots of the DFA50 with other Pentax 50's, macro or otherwise?

Sure.

Pentax 50mm Prime Lens Shootout Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[sibyrnes]

I shoot most of my landscapes with DFA 28-105, it's sharper than any of my fifties. If you don't need wide aperture, why not go for convenience

I have no complaints about using the DFA 28-105 as a landscape lens, especially when on the road(to Pikes Peak for example!)

[awscreo]

I have no complaints about using the DFA 28-105 as a landscape lens, especially when on the road(to Pikes Peak for example!)

Nice shot That's exactly my point, this "kit" lens is incredible value and is probably better than any fifty out there for landscapes

[mikesbike]

I noticed that fine shot was at 68mm. You can't do that with any of the 50's. The zoom advantage is always multiple FL for framing the way you want it. If that DFA 28-105mm is that good, why not use it! I would, and maybe take a small, fast prime lens for low light.

[DSLRnovice]

I shoot most of my landscapes with DFA 28-105, it's sharper than any of my fifties. If you don't need wide aperture, why not go for convenience

In the film days i found the 28-100 zoom was the most useful zoom for landscapes. I got away from it when I moved to Medium Format film. I just found out we are bringing a friend along in our next trip in the US. That makes the importance of a general purpose zoom even more important, as I have to keep up with the others a little better than I normally do.

As in my OP, I really wanted a lens that might show the limits of the K-1, and since I already have 24, 28, 35, 50, 100, 135 and 200 covered, i thought a zoom might come later. It looks like I might be going for the 28-105 now and the DFA 50/2.8 macro later.

Sorry I missed the last drop in price a while back!

[rob1234]

I shoot most of my landscapes with DFA 28-105, it's sharper than any of my fifties. If you don't need wide aperture, why not go for convenience

No doubt it is a sharp lens, and aside from zoom vs prime, but hard to believe it is sharper than a half-decent 50mm at say, f/8?

[DSLRnovice]

Sure.

Pentax 50mm Prime Lens Shootout Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

That is an interesting shoot-out in that the DA 50/1.8 compared so well with the other lenses. I am disappointed that the tests only showed the near center of the images, and no comments were made about corner or edge sharpness, which often matters in landscape photography.

The flare tests were not favorable to the DFA 50 macro, and even at the closer distance of 5 feet, it showed no advantage in sharpness. I would expect the macro to be better at the edges, but I cannot tell from this test.

[awscreo]

No doubt it is a sharp lens, and aside from zoom vs prime, but hard to believe it is sharper than a half-decent 50mm at say, f/8?

Well, from one's I own - it's definitely sharper than A-50 1.4 at f8-11 (at least at infinity) and both of my helios lenses. I think DA 50 1.8 gets very close at f5.6-11, but then you still have the convenience of zoom over a prime. Maybe more expensive 55 1.4 and such would be sharper at f8-16 but I doubt it'll be by a lot if any) only my observations though

[clackers]

That is an interesting shoot-out in that the DA 50/1.8 compared so well with the other lenses. I am disappointed that the tests only showed the near center of the images, and no comments were made about corner or edge sharpness, which often matters in landscape photography.

The flare tests were not favorable to the DFA 50 macro, and even at the closer distance of 5 feet, it showed no advantage in sharpness. I would expect the macro to be better at the edges, but I cannot tell from this test.

The results aren't surprising, DSLRnovice.

The traditional 1960s Japanese fast 50mm lens and its descendants is fairly simple and is soft wide open, becomes sharp at f5.6/f8, whatever the brand, and is softer at the edges and softer again at the corners. They're all good, it's part of the reason collectors go for them.

The macro lenses are sharper wide open, but slower (f2.8 is de rigeur even on modern expensive ones) and more usefully for landscapes, have flat fields of curvature compared to a more orthodox lens like the DA15 or Samyang 14mm or Zeiss 28mm.

[DSLRnovice]

Yesterday I bought the DFA 28-105. I have not had much time with it, but it does seem to be equal in sharpness to my primes, and to have more resistance to flair. I am a bit concerned about one thing. I know it is not fair to compare it with a macro, but when I did compare the same shot, camera setup and exposure with the DFA 100 macro, I noticed that the upper left side of the frame was not as sharp as the right side. The left side appeared to be out of focus.

I would think that maybe I did not have the subject lined up evenly on both sides, but the 100 macro showed no difference in sharpness between the left and right edges and corners. Could this be a defect?

Dan

[awscreo]

Yesterday I bought the DFA 28-105. I have not had much time with it, but it does seem to be equal in sharpness to my primes, and to have more resistance to flair. I am a bit concerned about one thing. I know it is not fair to compare it with a macro, but when I did compare the same shot, camera setup and exposure with the DFA 100 macro, I noticed that the upper left side of the frame was not as sharp as the right side. The left side appeared to be out of focus.

I would think that maybe I did not have the subject lined up evenly on both sides, but the 100 macro showed no difference in sharpness between the left and right edges and corners. Could this be a defect?

Dan

Might want to test the lens for decentering. I believe my copy is slightly decentered also, but not to the point where it starts bothering me. I might still send it to Pentax while I have my warranty though)
How to Check Your Lens for Decentering - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com