[ANGUS YOUNG]

In my personal opinion, if you look at the rendering pics there is no 25 years difference
The other has gopt different focus point so I cannot say anything...

[pentaxfall]

Thank you. Hope someone compares it against FA 50mm Macro.

[Dartmoor Dave]

The rendering comparisons are interesting. I marginally prefer the colours from the FA, and it seems to give a more three-dimensional look at wider apertures, although with a slightly harsher rendering of the out of focus areas wide open. The D FA doesn't seem to really wake up until f/11, then there's suddenly a sense of depth and some richness to the colours that wasn't there before. (Note: this is personal opinion and not an attempt at an objective truth. It could all look completely different to your eyes on your screen.) I think it would be just a matter of personal taste which lens to go for (although the fact that the FA is £1000 cheaper might swing it).

I'd be interested to see a poll thread with a mix of unidentified photos from both lenses, full frame rather than crops, to see if there's any overall preference either way in blind testing.

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm also hoping someone will do likewise comparisons with the DA*55.

That is certainly my plan. Still waiting for my DFA*50 though - hopefully early next week.

[Paul the Sunman]

I'd be interested to see a poll thread with a mix of unidentified photos from both lenses, full frame rather than crops, to see if there's any overall preference either way in blind testing.

I think most people could pick the difference. It's which you prefer that's at issue, or at least which you prefer given the relative cost.

---------- Post added 30-07-18 at 07:24 PM ----------

[... comparisons with the DA*55] That is certainly my plan. Still waiting for my DFA*50 though - hopefully early next week.

Will you get rid of the loser?

[LennyBloke]

Thanks for posting

[Sandy Hancock]

Will you get rid of the loser?

I doubt it. Even though I know which lens will lose, the DA*55 is tiny by comparison; there will be times when I'm willing to forgive its slight softness wide open, longer minimum focal distance, occasionally funky bokeh and not-quite-perfect full frame coverage.

[BigMackCam]

Bill, thanks for posting this. What a really useful test

Your FA50/1.4 renders exactly as I'd expect based on the copy I own.

The results are pretty much what I'd have guessed... The D FA50/1.4 is superior, especially in sharpness, micro-contrast and the quality of out-of-focus rendering wide open. And the subject-to-background separation, despite the same depth of field, is more pronounced... there's a real three-dimensional effect to these photos.

As someone else mentioned earlier, though, it's nice to see how well the old FA50/1.4 compares, considering its age and relative simplicity. It's outclassed by the new lens, but still makes a very decent fist of things...

[ffking]

As someone else mentioned earlier, though, it's nice to see how well the old FA50/1.4 compares, considering its age and relative simplicity. It's outclassed by the new lens, but still makes a very decent fist of things...

I think when people complain about the size and price they often don't take into account the fact that the better something is, the harder you have to work to improve on it.

[beholder3]

I hardly ever really test lenses, but as a service to this fine group, I have made an exception.
This is going to be a pretty big page, as it comprises 16 1000x1000 pixel details ranging from f/1.4 to f/16 for both lenses, as well as smaller full frame images (1024x683 pixel) at f/1.4, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/11.

If I might ask for a favor, I'd like to ask for just one shot x2: Same flower, wide open at F1.4 but with the key subject on the extreme right or left edge (needs LV or manual focus).
If you want to be nasty you can check corners.


In my personal view this lens is made not the least to provide full frame sharpness, as that is the main driver for a lens to be large.

Even the DA 18-138 has absolutely excellent center sharpness on par with most FF pro lenses incl. very expensive primes from any competitor. But center sharpness is only half the story.

[GUB]

The rendering comparisons are interesting. I marginally prefer the colours from the FA

Yes the FA seems marginally richer toned but it could be exposure variation and likely a t stop variation ie the DFA is a fraction faster due to the coatings.
Thanks to the difference in plane of focus I can't see how anyone can deduce the DFA is sharper. It is just because of the relative back focus of the FA all the front parts of the flower are more in focus in the DFA.
Amazing how good the old glass is.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks to the difference in plane of focus I can't see how anyone can deduce the DFA is sharper. It is just because of the relative back focus of the FA all the front parts of the flower are more in focus in the DFA.

I'm not looking at the exact same points in each image. I'm looking for the parts that are sharpest in each image (the leaf veins and hairs, for example) and comparing those, which negates any minor plane of focus difference. I notice a clear difference between the D FA and FA in terms of sharpness and detail. Of course, we're displaying things on different devices, and we see things slightly differently... you may not see what I see...

[UncleVanya]

You really need high res files or crops to really compare image quality.

[SteveinSLC]

Thanks for all the effort on this.
To me there's a huge difference at the wide apertures...the DFA is much better in detail and sharpness. When I compare this to the tiny details that we were quibbling about in the K-1 Mark 1 vs Mark 2 discussion, it makes that discussion look silly.
The FA catches up some by 5.6 and the rendering is closer too. But from 1.4-2.8 it's no contest. The caveat to that would be if all the FA shots had wind and none of the DFA ones did.

[johnkrumm]

Thanks for doing the sort of test I don’t want to do (but is very helpful to people).

---------- Post added 07-30-18 at 07:01 AM ----------

Yes the FA seems marginally richer toned but it could be exposure variation and likely a t stop variation ie the DFA is a fraction faster due to the coatings.
Thanks to the difference in plane of focus I can't see how anyone can deduce the DFA is sharper. It is just because of the relative back focus of the FA all the front parts of the flower are more in focus in the DFA.
Amazing how good the old glass is.

My D-FA 50* is definitly richer toned than my FA 50 1.4. Contrast and micro-contrast is higher, especially wide open, but stopped down too. It helps to look at many of your own files on your home computer and adjust the raw images the way you prefer. But there are times when you may want the lower contrast of the older lenses. I love the low contrast pastel look my 50 1.4 M gives on the K1.

On these closer-up flower shots, if you can see a clear contrast difference between the lenses. Much more distinct dark areas with the modern lens, even at f8.