[BarryE]

Thanks for running these tests. Being a fan of the D-FA 50 macro, I was looking forward to seeing how these lenses compared. For me, the 4x weight differential is the important factor, IF the lenses are not so very different for how I might use them.

For dreamy shots I have the 77 & 31. For accuracy, I have the 50 macro. Yes, a 'dreamy gap' exists between the 77 & the 50 (that the 43 will not fill), but the 50 is so good in all other aspects that it's perhaps weaker bokeh is not been an issue for me.

The more you can do to compare these two lenses the better.

Again, thanks ...

[IgorZ]

Thanks for posting these, very interesting. It's often hard to see how good a lens is by looking at online photos or reading about it. When I was shopping for a wide-angle lens I read all about Irix and image quality etc, but I was not prepared for how good it was when I actually got it. I suspect it's the same with DFA... I know the reviews are positive, but seeing someone else's photos and experiencing it first hand is just not the same thing...

[BruceBanner]

Thanks for the comparisons, I only feel you should have the two lenses beside one another in the comparisons, ie f2.8 from both cameras, one above the other, not a run of all apertures from one camera, and then the run from the other, it makes harder to compare (scrolling up and down etc).

But yeah Beholder is right, I really just want to see comparisons of the new DFA50 with other 50-55 lenses that can do f1.4, and see the comparisons between those apertures up to say F4.

[shardulm]

I would like to see D-FA*50/1.4 vs DA*55/1.4 comparison (without peeping into the vignetting department). I found DA* a stunner on K-1. D-FA* is going to be only better I already see it. But how much better is something I want to find out. Not to decide whether I am gona buy it or not but to decide whether I want it now or then.

[SSGGeezer]

Thanks for the comparison, I know that I will not purchase this lens unless I win a K-1, but it is a thing of beauty! I suspect that the differences might be more noticeable at full resolution or printed due to reductions to web size. Anyone with a 500PX or pro Flickr account want to post comparison images at high res?

[clickclick]

I would like to see D-FA*50/1.4 vs DA*55/1.4 comparison

Check this thread out:

DFA*50 vs DA*55 (found it on internet - not my test) - PentaxForums.com

[shardulm]

Check this thread out:

DFA*50 vs DA*55 (found it on internet - not my test) - PentaxForums.com

Many thanks. That clearly shows DA*55 is no slouch. It never could have been. .. part of the reason is .. it is 85mm equivalent FOV for the APS-C system. So it can never be a bad lens.

[BruceBanner]

Check this thread out:

DFA*50 vs DA*55 (found it on internet - not my test) - PentaxForums.com

Thanks for that link, quite big differences there if you ask me!

[johnkrumm]

My FA 50 macro 2.8 is an excellent lens. Before the DFA 50 1.4 arrived, it was my most technically well-behaved lens, edge to edge. But now it has returned to mainly macro duty, where it works well. The new lens doesn’t blow it away at the same apertures, but I do like it more.

[clickclick]

Many thanks. That clearly shows DA*55 is no slouch. It never could have been. .. part of the reason is .. it is 85mm equivalent FOV for the APS-C system. So it can never be a bad lens.

Thanks for that link, quite big differences there if you ask me!

Welcome - happy I could remember it.

No doubt the new lens really sets a new standard, but the DA*55 impresses me. All of these lenses are top performers. That's a good thing.

[BruceBanner]

From what I have seen this far, the DFA is worth the hype. At the wider apertures it is incredibly sharp and packed with a 3D punch/isolation effect more typically found with a Brenizer approach. I thought an 85/1.4 shooting at f1.4 was going to be the upper limit of managing this feat but for the first time ever on a 50mm focal length I am seeing it being replicated here as well. I have a FA50, Pentax-A 50/1.7, seen images of the 55 and FA50/1.7, but not of them have really managed that feat imo.
But it's not the isolation factor alone, the bokeh is in a quality of it's own, as well as the sharpness at these wide apertures.

But... it's expensive, and really I want to see shots if it along side (ie frames side by side) of it against its peers with more stopped down apertures, because then I think the differences will be less pronounced. I think you're mostly paying for an amazing lens from f1.4-2.0, past this aperture I wonder if it's pricetag is worthy. It's a lot of money to shell out for shooting wide with, and those shots are tricky to nail, thus far I am only seeing still objects, yet to see a portrait shot this wide open with this lens. For studio work it will be awesome, time to nail the focus just right where you want it, candid shooting moments perhaps a lot harder, you might be forced to stop down to f2+ to get successful image focus for those more rushed shooting occasions. And also I imagine more LV work (as I find LV much more handy for dialling in the focus with the 85).

So at this time this lens is amazing, but I think people need to be very clear how irl where it might be strongest performing. If you're not a studio shooter then this might be a tricky lens to wield (and get the unique shots it's really capable of). Other wise another 50mm might offer similar results.

[phoebus]

... yet to see a portrait shot this wide open with this lens. ...

Hi @BruceBanner - my wife took this with her KP, centre-point AFS and fully open.



I think the camera copes just fine at autofocus, even with F1.4 lenses, providing you use the centre focusing point and (carefully) recompose...

[BruceBanner]

Hi @BruceBanner - my wife took this with her KP, centre-point AFS and fully open.



I think the camera copes just fine at autofocus, even with F1.4 lenses, providing you use the centre focusing point and (carefully) recompose...

Not too shabby at all, hopefully we'll see some less furry varieties in the near future as well

Imo tho, with any lens doing f1.4, to rely purely on AF is relying to a certain degree to chance and luck. I have found with proper portrait shots for example that AF might select the eyebrow (even when centre AF.S or Spot) and the AF mark is dead centre over the eye), that's why I use back button focus and those lenses that allow you to dial in the rest of the way manual focus (is it called 'quick shift' I think?), very handy feature.

Make sure to try some manual focusing with it in LV and get a focus point on a shot that isn't centre at those wide f1.4-1.8's, I bet it will look real swell

[dofmaster]

Make sure to try some manual focusing with it in LV and get a focus point on a shot that isn't centre at those wide f1.4-1.8's, I bet it will look real swell

I find the new 50 is beautiful for portraits at f1.6, 2.0, 2.5. It can be hard to hit the right spot with the standard AF, since the Pentax focus dot is big and blurry. But, if you have strong catchlights in the subject's eye you've got a better chance of the focus being on the eye.

Part of what is great is how well the portraits hold together. If you shoot at f5.6-7.1 in the studio then you're getting most of the subject looking sharp even in areas that aren't the main focus.

[BruceBanner]

I find the new 50 is beautiful for portraits at f1.6, 2.0, 2.5. It can be hard to hit the right spot with the standard AF, since the Pentax focus dot is big and blurry. But, if you have strong catchlights in the subject's eye you've got a better chance of the focus being on the eye.

Part of what is great is how well the portraits hold together. If you shoot at f5.6-7.1 in the studio then you're getting most of the subject looking sharp even in areas that aren't the main focus.

Would love to see some shots, care to share?