[pschlute]

The DFA 50mm 1.4 is of course clearly better....but at a clearly higher price point..... (warning...full size image). Do a right click/view image/zoom.....if you want to see the patio chair pattern reflected in his eye.

[Fenwoodian]

The DFA 50mm 1.4 is of course clearly better....but at a clearly higher price point..... (warning...full size image). Do a right click/view image/zoom.....if you want to see the patio chair pattern reflected in his eye.

Another vote for the D FA 50/1.4. Sharp with incredible bokeh!!!

[Gianclaudio]

I've the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and is very nice: sharp enough at 1.4, with nice colours and contrast. Much better wide open and stopped down than the k 50/1.4, da 50/1.8 and m 50/1.7 that I had. Lots of 3D pop to the pictures.
I'm pretty sure both DA* 55/1.4 and Voigtlander 58/1.4 will be just as good, so pick the best offer between these three.

[torashi]

The DA*55 ist your next best shot if the DFA*50 is too expensive. It's sharper than the FA, has WR, but you'll have to use a shorter hood.
You should check out the A50/1.2 if you like the 77's rendering and its nine aperture blades.

The DFA 50mm 1.4 is of course clearly better....but at a clearly higher price point..... (warning...full size image). Do a right click/view image/zoom.....if you want to see the patio chair pattern reflected in his eye.

Hmm, creamy.

[pinholecam]

I think either its copy variation or just AF accuracy.
I tend to shoot my FA50/1.4 using CDAF when at f1.4 to f2 which gives better accuracy.




FA50/1.4 (probably f2 since too little DOF may also be a problem in my use context)

[K1N8]

Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM

second that. i would not be surprised if the sigma scores somewhere between the new FA* 50mm and other pentax 50mm. great price/value on the K-1

[hadi]

see, I have calibrated my lens using that spider cal thing (black/white with a scale on the side). Despite that, its still a haze and soft. so the issue isn't in it being dialed in accurately, but the lens it self is soft to begin with when shooting wide open.

maybe I have a bad copy?

and i'm guessing all takamur lenses are manual focus?

[mikesbike]

Not 1.4 but there is a Pentax-F 50mm 1.7 for $65 in the market place. I have owned one of these for years. Sharp at 1.7, camera allows a 1.8 stop which show a little improvement and super sharp by f2. If you can live with a little slower. Dof will be close between 1.4 and 1.7.

This^^^. I have both. The FA 50mm f/1.4 is "good" yet somewhat dreamy until around f/2.8 or close to it.

[mikesbike]

and i'm guessing all takamur lenses are manual focus?

Yes, that is right.

---------- Post added 12-19-19 at 05:08 PM ----------

As far as reduced DOF is concerned, a 50mm f/1.4 can produce a DOF so reduced only a small area of the subject will be in focus at f/1.4 as can be seen in pschlute's examples. Therefore, unless doing a lot of eyeball shots, it is something not often resorted to. So the F 50mm f1.7 makes a lot of sense with its fine performance.

Then also in real-life use, when it comes to reduced DOF, after a certain point as much or more depends on the FL of the lens, the shooting distance to the subject, and the distance of the background behind the subject, as does how much wider is the lens aperture or whether shooting with FF or APS-C.

[hadi]

Yes, that is right.

---------- Post added 12-19-19 at 05:08 PM ----------

As far as reduced DOF is concerned, a 50mm f/1.4 can produce a DOF so reduced only a small area of the subject will be in focus at f/1.4 as can be seen in pschlute's examples. Therefore, unless doing a lot of eyeball shots, it is something not often resorted to. So the F 50mm f1.7 makes a lot of sense with its fine performance.

Then also in real-life use, when it comes to reduced DOF, after a certain point as much or more depends on the FL of the lens, the shooting distance to the subject, and the distance of the background behind the subject, as does how much wider is the lens aperture or whether shooting with FF or APS-C.

Sure, 1.4 is a shallow depth of field that may not be the most usable in all settings, yet if it's perfectly usable on an 85mm lens, then there is no reason why it can't work in a 50mm.

As in, I use my 85mm 1.4 wide open all the time and I never suffer from soft images.

The difference between IN FOCUS BUT SOFT, vs MISSED FOCUS DUE TO SMALL DOF is not the same.

I believe the 50mm 1.4 that I have is known to have soft images wide open.

[TwoUptons]

Sure, 1.4 is a shallow depth of field that may not be the most usable in all settings, yet if it's perfectly usable on an 85mm lens, then there is no reason why it can't work in a 50mm.

As in, I use my 85mm 1.4 wide open all the time and I never suffer from soft images.

The difference between IN FOCUS BUT SOFT, vs MISSED FOCUS DUE TO SMALL DOF is not the same.

I believe the 50mm 1.4 that I have is known to have soft images wide open.

I agree with this completely...

I find that I tend to use my 50mm and 85mm lenses wide open only when doing portraiture at close to their respective minimum focus distances.
Because my 85mm lens has a fairly long MFD, depth of field in practice between the two lenses is about the same at f1.4.

And my 85mm and 50mm are both known to be "dreamy", "soft", or whatever other adjective you want to use to describe a lack of complete sharpness when they are wide open.

That said, I have bigger issues with subject/photographer movement ruining the focus since most of the time, I'm handheld when I do this.

Most of the time, when I use either lens wide open, I'm after that "dreamy" look, but I still want things in focus that are meant to be in focus, so yes, these things are different...

I am a big fan of the 50mm f1.7 for its relative sharpness at wide apertures and its bargain price, but I think the DFA is the only lens out there that is totally solid at f1.4 (and everywhere else).

-Eric