DA*55mm vs. FA43mm

kyrios · 02-19-2009, 12:05 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting?
The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro.

melander · 02-19-2009, 12:31 PM

stores here are asking 7500kr - 900 $

so its good that its not a super lens

lbam · 02-19-2009, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by farfisa

That was lbam--same Nokton!

I love the look the Nokton gives too--was thinking (hoping?) the DA 55 might match it, plus add AF and all the DA* goodness, but they seem to be quite different.

I think most people would be interested to see how the... uh... Helios 44m-6 "stuck-wide-open" version compares to these two, so I'll be joining Kevin and Don.

(just kidding! can't make it anyway :P)

We're gonna meet near the weekend, and do some test shot's... nothing too serious, but perhaps interesting non the less...

Personally I'm expecting to come away wanting both.. lol

OOF rendering is a personal thing.. and these two lenses whilst probably the closest match in terms of focal length and aperture, would be used in compltly different applications if I owned them (both).

I tried using the Nokton in the studio, it's sharp, but manual focus is less handy... Walking the streets, with time to kill/ no pressure situation I think I'd prefer the Nokton... (unless it was raining.. lol )

roentarre · 02-19-2009, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by kyrios

Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting?
The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro.

As others have repeated many times, good bokeh requires carefully chosen background or foreground to blur.

The choice of bokeh testing here is deliberately picking tough subject to see how it performs.

Da 35mm macro or Fa 35mm all have imperfect specular highlights as well as bad later CA or bokeh Ca. Well, in good hands, these lenses are fantastic. For useless photographers like me, I need good gear to reduce photography errors and imperfections.

Sen bokeh or double edged bokeh are not desirable in any sort of lenses unless you are into fine art. I could see this less of a problem in Da* 55mm f1.4 so far.

lol101 · 02-19-2009, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by kyrios

Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting?
The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro.

This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh.

brucestrange · 02-19-2009, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by lol101

This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh.

I was under the impression that the DA*55 didn't have any aspherical elements.

Alfisti · 02-19-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by roentarre

Da 35mm macro or Fa 35mm all have imperfect specular highlights as well as bad later CA or bokeh Ca.

Thing is they are $300 lenses, you need to mark a mid range prime hard when you could buy a 300/4 or a 100-300/4 for close to the same price.

farfisa · 02-19-2009, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by lol101

This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh.

I've heard this too, but I seem to have good luck with mine! The 31 ltd, 21 ltd and the Tamron 28-75 all have aspherical elements, but all have very nice (or incredible in the case of the 31) bokeh.

Buddha Jones · 02-19-2009, 03:54 PM

I think that it is safe to say that the lens will prolly get a 9+ in our lens review database. Sharpness, color and contrast are fricken amazing, but I think that people will overall be let down by the more subjective details like the bokeh and CA/PF levels. Well more bokeh tan CA/PF but still measurable.

I think for me it will fall behind the DA*60-250mm, and maybe even the DA70LTD or FA77LTD, whichever one I decide to go with. But overall, I think the lens is a winner. Should be a serious hit with the studio photogs.

brucestrange · 02-19-2009, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

I think that it is safe to say that the lens will prolly get a 9+ in our lens review database.

I think it is safe to say that, when people drop between $400 and $1000 on a lens, they feel stupid if it's not a 9+. Sometimes I wonder how much this has to do with the ratings in the forum. That said, I know there are people who can shell out the dough, but still give an honest assessment of their investment. I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that when people pay more for a lens, psychologically, they feel like their lens is as good as the price.

Class A · 02-19-2009, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

I am hoping that it was the relative distance that you were from the subject but the DA* is showing so much more detail all accross the frame that is it like night and day.

If the focus of the Nokton image had been the result of AF (I know it is a manual focus lens), I think it would be appropriately be referred to as back focus. The plane of optimal sharpness seems to be slightly behind the statute. Images where focus is the result of AF or even manual focussing are always difficult to compare.

Originally posted by TKH

FA43 at 2,8 (pic friendly stolen from User Schnüffelstück DFN-Forum Germany)

There is more than one Pentax lens that does this. I think it is a bit of a disgrace. My Sigma 28/1.8's aperture looks sooooo much rounder at every aperture and never shows any spikes. One can argue that one typically will not see the spikes but they seem to be so unnecessary. Just like the plastic (non-screw) rear caps from Pentax that come off whenever you don't need it. Annoying.

Originally posted by dkittle

I'm going to do some christmas lights tonight (many people in my neighborhood still have them) and Kevin and I are going to get together and try testing the 55mm and the Nokton side by side over the weekend. And someone asked for a sharpness comparison against the Sigma 70mm. I'll continue to post the results I get.

That'll be very cool!

Thanks to all image posters! My comments are not meant to criticise your images, just trying to prevent people from making premature conclusions.

FWIW, I think the 55mm is a worthwhile addition to the Pentax line up. Like every lens one shouldn't use it in a way that emphasises weaknesses. It seems to have a distinct signature though and I like how its impressive sharpness contrasts against a bokeh that I would describe as a mixture between a clinical one and a weird one.

lbam · 02-19-2009, 04:20 PM

obviously this happens in the Canon community, but not here.. it's not necessary with Pentax.. lol (Ouch! no need to bite)

falconeye · 02-19-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by RaduA

In all honesty I don't get it how you could "guesstimate" the center and border resolution of the DA* 55 wide open from some low res samples (kindly provided by TKH

You're right, I was guesstimating. Here is how I did it:
I took the very first image of this thread (TKH's image of DA*55 at f/1.4). It is significantly softer than the same image at f/1.8 -- at the low resolution of 1200x800.
If it appears to be soft at 800 pixel height, it will not have a resolution very much in excess of 1200 LW/PH (at f/1.4). Which is a value only "fair" to "good". Not on par with the "very good" of the Sigma. More like the FA43, which is "good/very good" in the center and "poor" in the borders (fully open). Eventually, I concluded the border resolution won't exceed the center resolution

Anything wrong with my method? It was the best I could do before we get resolution measurements from test charts. Of course, I assumed that TKH has hit precise focus.

huqedato · 02-19-2009, 05:05 PM

This DA55 doesn't impress me at all so far. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Could you upload please some full samples - preferably raws at various apertures - on a file server?
With resizes and crops we cannot have the entire picture.

Thanks!

brucestrange · 02-19-2009, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by huqedato

Could you upload please some full samples - preferably raws at various apertures - on a file server? With resizes and crops we cannot have the entire picture.

If I was the OP, that request would be a surefire way to get me to tell people to f off.

02-19-2009, 12:42 PM	#123
lbam Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 442	Originally posted by farfisa That was lbam--same Nokton! I love the look the Nokton gives too--was thinking (hoping?) the DA 55 might match it, plus add AF and all the DA* goodness, but they seem to be quite different. I think most people would be interested to see how the... uh... Helios 44m-6 "stuck-wide-open" version compares to these two, so I'll be joining Kevin and Don. (just kidding! can't make it anyway :P) We're gonna meet near the weekend, and do some test shot's... nothing too serious, but perhaps interesting non the less... Personally I'm expecting to come away wanting both.. lol OOF rendering is a personal thing.. and these two lenses whilst probably the closest match in terms of focal length and aperture, would be used in compltly different applications if I owned them (both). I tried using the Nokton in the studio, it's sharp, but manual focus is less handy... Walking the streets, with time to kill/ no pressure situation I think I'd prefer the Nokton... (unless it was raining.. lol ) Last edited by lbam; 02-19-2009 at 12:49 PM.

02-19-2009, 04:19 PM	#131
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Buddha Jones I am hoping that it was the relative distance that you were from the subject but the DA* is showing so much more detail all accross the frame that is it like night and day. If the focus of the Nokton image had been the result of AF (I know it is a manual focus lens), I think it would be appropriately be referred to as back focus. The plane of optimal sharpness seems to be slightly behind the statute. Images where focus is the result of AF or even manual focussing are always difficult to compare. Originally posted by TKH FA43 at 2,8 (pic friendly stolen from User Schnüffelstück DFN-Forum Germany) There is more than one Pentax lens that does this. I think it is a bit of a disgrace. My Sigma 28/1.8's aperture looks sooooo much rounder at every aperture and never shows any spikes. One can argue that one typically will not see the spikes but they seem to be so unnecessary. Just like the plastic (non-screw) rear caps from Pentax that come off whenever you don't need it. Annoying. Originally posted by dkittle I'm going to do some christmas lights tonight (many people in my neighborhood still have them) and Kevin and I are going to get together and try testing the 55mm and the Nokton side by side over the weekend. And someone asked for a sharpness comparison against the Sigma 70mm. I'll continue to post the results I get. That'll be very cool! Thanks to all image posters! My comments are not meant to criticise your images, just trying to prevent people from making premature conclusions. FWIW, I think the 55mm is a worthwhile addition to the Pentax line up. Like every lens one shouldn't use it in a way that emphasises weaknesses. It seems to have a distinct signature though and I like how its impressive sharpness contrasts against a bokeh that I would describe as a mixture between a clinical one and a weird one. Last edited by Class A; 02-19-2009 at 05:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA43mm too soft?	rparmar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	05-22-2010 02:16 PM
To those who own the FA50mm 1.4 and the FA43mm 1.9	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	05-20-2010 05:16 AM
Replacement for FA43mm Ltd ?	Frogfish	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	04-22-2010 07:52 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA43mm/1.9 Ltd.	heatherslightbox	Sold Items	3	07-30-2009 07:17 AM

02-19-2009, 12:05 PM	#121
kyrios Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Indonesia Posts: 123	Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting? The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro.

02-19-2009, 12:31 PM	#122
melander Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden, Umea Posts: 876	stores here are asking 7500kr - 900 $ so its good that its not a super lens

02-19-2009, 01:34 PM	#124
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by kyrios Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting? The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro. As others have repeated many times, good bokeh requires carefully chosen background or foreground to blur. The choice of bokeh testing here is deliberately picking tough subject to see how it performs. Da 35mm macro or Fa 35mm all have imperfect specular highlights as well as bad later CA or bokeh Ca. Well, in good hands, these lenses are fantastic. For useless photographers like me, I need good gear to reduce photography errors and imperfections. Sen bokeh or double edged bokeh are not desirable in any sort of lenses unless you are into fine art. I could see this less of a problem in Da* 55mm f1.4 so far.

02-19-2009, 02:40 PM	#125
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by kyrios Correct me if I'm wrong. But is it only me who considering the bokeh of DA 55 is a bit distracting? The bokeh is halloing, similar like DA 35 macro. This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh.

02-19-2009, 03:07 PM	#126
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by lol101 This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh. I was under the impression that the DA*55 didn't have any aspherical elements.

02-19-2009, 03:28 PM	#127
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by roentarre Da 35mm macro or Fa 35mm all have imperfect specular highlights as well as bad later CA or bokeh Ca. Thing is they are $300 lenses, you need to mark a mid range prime hard when you could buy a 300/4 or a 100-300/4 for close to the same price.

02-19-2009, 03:31 PM	#128
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by lol101 This is rather typical of aspherical elements: good distorsion correction but so-so bokeh. I've heard this too, but I seem to have good luck with mine! The 31 ltd, 21 ltd and the Tamron 28-75 all have aspherical elements, but all have very nice (or incredible in the case of the 31) bokeh.

02-19-2009, 03:54 PM	#129
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	I think that it is safe to say that the lens will prolly get a 9+ in our lens review database. Sharpness, color and contrast are fricken amazing, but I think that people will overall be let down by the more subjective details like the bokeh and CA/PF levels. Well more bokeh tan CA/PF but still measurable. I think for me it will fall behind the DA*60-250mm, and maybe even the DA70LTD or FA77LTD, whichever one I decide to go with. But overall, I think the lens is a winner. Should be a serious hit with the studio photogs.

02-19-2009, 04:13 PM	#130
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by Buddha Jones I think that it is safe to say that the lens will prolly get a 9+ in our lens review database. I think it is safe to say that, when people drop between $400 and $1000 on a lens, they feel stupid if it's not a 9+. Sometimes I wonder how much this has to do with the ratings in the forum. That said, I know there are people who can shell out the dough, but still give an honest assessment of their investment. I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that when people pay more for a lens, psychologically, they feel like their lens is as good as the price.

02-19-2009, 04:20 PM	#132
lbam Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 442	obviously this happens in the Canon community, but not here.. it's not necessary with Pentax.. lol (Ouch! no need to bite)

02-19-2009, 04:35 PM	#133
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by RaduA In all honesty I don't get it how you could "guesstimate" the center and border resolution of the DA* 55 wide open from some low res samples (kindly provided by TKH You're right, I was guesstimating. Here is how I did it: I took the very first image of this thread (TKH's image of DA55 at f/1.4). It is significantly* softer than the same image at f/1.8 -- at the low resolution of 1200x800. If it appears to be soft at 800 pixel height, it will not have a resolution very much in excess of 1200 LW/PH (at f/1.4). Which is a value only "fair" to "good". Not on par with the "very good" of the Sigma. More like the FA43, which is "good/very good" in the center and "poor" in the borders (fully open). Eventually, I concluded the border resolution won't exceed the center resolution Anything wrong with my method? It was the best I could do before we get resolution measurements from test charts. Of course, I assumed that TKH has hit precise focus.

02-19-2009, 05:05 PM	#134
huqedato Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France, EU Posts: 97	This DA55 doesn't impress me at all so far. Let's hope I'm wrong. Could you upload please some full samples - preferably raws at various apertures - on a file server? With resizes and crops we cannot have the entire picture. Thanks!

02-19-2009, 05:35 PM	#135
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by huqedato Could you upload please some full samples - preferably raws at various apertures - on a file server? With resizes and crops we cannot have the entire picture. If I was the OP, that request would be a surefire way to get me to tell people to f off.