DA*55mm vs. FA43mm

farfisa · 02-19-2009, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by k100d

the exif says 55 2.8

Yes, but then it links to the wrong pic.

k100d · 02-19-2009, 10:39 PM

you're right... don's got the filenames a bit mixed up

huqedato · 02-20-2009, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by dkittle

Ok, I don't wanna put the lens down...

Here is a comparison with the Sigma 70mm Macro and the 77mm ltd

**You will be able to click on the image and get a full-sized version in about an hour from the time this is posted (the fullsize images are taking a LONG time to upload to my server).

....

Ok.. but where are the full sized ?

Class A · 02-20-2009, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by dkittle

Here is a comparison with the Sigma 70mm Macro and the 77mm ltd

Thanks a lot. Great stuff.

Originally posted by dkittle

I'm less happy now that I'm reminded what the 77mm is like.

I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that. Did you expect the 55 to be better than the 77?
I'm really impressed by the quality of the 55mm shots. But then I'm crazy about sharpness and maybe missing other features. Still, I'd say the 55's performance is remarkable.

Originally posted by dkittle

The 31mm is king with being able to nail focus in the studio. I'm hoping the 55mm is as good as the 31mm and that will make it worth the price in my eyes.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. Good luck.

TKH · 02-20-2009, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Alfisti

Don I don't mean to be a kill sport and maybe it is just me but the bokeh is busy as hell, not to mention it "glows' around the edges. I know the grass and shrubs are hard to throw oof well but the fence and piping is a pretty poor effort IMHO. Even the word 'cafe' is nervous, almost shaking.

Maybe the Fl is just too short, that is why I found the 50/1.4 and awkward FL, it doesn't throw the background out enough. The extra reach of the 77 really helps in that regard.

First of Thanks Don for your pics.
Its very difficult to work with a lens in f1.4. Please note that the DOF is only 2 cm (later edit: wrote first 2mm) in a distance of 1m! So the most pics who dont satisfy can be possible only out of focus.

My result in playing around a few days with the DA*55? Just sold my FA43...

Rainer

RaduA · 02-20-2009, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

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.

We'll see more when the first test appear but my personal opinion is that you're wrong and this puppy will have both better and more even resolution than Sigma and at least one stop or more advantage over the FA50 over the f range. And if that will be the case should I name myself "eagle eye"

? Decisions, decisions ...
BTW, on the dpreview's forum they hinted that they have one lens (the one used in one K-m pictures) and they'll test it eventually.

Regards my friend!
Radu

TKH · 02-20-2009, 02:26 AM

Please note a big fact:
The mistakes I make with my camera and the DA*55 are greater than the mistakes the lens makes...

Rainer

blende8 · 02-20-2009, 02:55 AM

Folks, I must say that the many comments about the allegedly bad bokeh are rather silly. How do you know that it's the lens and not the motive?

Judging bokeh can only be done in comparison with other lenses and this in a controlled environment (tripod ...).

I am pretty sure that the bokeh will be good, because Pentax explicitely says so.

brucestrange · 02-20-2009, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by TKH

Please note that the DOF is only 2 mm in a distance of 1m!

No offense, but I don't believe that at all.

brucestrange · 02-20-2009, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by blende8

Folks, I must say that the many comments about the allegedly bad bokeh are rather silly. How do you know that it's the lens and not the motive?

Judging bokeh can only be done in comparison with other lenses and this in a controlled environment (tripod ...).

I am pretty sure that the bokeh will be good, because Pentax explicitely says so.

I was with you until that last sentence. It sounded like a lemming running off a cliff.

Class A · 02-20-2009, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by TKH

Please note that the DOF is only 2 mm in a distance of 1m!

This depends on the print size and viewing distance, but the actually the figure is more like ~2.4cm.

I used this DOF calculator.

EDIT: The above figure assumes the typical manufacturer's standard for acceptable sharpness. If you apply 20/20 vision, the DOF becomes as low as 8mm in the above case.

RaduA · 02-20-2009, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by brucestrange

No offense, but I don't believe that at all.

I think it was a typo and he meant cm instead of mm. I guess the dof is something like 2.5 cm.

Radu

clodomir · 02-20-2009, 03:50 AM

what a nice watch ...

blende8 · 02-20-2009, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by brucestrange

I was with you until that last sentence. It sounded like a lemming running off a cliff.

Well, perhaps not well phrased.
What I wanted to say is that the bokeh will certainly not be particularly bad, if they put special emphasis on it.
And I don't think that this is only marketing talk.
But also we will not see wonders.
I suspect the bokeh to be similar to the FA50 or Nokton, which are basically identical.

TKH · 02-20-2009, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by RaduA

I think it was a typo and he meant cm instead of mm. I guess the dof is something like 2.5 cm.

Radu

Yes, my mistake. 2cm of course. Sorry.

Rainer

02-20-2009, 02:16 AM	#155
TKH Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 371 Original Poster	Originally posted by Alfisti Don I don't mean to be a kill sport and maybe it is just me but the bokeh is busy as hell, not to mention it "glows' around the edges. I know the grass and shrubs are hard to throw oof well but the fence and piping is a pretty poor effort IMHO. Even the word 'cafe' is nervous, almost shaking. Maybe the Fl is just too short, that is why I found the 50/1.4 and awkward FL, it doesn't throw the background out enough. The extra reach of the 77 really helps in that regard. First of Thanks Don for your pics. Its very difficult to work with a lens in f1.4. Please note that the DOF is only 2 cm (later edit: wrote first 2mm) in a distance of 1m! So the most pics who dont satisfy can be possible only out of focus. My result in playing around a few days with the DA55? Just sold my FA43... Rainer Last edited by TKH; 02-20-2009 at 04:02 AM.*

02-20-2009, 03:28 AM	#161
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by TKH Please note that the DOF is only 2 mm in a distance of 1m! This depends on the print size and viewing distance, but the actually the figure is more like ~2.4cm. I used this DOF calculator. EDIT: The above figure assumes the typical manufacturer's standard for acceptable sharpness. If you apply 20/20 vision, the DOF becomes as low as 8mm in the above case. Last edited by Class A; 02-20-2009 at 03:40 AM.

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, 10:32 PM	#151
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by k100d the exif says 55 2.8 Yes, but then it links to the wrong pic.

02-19-2009, 10:39 PM	#152
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	you're right... don's got the filenames a bit mixed up

02-20-2009, 12:37 AM	#153
huqedato Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France, EU Posts: 97	Originally posted by dkittle Ok, I don't wanna put the lens down... Here is a comparison with the Sigma 70mm Macro and the 77mm ltd **You will be able to click on the image and get a full-sized version in about an hour from the time this is posted (the fullsize images are taking a LONG time to upload to my server). .... Ok.. but where are the full sized ?

02-20-2009, 12:55 AM	#154
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by dkittle Here is a comparison with the Sigma 70mm Macro and the 77mm ltd Thanks a lot. Great stuff. Originally posted by dkittle I'm less happy now that I'm reminded what the 77mm is like. I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that. Did you expect the 55 to be better than the 77? I'm really impressed by the quality of the 55mm shots. But then I'm crazy about sharpness and maybe missing other features. Still, I'd say the 55's performance is remarkable. Originally posted by dkittle The 31mm is king with being able to nail focus in the studio. I'm hoping the 55mm is as good as the 31mm and that will make it worth the price in my eyes. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. Good luck.

02-20-2009, 02:20 AM	#156
RaduA Guest	Originally posted by falconeye 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. We'll see more when the first test appear but my personal opinion is that you're wrong and this puppy will have both better and more even resolution than Sigma and at least one stop or more advantage over the FA50 over the f range. And if that will be the case should I name myself "eagle eye" ? Decisions, decisions ... BTW, on the dpreview's forum they hinted that they have one lens (the one used in one K-m pictures) and they'll test it eventually. Regards my friend! Radu

02-20-2009, 02:26 AM	#157
TKH Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 371 Original Poster	Please note a big fact: The mistakes I make with my camera and the DA*55 are greater than the mistakes the lens makes... Rainer

02-20-2009, 02:55 AM	#158
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Folks, I must say that the many comments about the allegedly bad bokeh are rather silly. How do you know that it's the lens and not the motive? Judging bokeh can only be done in comparison with other lenses and this in a controlled environment (tripod ...). I am pretty sure that the bokeh will be good, because Pentax explicitely says so.

02-20-2009, 03:10 AM	#159
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by TKH Please note that the DOF is only 2 mm in a distance of 1m! No offense, but I don't believe that at all.

02-20-2009, 03:12 AM	#160
brucestrange Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 51	Originally posted by blende8 Folks, I must say that the many comments about the allegedly bad bokeh are rather silly. How do you know that it's the lens and not the motive? Judging bokeh can only be done in comparison with other lenses and this in a controlled environment (tripod ...). I am pretty sure that the bokeh will be good, because Pentax explicitely says so. I was with you until that last sentence. It sounded like a lemming running off a cliff.

02-20-2009, 03:32 AM	#162
RaduA Guest	Originally posted by brucestrange No offense, but I don't believe that at all. I think it was a typo and he meant cm instead of mm. I guess the dof is something like 2.5 cm. Radu

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2009, 03:50 AM	#163
clodomir Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: maisons laffitte 78 Posts: 31	what a nice watch ...

02-20-2009, 03:56 AM	#164
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Originally posted by brucestrange I was with you until that last sentence. It sounded like a lemming running off a cliff. Well, perhaps not well phrased. What I wanted to say is that the bokeh will certainly not be particularly bad, if they put special emphasis on it. And I don't think that this is only marketing talk. But also we will not see wonders. I suspect the bokeh to be similar to the FA50 or Nokton, which are basically identical.

02-20-2009, 04:01 AM	#165
TKH Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 371 Original Poster	Originally posted by RaduA I think it was a typo and he meant cm instead of mm. I guess the dof is something like 2.5 cm. Radu Yes, my mistake. 2cm of course. Sorry. Rainer