DA55 - FA50: my results

Taff · 02-22-2009, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP

I don't think anyone's throwing it away Taff...we are all saying that at this time the benefits of owning this lens are far outweighed by the cost.

Marginal improvement in IQ, equal bokeh, and much slower AF do not equate to the additional $600 cost in many of our books.

If the DA* was priced at $400 or so...I think we'd all be lining up to get it.

c[_]

$400

Of course you would be lining up to get it. Slight improvement in todays world is usually not a bad thing, considering how good the FA is. Like I said I am dubious about the AF speed myself.
I am going to the Local camera shop tomorrow I am looking forward to try it out

JJJPhoto · 02-22-2009, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by yipchunyu

i can't sure 55mm. but i heard that 300mm is one of the best len available in K mount (or even other mount).
Would u pls share your experience with the 300mm?

The experiences I had with the DA 300mm are shared with the editor of DigitalCameraReview.com (also a Pentax shooter) who wrote the final review of that lens:

Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 Lens Review

Bottom line: Like the 55mm, the 300mm wasn't a "horrible" lens ... it just didn't live up to our expectations compared to the many other fantastic Pentax primes we've used over the years. Our review sample was just too soft wide open and suffered from a bit more optical distortion than what we like to see in a prime lens in that price range.

On the other hand, lenses like the DA35 Macro, DA40, DA70, and DA200 are among our favorite "current generation" prime lenses from Pentax (or ANY lens manufacturer). I have high hopes for the 15mm when we get one for review.

OrenMc · 02-22-2009, 06:18 AM

One question, did you test only one lens?
Just curious if the AF speed coud be due to particular lens tested.

Improvements seem to be substantial to me. Looks like a really sweet lens.

BTW, thanks for the effort.

Votesh · 02-22-2009, 06:41 AM

In the bokeh test with the crosses the 55mm looks very significantly better to me. I don't see how it could be said that they are essentially the same.

blende8 · 02-22-2009, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Votesh

In the bokeh test with the crosses the 55mm looks very significantly better to me. I don't see how it could be said that they are essentially the same.

What do you mean?

jsherman999 · 02-22-2009, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Falcons

The Da* 55mm Still looks pretty good to me - although it is currently out of my reach $$ wise.

Would love to see it compared to the old K 55mm F1.8 (which I think is a superb lens)

Here you go!

.

**rparmar** · 02-22-2009, 09:14 AM

He he. Good one Jay.

Igilligan · 02-22-2009, 09:33 AM

The slow AF is a real problem for Kid shots... but I am truly shocked they did not correct the PF problems of the FA 50. There are many times when CA/PF rears its ugly head on my FA 50, sometimes in the conditions where I am not seeing all that much high contrast. For the money they want for the DA I am surprised to see no real CA improvement.

Your friendly FA 50 bashing forum friend

Dan · 02-22-2009, 09:48 AM

First, thanks for conducting this test. I always find your lens tests to be useful. However I disagree with the conclusion some have reached that the new lens does not offer much of an improvement.

My biggest complaint with fast lenses is the weak resolution and low contrast away from the center of the frame when shooting wide open. The FA 50 is known to have poor resolution and low contrast in the corners at f/1.4. (This is also true for the equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon.) Based on your tests, the DA*50 provides a substantial improvement in this regard. Such improvements do not come cheap. If it were easy to accomplish such a feat, then we would see it more often. If you do not care about corner resolution (or do not shoot at f/1.4), then of course the extra cost cannot be justified. But for some, this was the greatest drawback of the FA 50, and the improvement will be worth the money.

As for faster AF speed, why in the world would anyone expect a lens with greater mass to focus more quickly? It has already been determined that the in-lens motors used by Pentax do not allow for faster focusing than the screw drive. In my experience, the lenses with fewer and lighter elements have a focusing-speed advantage with the Pentax AF system; the lenses with internal motors do not. The advantage of the internal motors is a rather substantial reduction in noise, not an improvment in speed.

Based on the improved corner performance alone, the new lens gets a big "thumbs up" from me.

Dan

Rykoh · 02-22-2009, 09:59 AM

Maybe the lens really is a dog, but I think it's more likely that a couple of the outstanding photographers on this site will get their hands on it, post some amazing shots, and everybody will suddenly be raving about this lens. Just look at what people said about the FA43 limited a few years ago to see what I mean. How long will that take, I wonder. One month? Three?

TKH · 02-22-2009, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Igilligan

... but I am truly shocked they did not correct the PF problems of the FA 50.

Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object.

Best,
Rainer

ll_coffee_lP · 02-22-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Hapo

Maybe the lens really is a dog, but I think it's more likely that a couple of the outstanding photographers on this site will get their hands on it, post some amazing shots, and everybody will suddenly be raving about this lens. Just look at what people said about the FA43 limited a few years ago to see what I mean. How long will that take, I wonder. One month? Three?

You are very right about this.

FA43 a short while ago.
FA35 before that
Tamron 28-75mm a while before that
DA35...

...the list goes on and on.

I really notice the lens cycling that happens on this site.

c[_]

Igilligan · 02-22-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by TKH

Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object.

Best,
Rainer

Well my problem is that the PF happens not only at 1.4 but at higher Fstops as well...

And I think my S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 has less, but I have yet to check it under the same conditions... someday I will, but I use the FA 50 so seldom now.

And look I don't mind some PF, on a 200 dollar lens I guess, but I certainly think it should be less an issue on something that costs as much as this DA 55 does.
Again this could just me my own issue with these lenses. Some folks don't seem to mind buying the other FA ltd's and having PF.

jsherman999 · 02-22-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by TKH

Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object.

Best,
Rainer

The VL Nokton 55 1.4 might have less. TKH, send me that DA*, I'll compare 'em

**GaryM** · 02-22-2009, 11:15 AM

I don't consider my FA50 to be useable at f1.4, but then I don't like to shoot everything smack dab in the middle of the frame. The DA* looks good at f1.4, so it would be an upgrade to me.

Lens reviews lately have been all over the place. Compare the Photozone review of the DA*200 to other sites, and their review of the DA17-70 with early user reviews. The Online Photographer's praise of the DA35 as one of the best lenses ever, also compared to the decent but not raving Photozone review. Opinions of the DA*16-50 also vary wildly. It doesn't seem that you put much trust in lens reviews anymore, unfortunately. Is it sample variation? If so, that's not much confort to the customer!

To the OP: thanks for yours anyway, but don't be suprised to see some dramatically different opinions out there.

02-22-2009, 09:33 AM	#38
Igilligan Guest	Am I the only one bothered by the same PF The slow AF is a real problem for Kid shots... but I am truly shocked they did not correct the PF problems of the FA 50. There are many times when CA/PF rears its ugly head on my FA 50, sometimes in the conditions where I am not seeing all that much high contrast. For the money they want for the DA I am surprised to see no real CA improvement. Your friendly FA 50 bashing forum friend

02-22-2009, 09:48 AM	#39
Dan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 325	Big improvement! First, thanks for conducting this test. I always find your lens tests to be useful. However I disagree with the conclusion some have reached that the new lens does not offer much of an improvement. My biggest complaint with fast lenses is the weak resolution and low contrast away from the center of the frame when shooting wide open. The FA 50 is known to have poor resolution and low contrast in the corners at f/1.4. (This is also true for the equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon.) Based on your tests, the DA*50 provides a substantial improvement in this regard. Such improvements do not come cheap. If it were easy to accomplish such a feat, then we would see it more often. If you do not care about corner resolution (or do not shoot at f/1.4), then of course the extra cost cannot be justified. But for some, this was the greatest drawback of the FA 50, and the improvement will be worth the money. As for faster AF speed, why in the world would anyone expect a lens with greater mass to focus more quickly? It has already been determined that the in-lens motors used by Pentax do not allow for faster focusing than the screw drive. In my experience, the lenses with fewer and lighter elements have a focusing-speed advantage with the Pentax AF system; the lenses with internal motors do not. The advantage of the internal motors is a rather substantial reduction in noise, not an improvment in speed. Based on the improved corner performance alone, the new lens gets a big "thumbs up" from me. Dan

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The DA55 on the K-7	blende8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	06-05-2009 04:11 AM
A DA55/1.4 is now in my bag	Wheatfield	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-20-2009 03:28 AM
DA55-300 + Promaster 1.7x TC	heatherslightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	09-06-2008 10:51 PM
DA55-300 + Kenko 1.5x TC	heatherslightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-20-2008 07:19 AM
So let's try this again: DA55-300	applejax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	06-13-2008 09:05 AM

02-22-2009, 05:45 AM	#31
Taff Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,612	Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP I don't think anyone's throwing it away Taff...we are all saying that at this time the benefits of owning this lens are far outweighed by the cost. Marginal improvement in IQ, equal bokeh, and much slower AF do not equate to the additional $600 cost in many of our books. If the DA* was priced at $400 or so...I think we'd all be lining up to get it. c[_] $400 Of course you would be lining up to get it. Slight improvement in todays world is usually not a bad thing, considering how good the FA is. Like I said I am dubious about the AF speed myself. I am going to the Local camera shop tomorrow I am looking forward to try it out

02-22-2009, 06:12 AM	#32
JJJPhoto Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419	Originally posted by yipchunyu i can't sure 55mm. but i heard that 300mm is one of the best len available in K mount (or even other mount). Would u pls share your experience with the 300mm? The experiences I had with the DA 300mm are shared with the editor of DigitalCameraReview.com (also a Pentax shooter) who wrote the final review of that lens: Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 Lens Review Bottom line: Like the 55mm, the 300mm wasn't a "horrible" lens ... it just didn't live up to our expectations compared to the many other fantastic Pentax primes we've used over the years. Our review sample was just too soft wide open and suffered from a bit more optical distortion than what we like to see in a prime lens in that price range. On the other hand, lenses like the DA35 Macro, DA40, DA70, and DA200 are among our favorite "current generation" prime lenses from Pentax (or ANY lens manufacturer). I have high hopes for the 15mm when we get one for review.

02-22-2009, 06:18 AM	#33
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901	One question, did you test only one lens? Just curious if the AF speed coud be due to particular lens tested. Improvements seem to be substantial to me. Looks like a really sweet lens. BTW, thanks for the effort.

02-22-2009, 06:41 AM	#34
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	In the bokeh test with the crosses the 55mm looks very significantly better to me. I don't see how it could be said that they are essentially the same.

02-22-2009, 06:54 AM	#35
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521 Original Poster	Originally posted by Votesh In the bokeh test with the crosses the 55mm looks very significantly better to me. I don't see how it could be said that they are essentially the same. What do you mean?

02-22-2009, 07:08 AM	#36
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Falcons The Da* 55mm Still looks pretty good to me - although it is currently out of my reach $$ wise. Would love to see it compared to the old K 55mm F1.8 (which I think is a superb lens) Here you go! .

02-22-2009, 09:14 AM	#37
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	He he. Good one Jay.

02-22-2009, 09:59 AM	#40
Rykoh Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 318	Maybe the lens really is a dog, but I think it's more likely that a couple of the outstanding photographers on this site will get their hands on it, post some amazing shots, and everybody will suddenly be raving about this lens. Just look at what people said about the FA43 limited a few years ago to see what I mean. How long will that take, I wonder. One month? Three?

02-22-2009, 10:02 AM	#41
TKH Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 371	Originally posted by Igilligan ... but I am truly shocked they did not correct the PF problems of the FA 50. Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object. Best, Rainer

02-22-2009, 10:34 AM	#42
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by Hapo Maybe the lens really is a dog, but I think it's more likely that a couple of the outstanding photographers on this site will get their hands on it, post some amazing shots, and everybody will suddenly be raving about this lens. Just look at what people said about the FA43 limited a few years ago to see what I mean. How long will that take, I wonder. One month? Three? You are very right about this. FA43 a short while ago. FA35 before that Tamron 28-75mm a while before that DA35... ...the list goes on and on. I really notice the lens cycling that happens on this site. c[_]

02-22-2009, 11:04 AM	#43
Igilligan Guest	Originally posted by TKH Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object. Best, Rainer Well my problem is that the PF happens not only at 1.4 but at higher Fstops as well... And I think my S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 has less, but I have yet to check it under the same conditions... someday I will, but I use the FA 50 so seldom now. And look I don't mind some PF, on a 200 dollar lens I guess, but I certainly think it should be less an issue on something that costs as much as this DA 55 does. Again this could just me my own issue with these lenses. Some folks don't seem to mind buying the other FA ltd's and having PF.

02-22-2009, 11:12 AM	#44
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by TKH Please tell me one AF lens on this planet with f1.2 or 1.4 that has less PF. Costs no object. Best, Rainer The VL Nokton 55 1.4 might have less. TKH, send me that DA*, I'll compare 'em

02-22-2009, 11:15 AM	#45
GaryM Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Montclair, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 426	I don't consider my FA50 to be useable at f1.4, but then I don't like to shoot everything smack dab in the middle of the frame. The DA* looks good at f1.4, so it would be an upgrade to me. Lens reviews lately have been all over the place. Compare the Photozone review of the DA200 to other sites, and their review of the DA17-70 with early user reviews. The Online Photographer's praise of the DA35 as one of the best lenses ever, also compared to the decent but not raving Photozone review. Opinions of the DA16-50 also vary wildly. It doesn't seem that you put much trust in lens reviews anymore, unfortunately. Is it sample variation? If so, that's not much confort to the customer! To the OP: thanks for yours anyway, but don't be suprised to see some dramatically different opinions out there.