[wlachan]

as I have already stated twice in this thread, you should direct most of your AF complaints to the SAFOX system not the lens. the reason canon and nikon focus so much faster is the software.

if this is your biggest complaint about the lens, you are unfairly judging it.

That doesn't explain why Pentax owned screw driven AF would be faster than Pentax owned SDM. Same body, same lens (some people tested DA*50-135/2.8 on K10D with both AF motors). No excuse really. People can argue all day but in the end, if some specific gear could not lock focus fast enough when you need it to, you know it's slower. No hard # needed. It's called experience.

[wlachan]

I tried to find comparable numbers for the FA50 and the DA70 (which I suppose is much faster), but couldn't find any.

The DA70 that I tried few days ago on Km was fast by Pentax standard. Even my Canon friend said it was fast. But man he moaned about the motor noise. To me, I like noisy AF cos I depend on it for AF confirmation.

[séamuis]

But if it's the SAFOX system, how come it is slower than the FA? Since it's sharper and has better contrast, one would think that it would have less trouble focusing. And the FA isn't fast either, is it? I tried to find comparable numbers for the FA50 and the DA70 (which I suppose is much faster), but couldn't find any.

you are talking marginally slower, and as I stated, its not all hardware, and not all software. you should direct most of your complaints to SAFOX. the 55mm is a bigger heavier lens. that plays a part. also you have to take into account, available light (changing light), subject distance, movement (both subject and/or camera user), etc, etc. its not as simple as some of you are trying to make it out to be. and the software is the deciding factor in almost all situations. the camera is focusing the lens, the lens isn't focusing itself. whether by electrical contact or mechanical drive, its the software that's doing the deciding. I don't know enough about Pentax SDM to give a valid argument for or against the two technologies, so I wont even try.

[gazonk]

The DA70 that I tried few days ago on Km was fast by Pentax standard. Even my Canon friend said it was fast. But man he moaned about the motor noise. To me, I like noisy AF cos I depend on it for AF confirmation.

I think my DA70 makes a friendly noise when it's focusing

I only have two auto focus lenses, the DA16-45 and the DA70, and while the DA16-45 also has quite reliable auto focus with my K10D (even in almost complete darkness), I was surprised when I tried using it with AF-C, photographing my kids sledding while on winter holiday last week. The light was not optimal (somewhat late), but still OK because of the snow. But the DA16-45 (@45mm) missed on every shot I tried. So I switched to the DA70 and got almost every shot right, despite the fact that DOF was thinner (70mm and f/2.8 vs. 45mm and f/4) and that it had gotten considerably darker.

[Ben_Edict]

I dunno guys...increased contrast, sharpness and better bokeh with weather sealing? Seems like a step up across the board. Remember the FA50 (and 50mm's from brands in general) are already some of the best performing lenses lenses...so to improve upon the classics is pretty exciting to me.

Premium lens for a premium price? Looks that way!

That's what I am thinking, after seeing the very informative test images. The DA has a much better overall IQ over the entire frame noticeably even at f/5.6. That is really worth considering. Add the weather sealing and it gets even more interesting. The only drawback seems the slow AF to me, but on the other hand SDM is so quite, that this alone is a big plus in many situations.

The old FA and the new DA are sure not worlds apart, but that is something we can't expect, because the FA is one of the best 50s on the market already, so any improvement is expected to be moderate. I need to get my hands on a DA to decide myself, I guess. As always with lenses, it comes down to personal preferences. And as I keep the FA anyway for film, the DA is really tempting.

Ben

[wlachan]

I think my DA70 makes a friendly noise when it's focusing

I only have two auto focus lenses, the DA16-45 and the DA70, and while the DA16-45 also has quite reliable auto focus with my K10D (even in almost complete darkness), I was surprised when I tried using it with AF-C, photographing my kids sledding while on winter holiday last week. The light was not optimal (somewhat late), but still OK because of the snow. But the DA16-45 (@45mm) missed on every shot I tried. So I switched to the DA70 and got almost every shot right, despite the fact that DOF was thinner (70mm and f/2.8 vs. 45mm and f/4) and that it had gotten considerably darker.

I have similiar experience with my DA16-45/4 as well. I cannot explan why but probably due to the very short throw for focusing and loose mechanisms. Great optics really but wish it were better built. I am expecting the DA15 now since the zoom has been sold. Please make it hit the market asap.

[Jodokast96]

i heard that 300mm is one of the best len available in K mount (or even other mount).

I think you mean the 200 f/2.8.

[gazonk]

I am expecting the DA15 now since the zoom has been sold. Please make it hit the market asap.

That lens will be really hard to resist. I noticed that I shot almost half my shots on my winter holiday at 16mm (and wished for even wider) - I could just as well have had a 15mm permanently mounted. And it would have been considerably easier to wear around the neck while cross-country skiing

[séamuis]

That lens will be really hard to resist. I noticed that I shot almost half my shots on my winter holiday at 16mm (and wished for even wider) - I could just as well have had a 15mm permanently mounted. And it would have been considerably easier to wear around the neck while cross-country skiing

the 15mm is tempting I must say. even though most of my work is done at 55mm (no comment on the DA*, other than no I wont be buying it.) but the 15 is very unique, and I have high hopes for its optical abilities.

[augustmoon]

Wow, this lens has garnered a veracious defense, even by those who have never used it!!

Personally, my time with it on Sunday was all too brief. I'll need to spend more time with it before I ever make a definitive statement about any of this or decision on buying it. In a well lit-portrait situation (at f2.8, sorry I really don't do portraits in the real world below this) where my wife was in the middle of the frame and just backdrop on the edges and corners, it was impossible to tell any difference between the FA50 and DA*55, the owner of the DA*55 (from the "other forum") couldn't either. Maybe perhaps just a touch more contrast and detail, but just a touch, and by the time I would normally PP a photo, that improvement would most likely be gone...

The FA50 was faster than the DA*55 when I focused away at infinity and then back on the subject.

(sorry séamuis, I know you want to blame it on SAFOX, but same SAFOX and same scene, same camera, same contrast, same lighting) it was just plain slower, nothing fancier I'm afraid to explain it away. The better or more solidly built a lens or the longer the focus throw, then the slower these micro-motors get. When I was with Canon, I had lenses with micro-motors and lenses with ring-type motors, and there was actually a big difference in the AF speed. (again, same camera, same AF system, same lighting, same scene, same contrast, etc....... At this point I believe the improvement to be made my Pentax is putting ring-type motors in their "Star*" lenses)

My purpose for evaluating this lens is for AF portraits where there is some movement by myself or the subject and where MF would cause missed shots for me.

I still preferred by a large margin the look and performance of the Voigtlander 58 over the DA*55 on the still-life scene we shot, especially at f1.4 and with bokeh, detail and just about everything else, so I would have to secede a lot in order to simply gain AF, So that's why, to me, AF is actually an important criteria in spending the money on this lens.

But each of you will have their own criteria for choosing this lens or not, and because of that differing criteria, this will either be worth the money or not.

I would be curious to see a review between the Sigma HSM and the DA*55. CA, Corners, AF Speed, Bokeh, etc... That seems to be the most direct competition for this lens.

If I was against 3rd-party lenses, and had to have an AF lens, and needed 1 same lens that I used inside, outside, near, far, wide-open, stopped down, for all purposes, then my opinion of this lens would improve quite dramatically. But personally I am one of those who chooses to have different lenses for different purposes.

I am certain with my brief time with this lens, that this lens does do the whole package competently. My future time with it will be to determine if it actually excels in any one area over the other lenses.......

[séamuis]

(sorry séamuis, I know you want to blame it on SAFOX, but same SAFOX and same scene, same camera, same contrast, same lighting) it was just plain slower, nothing fancier I'm afraid to explain it away. The better or more solidly built a lens or the longer the focus throw, then the slower these micro-motors get

everyone seems to think I am saying it all lies on SAFOX. I never said, or implied that. in fact I stated quite clearly due to the fact that the 55mm is a larger heavier lens, this will have an impact. however it IS in fact more reliant on the software.

When I was with Canon, I had lenses with micro-motors and lenses with ring-type motors, and there was actually a big difference in the AF speed. (again, same camera, same AF system, same lighting, same scene, same contrast, etc....... At this point I believe the improvement to be made my Pentax is putting ring-type motors in their "Star*" lenses)

of course there is going to be a big difference. ring USM and micromotor USM (like that of Pentax SDM) are two completely diffent technologies. but we are comapring micromotor and screwdrive here not micromotor and ring. and here there is not much difference (if any) in overall speed concerning the mechanics. its about more quiet focusing, which micromotors and electrical coupling allow. its this ignorance of what SDM is and is for, which leads to people complaining about AF speed after dropping cash on a DA*.

I wont argue about using ring USM in DA*'s, that's been a topic of debate since the first SDM lenses became available, and I agree. ring 'SDM' should have been used from the get go. what is employed in the DA*'s is the same thing employed in the budget canon lenses just so canon can claim 'ultrasonic'. however none of that changes how SAFOX works and controls the operation, and thus (to a good degree) the speed of AF.

[wildman]

I'm sorry, but the differace is not marginal. its extraordinary.

"extraordinary" is an expression of opinion not an objective optical evaluation.

[jsherman999]

Here's something slightly on-topic, but somewhat comical: Did you ever look at Olympus's ad show-casing the speed of their AF, the one in photography magazines? It has a photo of some seal-like creature sticking its head out of the water. It's badly front focused.

That actually wasn't a seal in water, that was Cindy Crawford at Cannes. Yes, there were some problems. Olympus fired an entire shift at their Philippines assembly plant after that one.




.

[séamuis]

That actually wasn't a seal in water, that was Cindy Crawford at Cannes. Yes, there were some problems. Olympus fired an entire shift at their Philippines assembly plant after that one.




.

is that seriously true or are you making that up about the plant? I didn't see the ad but it could have been any number of things including (most likely) operator error that could have cause a mis-focused photo. I would sooner fire the advertising staff for letting it through than fire the workers at the plant. makes you not feel so bad about having the Vietnamese assemble your lenses though huh? well maybe not...

[jsherman999]

is that seriously true or are you making that up about the plant? I didn't see the ad but it could have been any number of things including (most likely) operator error that could have cause a mis-focused photo. I would sooner fire the advertising staff for letting it through than fire the workers at the plant. makes you not feel so bad about having the Vietnamese assemble your lenses though huh? well maybe not...

It was supposed to be a joke. IQ was so bad Cindy Crawford was mistaken for a seal.

Sorry, I'll do better next time.