[Steelski]

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

Why did you not link to the rest of my wording as to why it was extra- ordinary,
Meaning above ordinary. Meaning, not opinion/objective. At 1.4, this lens seems peerless on APS-C as far as sharpness is concerned. therefore, it is extra ordinary. The FA is ordinary.
The only people not being objective are the ones who do not acknowledge that a bunch of improvements make for a better lens. At least optically this lens is extra ordinary in sharpness and contrast. bokeh is still something more people need to post.

[asdf]

Maybe by waiting for the lens to focus...?

Seriously though, the speed difference between two lenses is not something that requires complex test procedures to assess: it either focuses fast or ... not!

Yeah and what I suggested was a very complex procedure. The original poster mentioned how he used audacity to listen to the noise.

If you can feel the difference, it's what matters.

If you want to be helpful, then you can easily make a simple comparison and report your results in seconds. If you want to be ignored, then gripe about your "feelings."

[asdf]

Right.
I have now word from three owners of the lens who confirm that it is slower than the FA50.

Here's my test procedure anyway:

I put the camera on a tripod.
Distance to target about 50 cm.
I turned the focus ring to infinity.
I attached a microphon to the lens.
I pressed the shutter.
I measured the duration of focussing using AUDACITY.

I did this in low light.
The time was about 1.5-2 s for the DA and 0.5-0.6 s for the FA.
I even had a 3 s DA focus. It depends, I don't know on what.
In brighter conditions the values are shorter.

Thanks for the info.

[blende8]

I have updated my page:
Pentax DA55 and FA50 - a comparison

- resolution at infinity
- flare
- more bokeh
- some sample images

[ogl]

Anyway, I see only one MINUS - AF speed.
DA55 is even better at corners at f5.6 than FA50.
Bokeh - if we see at real photos DA differs from FA.

[wildman]

I have updated my page:
Pentax DA55 and FA50 - a comparison

- resolution at infinity
- flare
- more bokeh
- some sample images

Based on the above the DA 55's price might be justified if you were primarily an available light shooter and really had to have that f/1.4 performance. Right now I use the FA 35 at f/2 and it's all I need either in speed or optical perfomance.

Other than that and my money would be better spent elsewhere for my purposes.

[wildman]

Why did you not link to the rest of my wording as to why it was extra- ordinary,
Meaning above ordinary. Meaning, not opinion/objective. At 1.4, this lens seems peerless on APS-C as far as sharpness is concerned. therefore, it is extra ordinary. The FA is ordinary.
The only people not being objective are the ones who do not acknowledge that a bunch of improvements make for a better lens. At least optically this lens is extra ordinary in sharpness and contrast. bokeh is still something more people need to post.

OK - have it your way. It's a "extra ordinary" lens. No useful purpose in thrashing out some long sterile semantic discussion about it.

At the end of the day there will be many people that will compare their FA 50s to the DA 55 and come to the conclusion that the DA 55 is an "extra ordinary" lens that does not justify, for them, it's even more extra ordinary price. Who's to say this conclusion is somehow "wrong"?

[mer]

Many in this thread said tha the LoCA ( or Bokeh CA ) of this lens is normal and it can't get any much better.

This is not true , I know lenses tha perform MUCH better than the DA55 or the SMC-M 50mm ( which I know well ) , take the nokton 58/1.4 for example . In fact I think LoCA CAN'T get any worse than the DA55. Yes some lenses has equal LoCA but what is the price for those lenses ? Nikon F/1.4 50mm , Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Fa50 f/1.4 cost no more than 200usd but Pentax asks at least the double and sometimes triple the money for the DA* 55mm.

Probably the super low dispersion elements pentax used are crap. If anything it has been proven that the cough *super extra low* dispersion elements in the DA*55 give the same performance, as far as LoCA is concerned , as the regular elements , which is a shame.

I'm quite disapointed in the 55/1.4 . If Pentax sold this lens for 250-300usd it would be fine but 600-700usd , some stores ask , is madness.

It should be a f/1.2 lens at this price.

[ogl]

Many in this thread said tha the LoCA ( or Bokeh CA ) of this lens is normal and it can't get any much better.

This is not true , I know lenses tha perform MUCH better than the DA55 or the SMC-M 50mm ( which I know well ) , take the nokton 58/1.4 for example . In fact I think LoCA CAN'T get any worse than the DA55. Yes some lenses has equal LoCA but what is the price for those lenses ? Nikon F/1.4 50mm , Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Fa50 f/1.4 cost no more than 200usd but Pentax asks at least the double and sometimes triple the money for the DA* 55mm.

Probably the super low dispersion elements pentax used are crap. If anything it has been proven that the cough *super extra low* dispersion elements in the DA*55 give the same performance, as far as LoCA is concerned , as the regular elements , which is a shame.

I'm quite disapointed in the 55/1.4 . If Pentax sold this lens for 250-300usd it would be fine but 600-700usd , some stores ask , is madness.

It should be a f/1.2 lens at this price.

FA50 is not metal and has no weather resist.
It's funny if DA*55 costs 300 USD.

FA*85/1.4 was 1100-1200 USD.

[blende8]

FA50 is not metal

DA55 is also not metal.

DA55 is also not metal.

Hi,

You probably didn't see my message here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/504159-post120.html but I am curios if you had less than 1.5s focusing time in better light or this was the lowest value?

Thank you,
Radu

[ogl]

DA55 is also not metal.

No metal at all?
Check it, please.

Many in this thread said tha the LoCA ( or Bokeh CA ) of this lens is normal and it can't get any much better.

This is not true , I know lenses tha perform MUCH better than the DA55 or the SMC-M 50mm ( which I know well ) , take the nokton 58/1.4 for example . In fact I think LoCA CAN'T get any worse than the DA55. Yes some lenses has equal LoCA but what is the price for those lenses ? Nikon F/1.4 50mm , Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Fa50 f/1.4 cost no more than 200usd but Pentax asks at least the double and sometimes triple the money for the DA* 55mm.

Probably the super low dispersion elements pentax used are crap. If anything it has been proven that the cough *super extra low* dispersion elements in the DA*55 give the same performance, as far as LoCA is concerned , as the regular elements , which is a shame.

I'm quite disapointed in the 55/1.4 . If Pentax sold this lens for 250-300usd it would be fine but 600-700usd , some stores ask , is madness.

It should be a f/1.2 lens at this price.

1) Do you have the lens?
2) Are you concern about how much a pint of beer costs in China or at your local pub? I say that because you can buy probably 10 times more beer in another country but I don't think you can go there after work daily and actually do so. And neither this virtually huge amount of beer will do anything at all for your thirst. The prices in Europe are close to twice as much for the DA* compared to FA50 so I would weep less for our American friends and be glad for myself and thankful to Pentax Europe for doing a finer job. I say that because you have UK in profile so your outrage is only theoretical by no means you must pay 3-4 times the price of FA50. Even better you are totally free to pay zero and don't get the lens! Sounds like a reasonable idea?
3) Feast your eyes with this beautiful tomato soup:

Oh, yes, Sir, it's the 1450 Euro Canon 50/1.2 (with it's blazing fast USM, btw) at f2.2. Enjoy it and think twice about bashing the DA*55 for not being perfect from wide open!

Radu

[blende8]

No metal.
It's like the DA* Zooms, not like the DA* teles.
I´only checked the outer barrel, perhaps there is some metal within.

Regarding speed, Radu, no, I didn't do any measurements in brighter light.
The motor speed is the same, of course, but there is not so much oscillating at the end.

[ogl]

I see. Thank you.