[audiobomber]

Yep, but on the graphs sigma shows better sharpness, of course the price is higher.

And huge compared to the FA 50mm. The FA 50mm competes neck and neck to the Nikon, Sony and Canon equivalents, which are all bigger and were all pricier (though the price advantage is probably gone now).

In my opinion there is no reason to buy DA* 55mm. FA 50 is almost the same lens, SDM and WR (Is it there?) the only cons of it. But the price... It is crazy...Especially in my place 1008$ for new DA*55 and the 525$ for new FA 50

My sympathies. I bought at just the right time: $200 for FA 50mm and $300 for FA 35mm.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 03-16-2010 at 10:21 AM.

[audiobomber]

I think he [riorocco] has a zeiss ZK or some thang I cannot type...

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about RioRico or anyone in this specific thread. But I have heard the statement made many times on this board, as in "The FA 50mm is softer wide open than the DA 40mm." Yeah, but the 40mm Ltd is not as sharp at 2.8, so the statement is ludicrous and misleading.

[tokyoso]

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about RioRico or anyone in this specific thread. But I have heard the statement made many times on this board, as in "The FA 50mm is softer wide open than the DA 40mm." Yeah, but the 40mm Ltd is not as sharp at 2.8, so the statement is ludicrous and misleading.

gotcha.. but, CA aside, is FA 50 really sharper at f2.8 ?

Pentax SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4 - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis & Verdict

Pentax SMC-DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[RioRico]

I think he [riorocco] has a zeiss ZK or some thang I cannot type...

Actually I have 3 CZ products. One's a Leica-M 50/2.8 Tessar (US$7) for my cruddy FED-5 (US$14). One's a M42 50/2.8 Tessar (US$54). And one's a Novar Anastigmat 75/4.5 on an Ikonta B 521/16 folder (free from an uncle). The M42 Tessar is mildly astringent and presumptuous with a hint of tannin and dark leather, and begs for mild-to-severe discipline. The Novar just want to have good dirty fun. slowly. The LM Tessar never did get along with the FED-5 -- you know how Germans and Russians are. "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." All will slice and dice you where you stand. I think it's a Heidelberg thang.

[audiobomber]

gotcha.. but, CA aside, is FA 50 really sharper at f2.8 ?

Yes, sharper at every common aperture. For f2.8, I see 2088 for FA 50 vs 1995.5 for DA 40mm. Border performance is not directly ciomparable because the test changed.

[tux]

Interesting that the FA50 has better resolution at f2 than the fa43. If you want sharp & fast the fa35 beats them all at f2

..... but at f2.8 the fa43 is the sharpest

[audiobomber]

Interesting that the FA50 has better resolution at f2 than the fa43. If you want sharp & fast the fa35 beats them all at f2

..... but at f2.8 the fa43 is the sharpest

They're all very sharp at f2.8, there's not enough in it to worry about. Photozone ratings show FA 35>FA 50>DA 43, but they don't consider contrast which affects the perception of sharpness. My beef was about people who compare the FA 50mm's performance at f1.4 to another lens "wide open", ignoring that wide open on the other lens cannot even go to f1.4.

[paperbag846]

My beef was about people who compare the FA 50mm's performance at f1.4 to another lens "wide open", ignoring that wide open on the other lens cannot even go to f1.4.

Yes I saw a comparison of the 1.4 vs. the 1.7 AT 1.7, and the 1.4 was much sharper. This is to be expected, the lens that is stopped down is going to be better than the lens wide open!

I don't find much use for my 1.7 wide open, because its not creamy and soft like some other lenses... it's just bad. At f2 all of those things go away.

I would say that you should buy the 1.4 for it's rendering. It's very "dreamy".

This picture of julian assange sort of illustrates the kind of effect that the 1.4 is best at.