[Fenwoodian]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Hi!
My question is to those who had an experience of shooting both Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar and Pentax DA*55/1.4. Could you tell me your thoughts on these lenses regarding portrait and landscape photography? I have the DA*55 and I like this lens. However, I also saw some images (not macro ones) from 50/2 Makro Planar that look gorgeous. Now I wonder whether the Zeiss really does deliver a better "3D look" or it were just better PP-skills of corresponding photographers.

I have owned both of these lenses.

The DA 55 lens is a great portrait lens on your K5iis camera. Keep it. But the DA 55 lens is not so good on the full frame K1 camera. If you get a K1 camera some day, you might want to upgrade to the Zeiss lens. But for now, keep using your DA 55 on your APS-C body as you will not see much improvement by going to the Zeiss on that body.

[Tas]

Could you tell me your thoughts on these lenses regarding portrait and landscape photography?

I can't help you mate, but you could try contacting forum member 'lightsource'. He recently sold his Makro Planar 2/50 and has experience with portaits and landscapes with this lens. I know he also had several Pentax lenses though I don't know if the DA*55 was one of them. It can't hurt to ask. I suggest you try sending him a PM as he's jumped over to a Nikon D850 and may not be thinking about monitoring PF. His Flickr stream is here: Rob Fischer | Flickr if you want to check out some of his work.

If you do decide to jump on a 2/50 my experience with that lens is it's an excellent lens for landscapes. Something you should be aware of is it's vignetting at wider apertures that requires stopping down to balance out the light across the frame unless you're seeking to utilise the vignetting as an element of the image. I actually like the vignetting personally and it's something that can work with portraiture too from what I've read.

The Makro Planars are very good with 3D pop, indeed I think all the Zeiss do this well if you balance aperture and distance to subject correctly, the portraiture above with the Distagon 2/28 being a good example of that. Anyhoo, good luck with the decision and if you do pick up a Zeiss please add some images to the thread for us all to enjoy.

-------------------------------------------

It's been a while since I've been out so it's back into the archive to play with some PP and a mediocre image. Captured with the K-1 and Makro Planar 2/100, all PP done in On1 Photo RAW, details on the PP can be found in the description on Flickr by clicking on the photo.



Tas

[skyer]

Fenwoodian, Tas, thank you for your quick replies!

The DA 55 lens is a great portrait lens on your K5iis camera. Keep it. But the DA 55 lens is not so good on the full frame K1 camera. If you get a K1 camera some day, you might want to upgrade to the Zeiss lens. But for now, keep using your DA 55 on your APS-C body as you will not see much improvement by going to the Zeiss on that body.

I forgot about my equipment info, it had become rather outdated (I updated it). Now I own the K-1.
As for the discussion whether DA*55 is good for a full frame or not, I'd say that the DA*55 is much more a full frame lens than, for example, the 43 Limited. On a full frame, the DA*55 is much sharper at the corners and it has a way less distortion than the 43 Lim. Without the native hood (which was designed for crop cameras) the DA*55 has visible but slight vignetting at f1.4-1.6. I'd say that the DA*55's vignetting at these apertures is not worse than the Zeiss 50 Makro's vignetting at f2.0.
What I'm looking for is a "3D look". Technically, the DA*55 is a better lens than the 43 Lim, but, in my opinion, the latter has a more pronounced "3D-effect". In some images from the 50 Makro that I saw the "3D look" was very distinct. However, I'm not sure if that look was more because of a post-processing or because of the lens itself. (Here are the images I talk about: Pantry | I love the way the light from the window streams th? | Flickr Door, table and light... | The colour and atmosphere in this? | Flickr 03/2014 | It's Sunday again, the weather is still bad and I ? | Flickr Castle Point Lighthouse | Richard Mayston | Flickr Stuttgart | Nikon F6, ZEISS Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZF.2 | SPR_SMMLX | Flickr)

I can't help you mate, but you could try contacting forum member 'lightsource'. He recently sold his Makro Planar 2/50 and has experience with portaits and landscapes with this lens. I know he also had several Pentax lenses though I don't know if the DA*55 was one of them. It can't hurt to ask. I suggest you try sending him a PM as he's jumped over to a Nikon D850 and may not be thinking about monitoring PF. His Flickr stream is here: Rob Fischer | Flickr if you want to check out some of his work.

Thank you, Tas! I'll check his work and will try to contact him.

The Makro Planars are very good with 3D pop, indeed I think all the Zeiss do this well if you balance aperture and distance to subject correctly, the portraiture above with the Distagon 2/28 being a good example of that. Anyhoo, good luck with the decision and if you do pick up a Zeiss please add some images to the thread for us all to enjoy.

Yes, I also noticed a 3D pop in that image from the Distagon 28/2.

It's been a while since I've been out so it's back into the archive to play with some PP and a mediocre image. Captured with the K-1 and Makro Planar 2/100, all PP done in On1 Photo RAW, details on the PP can be found in the description on Flickr by clicking on the photo.

To be honest, I'm not fond of your post-processing of your image (but it doesn't mean I'm right).

[Tas]

To be honest, I'm not fond of your post-processing of your image (but it doesn't mean I'm right).

That's all good mate, I only process that style when I feel like it or want to process an image that would otherwise go in the bin so I understand why it's not something that would necessarily interest you.

Here's an image with more subtle PP captured a couple of hours after the one above using the K-1 and Makro Planar 2/50. I recommend going to Flickr to view this using their expanded view arrows and f11 for full screen. It's an image that looks better large and in subdued lighting not the PF white screen.



Tas

[skyer]

That's all good mate, I only process that style when I feel like it or want to process an image that would otherwise go in the bin so I understand why it's not something that would necessarily interest you.

Here's an image with more subtle PP captured a couple of hours after the one above using the K-1 and Makro Planar 2/50. I recommend going to Flickr to view this using their expanded view arrows and f11 for full screen. It's an image that looks better large and in subdued lighting not the PF white screen.



Tas

This image looks more interesting to me, thank you! I'd like also to say that I contacted Rob Fischer. Unfortunately, he hadn't had an experience of shooting on a DA*55 but he praised a 50/2 Makro a lot.
Today I also found some new praising reviews of a D-FA 50/2.8 Macro that I didn't read before. One reviewer (who tested many-many lenses including 50/2 Planar Makro) even wrote that this Pentax macro lens in combination with a K-1 "blows away anything I’ve seen on this subject before" and then "The Pentax K1 continues to impress—overall image quality is simply beyond what other DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can offer—fundamentally, they cannot, since images are all interpolated (demosaicing the RGGB sensor)" (diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Church Mosaic, Sunlit (Pentax K1 SuperRes) and diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Tiled Water Fountain (Pentax K1 SuperRes)). So now I'm confused again. Maybe it's better to buy this rather cheap Pentax AF macro lens than an expensive MF Zeiss? Has anyone shot both on Pentax 50/2.8 Macro and Zeiss 50/2 Makro?

[les3547]

This image looks more interesting to me, thank you! I'd like also to say that I contacted Rob Fischer. Unfortunately, he hadn't had an experience of shooting on a DA*55 but he praised a 50/2 Makro a lot.
Today I also found some new praising reviews of a D-FA 50/2.8 Macro that I didn't read before. One reviewer (who tested many-many lenses including 50/2 Planar Makro) even wrote that this Pentax macro lens in combination with a K-1 "blows away anything I’ve seen on this subject before" and then "The Pentax K1 continues to impress—overall image quality is simply beyond what other DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can offer—fundamentally, they cannot, since images are all interpolated (demosaicing the RGGB sensor)" (diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Church Mosaic, Sunlit (Pentax K1 SuperRes) and diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Tiled Water Fountain (Pentax K1 SuperRes)). So now I'm confused again. Maybe it's better to buy this rather cheap Pentax AF macro lens than an expensive MF Zeiss? Has anyone shot both on Pentax 50/2.8 Macro and Zeiss 50/2 Makro?

My 2 cents . . . I briefly owned one of those two lenses anyway, the Zeiss Makro 50 (but the Zeiss Planar 50 too). I've also owned a lot of macro lenses at different focal lengths and have decided I don't care for them for general photography. A macro's focal plane is designed to be flat, which isn't the best for portrait photography, and it also doesn't give the most 3D look. This weekend I've been comparing the Zeiss 28 f2 with a couple of other lenses. One thing the 28/2 has is field curvature. If you check the reviews, some people see that as a problem but others (most) see its field curvature as a potential asset and rate the 28/2 highly. Certainly part of the reason for its popularity is because of the Zeiss 28's rich color rendering and overall superb resolution, but people also like how field curvature and close focusing allow for isolating subjects in the foreground (plus, its field curvature is eliminated by f5.6 or 8, which is how most people shoot landscape). Check out Gedeon's portrait (#899) on the previous page to see the 28's field curvature exploited to maximum effect.

Another issue is how macros are sharp. A couple of pages ago (post #881) I referenced this article on acutance. Of course, all macro lenses are designed for very high acutance. However, one thing some of us appreciate are the Zeiss lenses that have a more sloped acutance yet still achieve high resolution, which seems to accentuate micro contrast over razor-like sharpness, and that too contributes to the 3D effect. For that, of the Zeiss lenses I've tried I found the 135 (Leitaxed) is king, followed by the 28 and 85. I've seen the highest acutance in the 21 and 25/2 (after the macros of course), with the Zeiss 35/2 pretty much in between the extremes.

Which leads me to ask, with the FA Limiteds you have do you need a 50mm lens? The three amigos will cover most portrait and landscape situations, but maybe (like me) you are after the Zeiss "look" and want to have that in one lens you hope to use for both portraits and landscape. If I still owned my FA Limiteds and wanted such a lens, then I think I might sell the FA 43 and get the Zeiss 35/2.

Finally, if for sure you are after a FL in the 50ish range, then I would be derelict in duty not to mention a lens I just reviewed here—the Voigtlander 58/1.4. On the K-1 it's turned out to be one of the finest lenses I've ever owned. The downside is how hard it is to find, but every once in awhile somebody sells one. In fact, just yesterday one was for sale on Ebay for $350! I almost bought it to have as a back up, but instead wrote a guy here who's been looking for one for a long time, and he quickly grabbed it.

Good luck.

[Gedeon]

Voigtlander 58mm & planar 50mm : are they really so different ?
Comparative test with samples (in french, sorry..) : Test_zeiss_voiglander_50/58mm

[les3547]

Voigtlander 58mm & planar 50mm : are they really so different ?
Comparative test with samples (in french, sorry..) : Test_zeiss_voiglander_50/58mm

Well, you noticed I'm sure he did his tests on the K10D. I also owned the Nokton while using ASP-C (K7 and K3), and sold it to use the funds to explore the other quality lenses made for Pentax. By the time I got the K-1 I'd tried all the high-reputation lenses made for Pentax, including several Leitaxed lenses. I either kept or reacquired the ones that most appealed to my tastes (4 Zeiss and 2 Voigtlander lenses).

The two Voigtlanders, the 58 and 90, were the lenses I reacquired for full frame because they showed so much promise on APS-C, especially the 90 SLII version. Both were small, lightweight, and focused even easier than Zeiss lenses, but I wasn't sure about the 58 because on the crop sensor I didn't think it seemed in the same league as Zeiss. I bought both the Nokton and the Zeiss Planar and ran a series of tests, tests that don't match the tests done in the article you referenced. His tests were far more thorough than mine, but at least for shots from f1.4 through f3.5 the Nokton kicked butt. By f4 the Zeiss was very close to equal, and by f5.6 they were clearly equal and pretty much stayed that way through f16, with the Zeiss maybe a hair better with micro contrast. In terms of your question "are they really so different?" . . . I wouldn't say so different, but different in ways that suited my needs.

The Nokton is a lens I use as sort of a short-tele, while 35mm is more "normal" for me. 58mm is more solidly a short tele than 50mm, and perfect for my needs by fitting nicely between my 35mm and 90mm lenses. Also, the Nokton is slightly lighter and more compact, and focused much easier than the Planar I tested it against. Finally, for my lenses 35mm and below, I don't really care much about their performance below f4 because I almost always shoot at f5.6 or above. But I wanted the Nokton to work at all apertures, just as I expect from my 90mm and 135mm lenses. If you look at the test shots I attached below you can see how much better the Nokton resolved at f1.4 than the Zeiss. But I must admit that past f4 they are not, as you suggest, so different, at least resolution wise.

Here's the uncropped shot I used to compare the lenses, though this is at 5.6 by the Nokton:




A crop of that little house way off, just left of center, Nokton at f1.4:




Same crop of a Zeiss shot at f1.4:

[Tas]

This image looks more interesting to me, thank you! I'd like also to say that I contacted Rob Fischer. Unfortunately, he hadn't had an experience of shooting on a DA*55 but he praised a 50/2 Makro a lot.
Today I also found some new praising reviews of a D-FA 50/2.8 Macro that I didn't read before. One reviewer (who tested many-many lenses including 50/2 Planar Makro) even wrote that this Pentax macro lens in combination with a K-1 "blows away anything I’ve seen on this subject before" and then "The Pentax K1 continues to impress—overall image quality is simply beyond what other DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can offer—fundamentally, they cannot, since images are all interpolated (demosaicing the RGGB sensor)" (diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Church Mosaic, Sunlit (Pentax K1 SuperRes) and diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Tiled Water Fountain (Pentax K1 SuperRes)). So now I'm confused again. Maybe it's better to buy this rather cheap Pentax AF macro lens than an expensive MF Zeiss? Has anyone shot both on Pentax 50/2.8 Macro and Zeiss 50/2 Makro?

In some ways it seems you're on the quest for the Holy Grail. But there is no Holy Grail, there's only the reality that each modern lens (and legacy ones for that matter) has a place and you need to assess what your priority is, to be able to narrow down the right lens for you. To put it simply:

• there is no perfect lens
• all lenses have strengths and weaknesses dependent upon context (price, colour rendition, sharpness etc)
• all lenses are produced in a factory and there is usually a variance between each lens

This is all stuff I expect you know but just wanted to remind you to be objective when you read reviews as there's a lot of subjective commentary in reviews. Some PF members will give you really good quality feedback, others might make statements tinged with the need to justify their purchase decision. The latter bit is where subjectivity is more prevalent so it's wise to be cautious when reading reviews. Having said that there's good feedback to be attained by asking questions around the PF and people like Les and Dave (Fenwoodian) are the types of people I have confidence in when they provide feedback.

I don't think DigLloyd would as a pro reviewer be espousing an agenda in his comments. He's done a lot of Zeiss reviews, but remember the two examples you linked to were images captured in pixel shift mode. If all you care about is the resolution achievable by a lens in pixel shift mode then maybe the D-FA macro is the right one for you. But putting it into context means understanding he's as much talking about the resolution achievable by the K-1 in pixel shift mode. I will track down some images I have with and without pixel shift mode captured with the K-1 and Zeiss 2/50. The aim being to provide that context of what influence pixel shift can have in a review. Of course the D-FA macro has to be good enough to review the extra resolution hence my suggestion that maybe this is the right lens for you, particularly when you consider price, availability, AF, size and weight.

Ten years ago, two years of searching for the Holy Grail of cameras meant that instead of picking up a Nikon D70s or a Canon 30D I chose a Pentax K10D. Was that the wrong decision? No, but I could have been out shooting a year or two earlier if I'd made the decision instead of searching for perfection. As there's no such thing as perfect I might still have been looking if I didn't throw my money at something. It's wise to research and not rush a purchase when there's multiple choices, but really it comes down to how you want a lens to render colour, contrast, micro contrast, sharpness across the frame, lens speed, AF, weather sealing, weight, size, bokeh. The right combination exists, but you have to decide which combination of these attributes suits you.

Oh, and don't forget that at some stage Ricoh-Pentax will release a new D-FA HD 50 /1.4. Considering the lens options you have you might be best off waiting for the new Pentax prime. After all, it's been elusive enough to be the actual Holy Grail.

I'll be back later with the pixel shift comparo images.

Tas

[skyer]

My 2 cents . . . I briefly owned one of those two lenses anyway, the Zeiss Makro 50 (but the Zeiss Planar 50 too). I've also owned a lot of macro lenses at different focal lengths and have decided I don't care for them for general photography. A macro's focal plane is designed to be flat, which isn't the best for portrait photography, and it also doesn't give the most 3D look. This weekend I've been comparing the Zeiss 28 f2 with a couple of other lenses. One thing the 28/2 has is field curvature. If you check the reviews, some people see that as a problem but others (most) see its field curvature as a potential asset and rate the 28/2 highly. Certainly part of the reason for its popularity is because of the Zeiss 28's rich color rendering and overall superb resolution, but people also like how field curvature and close focusing allow for isolating subjects in the foreground (plus, its field curvature is eliminated by f5.6 or 8, which is how most people shoot landscape). Check out Gedeon's portrait (#899) on the previous page to see the 28's field curvature exploited to maximum effect.

Another issue is how macros are sharp. A couple of pages ago (post #881) I referenced this article on acutance. Of course, all macro lenses are designed for very high acutance. However, one thing some of us appreciate are the Zeiss lenses that have a more sloped acutance yet still achieve high resolution, which seems to accentuate micro contrast over razor-like sharpness, and that too contributes to the 3D effect. For that, of the Zeiss lenses I've tried I found the 135 (Leitaxed) is king, followed by the 28 and 85. I've seen the highest acutance in the 21 and 25/2 (after the macros of course), with the Zeiss 35/2 pretty much in between the extremes.

Which leads me to ask, with the FA Limiteds you have do you need a 50mm lens? The three amigos will cover most portrait and landscape situations, but maybe (like me) you are after the Zeiss "look" and want to have that in one lens you hope to use for both portraits and landscape. If I still owned my FA Limiteds and wanted such a lens, then I think I might sell the FA 43 and get the Zeiss 35/2.

Finally, if for sure you are after a FL in the 50ish range, then I would be derelict in duty not to mention a lens I just reviewed here—the Voigtlander 58/1.4. On the K-1 it's turned out to be one of the finest lenses I've ever owned. The downside is how hard it is to find, but every once in awhile somebody sells one. In fact, just yesterday one was for sale on Ebay for $350! I almost bought it to have as a back up, but instead wrote a guy here who's been looking for one for a long time, and he quickly grabbed it.

Good luck.

les3547, thank you for your 2 cents!
You know, now I'm also seeking for this notorious 3D look. Zeiss lenses are quite new to me and I'm not an expert in them by any means but among all images shot on Zeiss that I saw I think that it is the 50/2 Makro that is a very, very special lens in terms of "3D pop".
It is well-known that the presence effect is more pronounced when a photographer stays closer to a subject he/she photographs. So telephoto lenses are out of the list. On the other hand, when a photographer comes too close to a subject there can appear geometrical distortions which don't increase the presence effect but vice versa. In my opinion, the best 3D look is achieved by using 35-50mm. The shot of a woman on the previous page is good but the distortion of a 28mm lens is visible with a naked eye. The Voigtlander 58/1.4 is a great lens, I've heard many good words about it, but its focal length is too long for a good presence effect. Actually, my DA*55 is also too long for my taste in this regard. (By the way, I read a review somewhere when an owner of both DA*55 and Nokton 58/1.4 wrote that the DA*55 is better.)
I guess the 43mm Limited's focal length is really a happy mean. Actually, it does produce a very pronounced 3D look when one looks images at normal magnification! It has great saturation and contrast (and size)! To be honest, I'm not sure that the 50/2 Makro will be a better overall lens for me. What Zeiss does better is produce more details at edges of a frame and it has much less distortion. Edges and distortion are awful on images shot on the 43 Limited (as for distortion, it's weird because it is much worse than on 31 Limited). Also, it looks like the 50/2 Makro has a unique color rendition and a crystal look of images. All in all, I like the rendition of the 50/2 Makro much more than of the 50/1.4 Planar or even Otus in spite of the fact that the 50/2 Makro has a much busier bokeh.
I know what a field curvature is, I guess I prefer when it is flat. I also had written the article about a high/low acutance you mentioned before. Again, my position is quite the opposite to yours I think that it is high acutance what makes Zeiss lenses different but not the low acutance. Many Zeiss lenses are known for the effect when subjects pop out from the foreground and background. It also corresponds to the 43 Limited. However, in case of the 43, subjects are not too detailed at 100% magnification (when they are at edges), but in case of the 50/2 Makro subjects pop out and they are really very detailed! The 50/2 Makro is the only Zeiss lens that I want to own now (and I don't shoot macros).
I have many good Pentax lenses. I like all of them very much. However, among all of them, I regard the 31 Limited lens as a very special one, maybe even higher than the FA*85. I know an opinion of some people who also regard the Distagon 35/2 as the best 35mm lens of all times. But those people usually didn't try the 31 Limited Also, it's hard to nail focus using wide angle lenses (by the way, I changed the focusing screen of my K-1 to a split-image screen).

A few hours ago I won a lot of the 50/2 Unfortunately, it's a Nikon ZF2 version but the price was rather good. An almost new lens I purchased for $470. Now I'm puzzled what to do next. Should I buy a Leitax adapter or should I sell it with a premium and buy a ZK version for $695-780?

[Fenwoodian]

.
Sker, I actually prefer a Leitaxed Zeiss ZF lens over a ZK version. Why?

1. I prefer changing the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens.
2.The Leitax mount is thicker/stronger than the original Zeiss mount.

Looking for the perfect 3D Zeiss lens? Looking for a lens that's wide but not too wide? Yesterday I was discussing this over on a Nikon Internet forum. A heavy hitter over there who's shot most of the best lenses from both Zeiss and Leica told me that his favorite Zeiss lens is the ZF "Classic" 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. It's my favorite Zeiss lens too.

[skyer]

.
Sker, I actually prefer a Leitaxed Zeiss ZF lens over a ZK version. Why?
1. I prefer changing the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens.
2.The Leitax mount is thicker/stronger than the original Zeiss mount.

Thank you for this comment, Fenwoodian! (As Tas, I also highly appreciate your lens reviews on PF!) Actually, I had absolutely the opposite opinion before I read your post. I was looking for the ZK version because I thought it will be possible to: 1) get correct Exif data in images; 2) change aperture via an aperture ring; 3) get better shots with flash ("A" mode). I have a few questions in this regard:

1. Is it really impossible to change aperture via an aperture ring when a ZK version is mounted on a Pentax K-1? Then why this ring is there on a lens?
2. When a ZF/ZF2 version is mounted on a K-1 exif information is not transmitted to a camera. Does it also correspond to a ZK version?
3. A ZK version has an automatic aperture mechanism (aperture is closed only during a shot). Will a Leitaxed ZF/ZF2 version also have an automatic aperture or it will be fully manual?

Looking for the perfect 3D Zeiss lens? Looking for a lens that's wide but not too wide? Yesterday I was discussing this over on a Nikon Internet forum. A heavy hitter over there who's shot most of the best lenses from both Zeiss and Leica told me that his favorite Zeiss lens is the ZF "Classic" 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. It's my favorite Zeiss lens too.

There is a Youtube channel where a guy who owns a lot of Nikon and Zeiss lenses said numerous times that the Distagon 35/2 is the best lens that he had ever had. He actually has several of them He claims it's better than the 35/1.4 that he also possesses.
To be honest, I don't care about too much. To me, the best lens is the 31 Limited. It has an absolutely beautiful out of focus a little bit greenish rendering. And the overall 3D look is gorgeous (plus AF, resolution, little distortion, etc). However, it seems we have similar thoughts on the best 3D focal length (31-35mm).

[ivanvernon]

This image looks more interesting to me, thank you! I'd like also to say that I contacted Rob Fischer. Unfortunately, he hadn't had an experience of shooting on a DA*55 but he praised a 50/2 Makro a lot.
Today I also found some new praising reviews of a D-FA 50/2.8 Macro that I didn't read before. One reviewer (who tested many-many lenses including 50/2 Planar Makro) even wrote that this Pentax macro lens in combination with a K-1 "blows away anything I’ve seen on this subject before" and then "The Pentax K1 continues to impress—overall image quality is simply beyond what other DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can offer—fundamentally, they cannot, since images are all interpolated (demosaicing the RGGB sensor)" (diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Church Mosaic, Sunlit (Pentax K1 SuperRes) and diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Tiled Water Fountain (Pentax K1 SuperRes)). So now I'm confused again. Maybe it's better to buy this rather cheap Pentax AF macro lens than an expensive MF Zeiss? Has anyone shot both on Pentax 50/2.8 Macro and Zeiss 50/2 Makro?

I noted several comments in this thread about the D FA 50 macro, which I have owned for several years. I also have the 31/43/77, but still find occasion to go to the 50 macro. Results are almost invariably quite sharp with excellent color rendering, and quite often cannot be improved by post processing. Here are a few taken yesterday when several trees were being taken down in my front yard. None have received any post processing except perhaps some minor cropping on one or two of them.

KIT: K-1 with Pentax-D FA 50mm f 2.8 macro.

[sibyrnes]

Thank you for this comment, Fenwoodian! (As Tas, I also highly appreciate your lens reviews on PF!) Actually, I had absolutely the opposite opinion before I read your post. I was looking for the ZK version because I thought it will be possible to: 1) get correct Exif data in images; 2) change aperture via an aperture ring; 3) get better shots with flash ("A" mode). I have a few questions in this regard:

1. Is it really impossible to change aperture via an aperture ring when a ZK version is mounted on a Pentax K-1? Then why this ring is there on a lens?
2. When a ZF/ZF2 version is mounted on a K-1 exif information is not transmitted to a camera. Does it also correspond to a ZK version?
3. A ZK version has an automatic aperture mechanism (aperture is closed only during a shot). Will a Leitaxed ZF/ZF2 version also have an automatic aperture or it will be fully manual?

There is a Youtube channel where a guy who owns a lot of Nikon and Zeiss lenses said numerous times that the Distagon 35/2 is the best lens that he had ever had. He actually has several of them He claims it's better than the 35/1.4 that he also possesses.
To be honest, I don't care about too much. To me, the best lens is the 31 Limited. It has an absolutely beautiful out of focus a little bit greenish rendering. And the overall 3D look is gorgeous (plus AF, resolution, little distortion, etc). However, it seems we have similar thoughts on the best 3D focal length (31-35mm).

1. Yes, you can change the aperture with the aperture ring on a ZK version.
2. Information is transmitted to camera with a ZK version. It shows in EXIF as an "A" series lens and exposure info is saved. You must manually set the focal length when powering up camera.
3. Leitaxed version will not have automatic aperture and stop down metering is required. You can use Aperture Priority mode with the K-1 since aperture is closed - manually set with aperture ring.

I love my Leitaxed version Distagon 21(converted by Fenwoodian) but wish it was a ZK version like my Distagon 25.

[skyer]

[*]there is no perfect lens[*]all lenses have strengths and weaknesses dependent upon context (price, colour rendition, sharpness etc)[*]all lenses are produced in a factory and there is usually a variance between each lens

I understand this. Moreover, I do even realize that in most cases a good zoom like 28-105 will give me almost as good results as a bunch of expensive lenses. Having so many lenses as I do is redundant and I must sell some of them but it's too hard

...but remember the two examples you linked to were images captured in pixel shift mode.

Surely, I noticed it. However, a mediocre lens can't become extraordinary even in PixelShift mode. D-FA 50/2.8 must be really very good. By the way, Fenwoodian also describes this lens as "will absolutely blow your mind when it comes to clarity and sharpness!

If all you care about is the resolution achievable by a lens in pixel shift mode then maybe the D-FA macro is the right one for you.

No, I don't shoot in PixelShift mode very often. I aspire for lenses that give a 3D look more than just resolution. As for the Zeiss 50/2 makro, in my opinion, images shot with this lens show a great amount of somewhat clarity. It's hard to describe but there is something very special in them. At least, this is my opinion at the moment.

Oh, and don't forget that at some stage Ricoh-Pentax will release a new D-FA HD 50 /1.4.

I've heard about this lens. It can be really good but I'm afraid its rendering will resemble the rendering of a Sigma Art 50/1.4. I had the Sigma Art lens on Nikon D750. At first, I liked it a lot but then its rendering became unbearable to me. Anyway, the D-FA HD 50 /1.4 will be huge and expensive which I don't like )

I'll be back later with the pixel shift comparo images.

I'll wait for it, thank you in advance!

P.S. There is a lens because of which I began to think of buying the 50/2 makro. I had known before that this very Zeiss has a unique rendering but it's rather expensive, so I forgot about it. Then by accident, I acquired a Russian lens Jupiter 37A 135/3.5 for really cheap. This lens blew me away! It captures a ridiculous amount of detail even at the very edges and wide open apertures! And what I also noticed was the clarity. After I played with the lens I told myself that I must find a similar lens but with a normal focal length. And the only candidate that came to my mind was this 50/2 Makro (By the way if anyone needs the best-regarded version of the Jupiter 37A, I have a spare copy.)

---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:07 PM ----------

1. Yes, you can change the aperture with the aperture ring on a ZK version.
2. Information is transmitted to camera with a ZK version. It shows in EXIF as an "A" series lens and exposure info is saved. You must manually set the focal length when powering up camera.
3. Leitaxed version will not have automatic aperture and stop down metering is required. You can use Aperture Priority mode with the K-1 since aperture is closed - manually set with aperture ring.

I love my Leitaxed version Distagon 21(converted by Fenwoodian) but wish it was a ZK version like my Distagon 25.

sibyrnes, thank you for your clarification on ZK/ZF-Leitaxed versions of Zeiss lenses. It's strange then why Fenwoodian prefers a Leitaxed version. I guess a stronger bayonet of a Leitax mount can't be the prime objective.
Did I understand correctly that even with the ZK version one has to manually set the right focal length? Why isn't it set automatically if such a lens has the corresponding contacts?

---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:13 PM ----------

ivanvernon, thank you for your images shot by the D-FA 50/2.8 macro! However, frankly speaking, I haven't found in them anything special in terms of the lens that was used. As usual, everything depends on a right subject that is captured. As for the 50/2 Makro lens, I saw a lot of images that were quite mediocre and only a few of them that looked incredibly good.[COLOR="Silver"]