[Wheatfield]

People say that like it means something.

Sigma 50 1.4 815 grams


Nikon 50 1.8 G 185 grams


For an extra 5% resolution you add, 600 grams. That gentlemen is crazy stupid. You can't even see that in a final print or image. This is a case of the Emperor has New Clothes.

The Sigma control of CA is much better, but that isn't translating to more resolution. Someone show me what it does translate to. The photon site doesn't even think you should worry about CA until it's more than a pixel wide.

That's because it does mean something. Pixel peeping has forced manufacturers into a new paradigm where corner sharpness has to be close to as good as centre, and any optical flaws whatsoever have to be minimized or the lens will be branded as crap. We were never able to scrutinize a lens 20 years ago the way we have been able to for the past 10 years. Blowing an image up to an effective 5x7 feet or so and then inspecting it from a few inches away was unheard of in the film era. Now we seem to do it with every image we take.
Unfortunately, this all comes at a cost, larger, heavier lenses with more glass being major costs.

I note you cherry picked the 50mm focal length for your comparison, and moved the goal post by changing brand and maximum aperture. The 50mm is a focal length that is relatively easy to make a good lens in, a 50mm f/1.2 not so much, and a 50/1.8 is about as easy as it gets for a lens maker with a flange-focal plane distance around 40-45mm.
The reason the Pentax LTD series lenses for the APS-C cameras were so small is because they were able to compromise image circle and they compromised speed. Even at that, the 21mm got beaten up regularly for poor edge sharpness.
Now we want Pentax to play with the big boys in the full frame arena, and they are going to have to play by exactly the same rules as the big boys have had to play with.

[MMVIII]

People say that like it means something.

Sigma 50 1.4 815 grams


Nikon 50 1.8 G 185 grams


For an extra 5% resolution you add, 600 grams. That gentlemen is crazy stupid. You can't even see that in a final print or image. This is a case of the Emperor has New Clothes.

The Sigma control of CA is much better, but that isn't translating to more resolution. Someone show me what it does translate to. The photon site doesn't even think you should worry about CA until it's more than a pixel wide.

What is your point again? I think it is trivial knowledge that it might be easier to produce a slower lens, and obviously also possible to make it smaller and lighter. If you want to claim that 5% resolution advantage at widest aperture of these two lenses is "just the same" I'm out. That's just cheap, and repetitive.

And, did you have a look at the wide open performance of the Canon 50 1.2? Yes, it is much lighter, but...



Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L (full format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Anyhow, I still don't get it, if resolution is a hype and size of lenses is so crucial, why would the K-1 with it's 36 Mp be my choice from the beginning...?

[Mistral75]

They really need to just release the new fifty already to show us what they wanted to achieve with it and hopefully reaching their goals. I think if the new fifty is the best lens they've ever made optically it would calm some folks down)

The D FA★ 85mm f/1.4 will be even better optically than the D FA★ 50mm f/1.4.

[MMVIII]

The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

well, some arguments along the lines of this thread, or not?
Edit: read the last paragraph

---

Last edited by MMVIII; 07-25-2017 at 01:59 PM.

[Kunzite]

Uninspiring photos of cats and weird theories, I've read such things before except it wasn't with cats. But maybe this time it's not utter nonsense

L.E. Wait a minute... I can't be bothered to read most of it, but that last paragraph...

[twomonger]

The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

well, some arguments along the lines of this thread, or not?

Exactly. We'll see how well these new lenses sell, especially given the preference for Pentax users for "beautiful rendition" and "3D pop." But I think it's essential to have these new lenses, especially given the dearth of high quality/sharp lenses for the K-1, and it's these types of lenses that the market is clamoring for. I think a 50mm, 85mm, and 24mm are absolutely necessary to draw new people into the system. (The Sigma 35mm Art can address the need for a 35mm lens for now)

[normhead]

Oh dear. the DxO seems to say the Otus has close twice as much resolution as the 50 1.4 S

As I always say when DxO does this. show me the test charts. The make assertions, but they don't show their work, that gets a zero in my book.

But the real question is does anyone think the Pentax 50 1.4 is going to match the Zeiss Otus in sharpness? What are we going to get for all that weight?

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-25-2017 at 02:03 PM.

[Dipsoid]

The 50 is of no particular interest to me, my fa 50 is all that I'll ever really need (unless the repackage it with a DC or SDM motor with weather-sealing). I do have skin in the game because my future down the road of my photography will inevitably lead me to a nice full-frame wide-angle lens and full frame camera for landscape and astrophotography, as I love my Samyang 16mm lens. Pentax makes the best cameras for astro landscapes and I'll likely pick up a K-1 on a firesale several years from now whenever the K-whatever FF is out, and the success of the 50 will likely influence whether or not a good wide-aperture 24 surfaces in the future. I do have hopes that Pentax finds some success with big, corrected lenses, because the 31 ltd seems to be more of a lifestyle and portrait lens, not something often recommended for astro landscapes (not saying it can't be done).

---------- Post added 07-25-17 at 02:47 PM ----------

The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

well, some arguments along the lines of this thread, or not?
Edit: read the last paragraph

Wow, that article was played so straight that I didn't even realize it was satire until I got to the postscript...

[Winder]

The D FA★ 85mm f/1.4 will be even better optically than the D FA★ 50mm f/1.4.

Hopefully the D FA★ 35mm f/1.4 is the best of the three.

[goldenarrow]

The new 50mm is very representative of big changes for good and bad. In what may sound iconoclasticly like, "normhead vs. the World", there is a point to be made that the new large-fast, back-breaking, wallet-sucking imposing glass promise to make us better photographers? (not necessarily) I have enjoyed the very passionate arguments on all sides of this thread (one of the better threads IMHO). The high MP sensor revolution is not just in photography, it is in HD TV and movies too! Just think of all the news anchors, actors/actresses, etc who now get shoved aside because their skin is not perfect for HD resolution. Managements push what they think the general population wants to see, not always what is more deserving based on artistic or intrinsic merits. This is where the bigger money goes to. It is natural for that to happen. Many people like bright, shiny objects to look at if given a choice.

If the Pentax 50mm example is somehow gross to some people, how about the absurdity in the opposite direction of a variable zoom, afflicted by the SAME digital disease:

Link to: NEW TAMRON 18-400

This monstrosity is even weather resistant (Tamron probably learned a lot from Pentax making lenses for them)! And this "Thing" will probably sell fairly well! ("She's alive! She's alive!", from Bride of Frankenstein) My point is that even if you get what you wish for, a variable aperture lens, it might not end up being what you really wanted in this environment of HD-distorted values (there is probably a high correlation to political correctness as well but that is beyond the scope of this thread!!!). This size absurdity will not end until the resolution gets so high that one will not be ABLE to make glass good enough for the sensors!

Secondly, IMHO, the new 50mm is extremely important for Pentax. I think it is a shame that a small camera system producer (Pentax) cannot focus enough on one line of cameras and lenses and deliver everything most people want. Now there has to be a split personality (almost truly schizoid in nature) where they are feeling the need to deliver 4 lines of camera systems and not pleasing anyone! So, they made a management decision, if we believe what Kenspo has said, for the FF lineup.

But I still say that, despite what others might gravitate to ("...bright, shiny objects to look at..."), therein lies the opportunity! I would implore anyone with a rigid sense of right or wrong about this situation (and I really am saying this out loud to challenge myself as well!) to reevaluate how you can take advantage of this strange situation and increase your photographic vision and execution of your own internal vision. In more concrete terms, this means to me that I am being challenged to not grab the bright, shiny object but to dig a little deeper for artistic vision and skill and then see what is available to me, whether that is a format or a system like any TOOL to accomplish a GOAL. The goal comes from the internal vision, not the marketing or test labs or peer pressure. Of course, if you are a professional, you may not be able to avoid what everyone else is doing to make a living.

If the new 50mm and subsequent emphasis of big FF glass helps or hinders your inner vision perhaps should be the guiding question in a very confusing marketplace.

[pres589]

T6i and Tamron 18-400, here I come!

[photoptimist]

T6i and Tamron 18-400, here I come!

What a Rebel!

[mee]

What a Rebel!

You're such a loose Canon with those puns.

[biz-engineer]

One can tape his DFA28-105 at 50mm and write DFA* on the tape.

[Mistral75]

Hopefully the D FA★ 35mm f/1.4 is the best of the three.

I'm afraid it will be a notch below the two others.