[BigMackCam]

I haven't shot one since I've been married toTess. I'm sure that will be her decision for the next one. She said, "all you have to do is take a few snapshots". What kind of trained photographer would go to a wedding as a photographer and "take a few snapshots?" I ask you.

I hear the forthcoming D FA 50/1.4 will produce excellent snapshots...

[normhead]

Now that I have a wedding to shoot, I have to have it before march 24. If Pentax doesn't have it out by then I'm switching to Praktika.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 04:02 PM ----------

I hear the forthcoming D FA 50/1.4 will produce excellent snapshots...

But will they be snapshots with Pixie dust?

People like pixie dust in their wedding snapshots.

[BrianR]

That said, I agree that the FA50 f/1.4 is showing its age... though my copy is very definitely usable wide open. Softer than at f/2.8? Of course... but for my personal needs, more than acceptable. At f/2, there's a big jump in centre performance and contrast, though it's still lacking in the borders. By f/2.8 it's very good, and at f/4 onwards it's excellent all round. I fully acknowledge that's not the performance many want or expect from a newly designed fast fifty, but depending on the use case, it's still a powerful lens...

I agree (I've only used mine on aps-c though, no idea what the corners do on FF at any aperture). It's also pretty tiny. And relatively inexpensive. Room for a design at both ends of the design spectrum I'd say

[BigMackCam]

I agree (I've only used mine on aps-c though, no idea what the corners do on FF at any aperture). It's also pretty tiny. And relatively inexpensive. Room for a design at both ends of the design spectrum I'd say

I've used mine mainly on my APS-C Pentax gear, but also on my A7 MkII as a manual focus lens. Border performance is obviously less of an issue on APS-C, though even on FF I find it perfectly usable at wider apertures, including wide open, if the subjects are biased towards the centre of the frame. But, yes - I agree - there's room for something new and premium, and that's what the D FA50/1.4 will be. I won't have the funds nor the applications to justify buying it, but I'm excited to see what it can do in the right hands

[disasterfilm]

I'm just sitting here like a starving sarlacc waiting for Jabba Pentax to release the Jedi DFA*50 so I can gobble up a [relatively] cheap, aging Boba Fett DA*55 or Sigma EX DG 50 from the "must_upgrade" crowd.

[Digitalis]

People like pixie dust in their wedding snapshots.

There is an easy way around this without buying a new camera lens: Buy them some absinthe - that way there will at least be green faeries involved.

[Wheatfield]

Well, two months to go (give or take a year), right?

You're killing me.

[Digitalis]

haven't shot one since I've been married toTess. I'm sure that will be her decision for the next one. She said, "all you have to do is take a few snapshots". What kind of trained photographer would go to a wedding as a photographer and "take a few snapshots?" I ask you.

Me, because I love my friends and at my going rate, they would probably pass out if I ever sent them a bill for my services**. So I just take a Leica M and a basic 50mm...perhaps a tri-elmar and call it a day.

The only thing that matters is that people like the images. Assuming technical measurements tell you that is a mistake.

Technical measurements can tell you a lot about a lens. However it bears mentioning that like a bikini on a woman, what they reveal is interesting: what they hide is vital.

I think most of us are looking for a really good lens with Pentax rendering and K-mount. I have a sneaky suspicion that Pentax rendering and ultra-high resolution may be incompatible. I have noticed that using the same sensor, Pentax is lower resolution than the competing Nikon, but , I like the images better.

I think this is a bit defeatist : there are some really great lenses out there for K mount. Canon is still making some really bad lenses*, Nikon has some too, Sony even with the GM line fall short of their stated objectives. The biggest problem with any lens is usually the photographer using it. I recall one test of a great Olympus macro lens which obtained absurdly high MFT figures in the lab tests - but out in the field ( and at infinity focus), the lens wasn't able to perform anywhere near as well as the optics bench said it would: the problem with macro lenses, as i'm sure you know, is that near 1:1 they often need to be stopped down quite a bit to get usable DOF - and a lot of older macro lenses are optimized to work at closer distances: the lens performed spectacularly with 2D charts at f/4.5 but it performed just as badly as any other macro lens at f/16.

*If they really culled their portfolio: they would probably end up having a lens catalog shorter than Leica.
** this is also the reason why I never work as a wedding photographer. I do take "snapshots" at weddings - they are usually things the professional photographers who don't know the couple in question all that well completely miss.

[robjmitchell]

Me, because I love my friends and at my going rate, they would probably pass out if I ever sent them a bill for my services. So I just take a Leica M and a basic 50mm...perhaps a tri-elmar and call it a day.

Cough.... this is a pentax forum!!
Surely you have a M39 43ltd special you can mount to that camera of yours for double hipster cred!
The 43ltd is a really lovely lens for wedding shap shots too! Be great to pair up with a KP.

[aurele]

Cough.... this is a pentax forum!!

doesn't mean you're not allowed to like other tools.

[Kunzite]

A certain gentleman called Ned Bunnell was almost lynched because of that.

Numerical evaluation is, IMO, important these days - not as much for getting an excellent image, but to convince potential buyers.
I'm optimistic regarding this lens, and the 85mm. The first signs are good.

[thibs]

The lens design goes back to the sixties and it is pretty great actually. Wide open softness is great for portraits.

Sure but that's a portrait lens type of job. Not a normal-standard typical job.

[Rondec]

So far, we've gotten real world images that look pretty nice -- I haven't seen one test chart photo. I suppose we'll see.

To me, the biggest thing that will hold most folks back from purchasing this lens will be price. Release it for 200 or 300 and it would be a different story. It's the same reason that folks have tended to shy away from the FA 31 limited. It is a very nice lens, but there are a cheaper options out there like the FA 35 which are pretty decent. The same will be true of the DFA *50.

[aurele]

A certain gentleman called Ned Bunnell was almost lynched because of that.

He was the CEO of Pentax USA : he had to tell that Pentax was the best as a part of his job. Digitalis ain't an employee of Pentax AFAIK.

[Kunzite]

Because he liked - on his personal blog - another brand's product, I know he was sincere when he was recommending/liking a Pentax or Ricoh product.
For me, sincerity is more important than marketing.