[UncleVanya]

I did read a very interesting article on the fa 50 f1.4 that gave poor test results on the k-1. The performance at f1.4 was very soft and the performance at f2 wasn't much better. The lens produces about half the resolution expected until about f2.8, with f2 being in between. Edges were a bit off even after f2.8.

On the other hand, the FA 43 LIMITED was very good starting at wide open.

So maybe the DFA 50 is needed more than I realized.

Pentax SMC FA 50mm F1.4 Review & Rating | PCMag.com

[repaap]

I did read a very interesting article on the fa 50 f1.4 that gave poor test results on the k-1. The performance at f1.4 was very soft and the performance at f2 wasn't much better. The lens produces about half the resolution expected until about f2.8, with f2 being in between. Edges were a bit off even after f2.8.

On the other hand, the FA 43 LIMITED was very good starting at wide open.

So maybe the DFA 50 is needed more than I realized.

Pentax SMC FA 50mm F1.4 Review & Rating | PCMag.com

First of all. FA 43 lim. Is GREAT!

Second, FA 50/1,4 is definetly in need of refreshing. I’v seen great pictures made with it, even on K-1 but you can easily see where is the problem. Especially now when pixel peeping is one of the biggest trend. D-FA * 50/1.4 is gonna face that PP critic, but I suppose that what has been seen so far, it will pass.

[BigMackCam]

FA 50/1,4 is definetly in need of refreshing. I’v seen great pictures made with it, even on K-1 but you can easily see where is the problem. Especially now when pixel peeping is one of the biggest trend. D-FA * 50/1.4 is gonna face that PP critic, but I suppose that what has been seen so far, it will pass.

I love my FA50/1.4, but it doesn't stand scrutiny by today's more critical pixel-peepers. The spherical aberration wide open is actually quite attractive for some types of shot, but the longitudinal CA can be challenging, and stopping down is the only solution. That aside, I like the rendering. On the whole, I find it to be a great little lens, but I can absolutely see why people are excited and impatient to try the D-FA* 50/1.4. It's too rich for my blood, and more than I need in terms of IQ, but I can see there's a market

[repaap]

I love my FA50/1.4, but it doesn't stand scrutiny by today's more critical pixel-peepers. The spherical aberration wide open is actually quite attractive for some types of shot, but the longitudinal CA can be challenging, and stopping down is the only solution. That aside, I like the rendering. On the whole, I find it to be a great little lens, but I can absolutely see why people are excited and impatient to try the D-FA* 50/1.4. It's too rich for my blood, and more than I need in terms of IQ, but I can see there's a market

That is just as you put it. This is little derail of main thread, but I have been re-recovering my old lenses, and A24/2.8 is one of them. Really lovely output, good old film like rendering. But if I would look at it in more modern standards(PP) that lovelines would not float. At all. Now F and FA lenses are great, I for instance love my FA 35/2 and F28/2.8. But then again, you put them head to head with more modern lenses and critical PP ... FA 35/2 passes just(@ f2) and it is really good lens. F28 you have to stop down or avoid having your item at the edges.

Yes, these new * standard lenses are needed. And it is pentax(and Tokina) who has THE most recent and shiny model of them all!

[RonHendriks1966]

That is just as you put it. This is little derail of main thread, but I have been re-recovering my old lenses, and A24/2.8 is one of them. Really lovely output, good old film like rendering. But if I would look at it in more modern standards(PP) that lovelines would not float. At all. Now F and FA lenses are great, I for instance love my FA 35/2 and F28/2.8. But then again, you put them head to head with more modern lenses and critical PP ... FA 35/2 passes just(@ f2) and it is really good lens. F28 you have to stop down or avoid having your item at the edges.

Yes, these new * standard lenses are needed. And it is pentax(and Tokina) who has THE most recent and shiny model of them all!

For these old lenses a 24 megapixel fullframe would be more for giving. The K-1 is just a bit to much I guess.

[jatrax]

For these old lenses a 24 megapixel fullframe would be more for giving. The K-1 is just a bit to much I guess.

Or perhaps our modern expectations are just higher. I think people were far less critical of this type of thing back in film days. The higher resolution lets us see the aberrations easier but even if they were noticeable back then not sure many people would have cared. At least not to the degree people agonize over it today.

[pres589]

Using black and white film probably helped at well; no purple fringe when there's no purple.

I have to be honest; all this hand wringing over the D-FA*50 not being here fast enough seems silly. Instead of complaining that this lens isn't here yet, when there's the FA 50 1.4, DA 50 1.8, D-FA 50 2.8 Macro, and DA*55 (with its vignetting issues) all available brand new and working on full frame today, we could be doing something more productive.... which would be complaining about the next lens that we think we need ASAP. That'll be fun, right?

[MikeyBugs95]

Using black and white film probably helped at well; no purple fringe when there's no purple.

I have to be honest; all this hand wringing over the D-FA*50 not being here fast enough seems silly. Instead of complaining that this lens isn't here yet, when there's the FA 50 1.4, DA 50 1.8, D-FA 50 2.8 Macro, and DA*55 (with its vignetting issues) all available brand new and working on full frame today, we could be doing something more productive.... which would be complaining about the next lens that we think we need ASAP. That'll be fun, right?

I'm just sitting here waiting to hear the price so I can decide between the DA* 11-18, this 50 1.4 or used 150-450. I have a SMC A 50 1.4, a 10-24 and a Bigma so I'm in not too too much of a rush to replace the 50 or the 10-24 but I'd like an AF 50 with weather sealing, a faster UWA (with weather sealing and made by Pentax) and a better ultra telephoto. And since I'm projecting I'd only be able to afford one of them this year...

[repaap]

For these old lenses a 24 megapixel fullframe would be more for giving. The K-1 is just a bit to much I guess.

Yes, it might be that K-1 is too demanding for old lenses. That is IF you are pixel peeping. I had on one of my trip to Europe(Spain, Poland, Austria tour) FA 77, 43 and F 28 and A 24 with me, because I wanted to travel light. In that group of lenses, you could really see the difference.

Or perhaps our modern expectations are just higher. I think people were far less critical of this type of thing back in film days. The higher resolution lets us see the aberrations easier but even if they were noticeable back then not sure many people would have cared. At least not to the degree people agonize over it today.

Something what I wrote up there, goes at here too. It also is matter of taste. Most of ooh and aah's comes from ultra shap pictures. Some of my pictures, that I consider one of my best ones, are not sharp from corner to corner. But it is not so many others that share my exsperience looking at those shots.

Besides, sometimes I do think that pictures are TOO clinical and sharp. but that is different thing all together.

Great to have these modern sharp and superb peace of glass, with state of art mechanics also at pentax stable. It is important.

[jatrax]

Some of my pictures, that I consider one of my best ones, are not sharp from corner to corner.

My top 5 best selling prints are technically terrible. Soft (and not just in corners), one not even in real good focus. One taken with an old Canon point & shoot. But the images are interesting and sell. Better than similar but technically perfect images that do not have quite the same composition or subject.

[RonHendriks1966]

Yes, it might be that K-1 is too demanding for old lenses. That is IF you are pixel peeping. I had on one of my trip to Europe(Spain, Poland, Austria tour) FA 77, 43 and F 28 and A 24 with me, because I wanted to travel light. In that group of lenses, you could really see the difference.

I too did some years ago a real look at the lens quality of the three lenses I used on aps-c. All for portraitscenes and the best was DA*55, then FA*85 and the least of the bunch was FA31. To be honest non of them where bad. Just different types of great. The DA55 had the least number of lensspeckles (all easy to clean in lightroom). So older lenses will have more trouble to hold their ground in modern days.

[normhead]

Because as long as you can find an external cause for your poor photography there is no need to look at your own skills and efforts to create great work.

This is the thing, I was recently shooting indoors with an FA 50 1.7. It's not like I had nothing to shoot with. Given that to date the clients haven't asked for anything but 3840x2160 for viewing on their TV, I doubt the new lens would have made one bit of difference.

It's always great to have the most advanced, but most of the time it's a precaution, "just incase it might make a difference", but it usually doesn't. I've pretty much decided I'll buy one of these lenses, but until there is more choice in focal lengths I won't make a decision. I'm guessing my purchasing decision won't be made for another three years. When any individual lens comes out is pretty much irrelevant to the process. Why do so many have their knickers in a knot?

What is the source of this desperation?

I keep hearing, "If this lens isn't out soon, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue."
The only sane answer is "Well, OK then, you get right on that."

[BigMackCam]

I keep hearing, "If this lens isn't out soon, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue."
The only sane answer is "Well, OK then, you get right on that."

Yep. I'm sure it will be a fantastic lens, and well worth the wait - but not at the expense of shooting, for which there are all manner of relatively modern and vintage choices that will still produce very good results...

[monochrome]

I just put my 43 on the K-1 and fire away. If I never knew about the D FA*50/1.4 I would still be delighted with my images but I wouldn’t wonder whether they could be different. So - since I’ve massively overspent my budget - I’m just going to pretend I don’t know about it and shoot with what I have. That way it doesn’t matter if they need to assign three little pixies to hand assemble 1000 copies for the initial release and it takes until 2021. Won’t make me any more or less happy either way.

[UncleVanya]

I guess my point earlier about all the choices needed to be slightly moderated by the low performance of the FA 50 f/1.4 at the wider f/stops. I am sure there are reasons people feel they need these wide open resolutions and I am not here to say they don't. I am here to say, I can't see needing it. But I sure hope the DA* 55 prices on the used market come down due to this lens... I may have to buy one.