[Kerrowdown]

Some of my boys are asking questions.

My "Ladies" aren't...

They reckon this girl could just be "fast & loose".

Jealousy is a powerful thing when it comes to the fairer sex.

[acoufap]

From what I‘ve seen, I really like the images of the DFA1.4/50. Open aperture usage results are simply very nice IMO. Until now I only own the old M1.7/50. This new lens is extremly heavy compared to the older normal primes.

Is the new one for me?

I like to shoot FF/50mm wide open. The images I took with M1.7/50@K-1 and posted on PF I didn‘t post in the 50mm lens thread but in the K-1 or Bokeh thread. Maybe others did it similar. So I‘d not take the 50mm lens thread as a measure.

Concerning weight I think in absolute weight, not relative to size or zoom range. When I bought the K-1 I tried the DFA24-70. I liked the handling but I didn‘t want to offer more money. I first wanted to use my M1.7/50 with the K-1 to some extend.

Since it showed to be a really good lens I later decided to buy the DFA28-105 - much cheaper than the DFA24-70 and much less weight.

I also tried the DFA15-30, DFA70-200 and DFA150-450 at the shop and realized I don‘t want to wear that heavy. Although I really would like to own the DFA150-450 for stationary work ... or something like f4/400 if it would exist.

Back to the DFA1.4/50. 1 kg is heavy. I guess it‘s around the border I‘d take with me on hiking or in the city. It would be a fast option for special projects. Slower apertures starting from f4.5@48/53mm are very well / good enough covered by the DFA28-105 IMO. But there are times when I‘d like to go faster.

Who has unlimited budget? Me not and I‘m a K-1 and KP user - so I always think about what one lens can deliver for both sensor formats since I want to apply my money efficiently. Like normhead I tend to prefer a modern 20mm prime or 20-35mm zoom as my next purchase. Such a lens would be great on both formats, FF and APSC.

My compromise hope is / was the DAf2.8/11-18. If it delivers good IQ at 18mm with FF coverage it would be sufficient for me. Now I have to wait another year ...

If somebody thinks he/she can make the same quality pictures with a mobile phone we’ve seen taken using DFA1.4/50@K-1/K-1II and it would work under every condition, he‘d / she‘d be a fool buying the DFA1.4/50. I‘d suggest to buy this mobile phone.

P.s. Are there mobile phones that deliver the angle of view of 50@FF natively without cropping?

[biz-engineer]

That DFA*50 1.4 looks definitely a great lens. That say, when I look over the Tamron SP 35/45/85 1.8, they still find them appealing, and I still don't see the Pentax DFA*85 1.4 coming soon, and still no seeing that 20mm f4 prime to replace my bulky DFA15-30. For the time being I'll pass on the DFA*50 and wait to see what Ricoh are doing for the k mount.

[TwoUptons]

more more

More important than the image quality... did it come with the stickers?

They'll sell twice as many if it comes with those AOG stickers

-Eric

[Sandy Hancock]

More important than the image quality... did it come with the stickers?

They'll sell twice as many if it comes with those AOG stickers

Yeah, I'll be pissed if I don't get those stickers

[5r82]

Seem like you are talking about this shot: At the swamps - Pentax User Photo Gallery
Quite revealing.

My friend you won't believe the colours of the nature in my place at the beginning of October

[solitudebound]

It's seems that the lens is finally being shipped, or have i spoken too soon? Lately it seems to start and stop shipping on a whim.

[Kunzite]

Of course shipments started - and of course there's some scarcity, instead of all stores being fully supplied.

[Robin]

*sigh* that probably means it will only reach the Southern tip of Africa next year... by which time I might have saved enough money!

[clickclick]

My friend you won't believe the colours of the nature in my place at the beginning of October

What lens did you use on your K1 to take this? The exif is saying a Sigma or Tamron and then lists several Sigma models. It's honestly looking a bit decentered to me - the left side isn't keeping up as well as other areas, but center sharpness seems OK. Always curious to how the different lenses perform.

[normhead]

Odds are that the DFA *50 gets its own club. A lot of what focal lengths we use have to do with quality of lenses we own at various focal lengths. I don't shoot a whole lot with 50mm lenses, but I can tell you if I owned this lens, the number would go up by a significant amount. It's why I have quite a few shots done at 31mm and 77mm, even though those are really odd focal lengths.

As for size, it is a good sized lens, but not any bigger than any of the zooms I shoot with routinely. Put it in a well balanced camera back pack and you wouldn't even notice it.

That is so true. If you get a lens you really like you tend to use it more than your other lenses.

Any of us who grew up in the 60's will tell you, if you want to get along with just this lens, you'll do just fine. If they'd made it a macro, I might actually believe that could work for me. Half my images on given walk are macros. That's my big complaint with this lens. I have the SMC 50 1.4, which I don't use because it doesn't focus sloe enough. I can get better out of focus areas for many images by moving closer with the 50macro than the SMC 50 1.4 can fccus.

[reh321]

These images don't show anything unfortunately. At least they don't show the strengths normally considered to evaluate the quality of a lens, in this case a 1kg prime. They look as if they were taken with mobile phone camera.

This one doesn't
Random Flowers - PentaxForums.com

[monochrome]

This one doesn't
Random Flowers - PentaxForums.com

Tell, brother.

[normhead]

If you don’t look closely, critically or long enough, anything can seem as good as a mobile phone photo, especially if you have no reference nearby at the time. If you’re only going to post to Snapchat or the like, this lens clearly isn’t for you. Print anything to go on a wall at a good size, and you’ll be able to see a difference, if you really look. Mind you, some mobile phone photos can be pretty good, but I wouldn’t rely on one for every photo I take. Then again, I do know some people who think Beats headphones are the bees knees. Whatever...

I'm philosophically opposed to viewing prints at anything other than a normal viewing distance.

if you really look

That's work, not pleasure.
There's a difference between "there's a difference", and "one is more pleasant to look at than the other."
I ignore small technical differences and go with "Do I like that photograph."

I'm always amazed at how cavalier people can be tossing these types of statement around. Lots of opinion, never any kind of proof. Photography is a visual art, the only true measure of IQ is visual effect. The camera used to achieve that effect is hugely over-rated on the forum. and almost everywhere, amongst amateurs.

The answer is simple, if you make a balnket statement, post a few photos to show what you're talking about.

Better yet, don't make blanket statements. They by definition ignore a large part of reality.

[RobA_Oz]

I'm philosophically opposed to viewing prints at anything other than a normal viewing distance.



That's work, not pleasure.
There's a difference between "there's a difference", and "one is more pleasant to look at than the other."
I ignore small technical differences and go with "Do I like that photograph."

I'm always amazed at how cavalier people can be tossing these types of statement around. Lots of opinion, never any kind of proof. Photography is a visual art, the only true measure of IQ is visual effect. The camera used to achieve that effect is hugely over-rated on the forum. and almost everywhere, amongst amateurs.

The answer is simple, if you make a balnket statement, post a few photos to show what you're talking about.

Better yet, don't make blanket statements. They by definition ignore a large part of reality.

Well, I’d agree with some of that, except “normal viewing distance” is often a range of distances – you can either stand back and take in the whole, or move closer and take in the detail, where it exists. If you hold something in your hand to view it, maybe there’s not so much of a range.

But I agree that I should have been more specific – the context of my statement was in response to another blanket statement about the photos from the D FA*50 that were linked by the OP. Making some of them from a phone camera would have involved a great deal of work in post (for a start, the average phone camera has a FoV equivalent to a 28mm FL), and even then they would probably have appeared less than convincing to someone who’s done such work themselves.

I have done some of that, though. The most recent was to take a phone photo of my late brother-in-law and doctor it to crop in closely and to blur the background, to be printed on the memorial card for his funeral. It did the job, for the size it was printed, but had it been on an A4-sized pamphet, rather than the 10x15cm card, it wouldn’t have been so effective, not that many other people would have noticed from the arm’s-length viewing distance.

So, I suppose the question remains from all this: are we making pictures or art, or both? Is all that creamy bokeh, the smooth transition areas, the colour and the microcontrast something worth having, or have we all wasted our money on buying all this gear? After all, what looks good to one person may not be as pleasing to another. We’ve all paid our money: should we just have waited until the phone camera software got to the stage where that’s all we needed? Maybe the response will only ever be a post facto rationalisation. Thank heavens my wife doesn’t think so.