Originally posted by Rondec The FA 50 isn't even a 90s lens. It is a lens based on an optical formula that goes back to at least the 60s. The F series added auto focus in 87, but this and the DA *55 were the first lenses in the 50s that weren't based on decades old formula.
Honestly, looking at the photos, there is no comparison between the DFA *50 lens's rendering and the FA 50 f1.4.
What about the comparisons with the 55 1.4?
It is true, my 50s have a lot more use since I bought the K-1, but it's still pretty small. The numbers I quoted above are images taken since I bought the K-1.
I wonder how many forum members have ordered or are planning to order this lens. Personally, I'd love to order one, I'm just don't think that with my limited retirement income (coupled with no overtime or bonuses) it would be good use of limited funds.
After all, lots of people think I should have a 150-450, and I definitely want whatever wide angle they might come out with, as long as it's 24mm or less. SO there are two lenses I really would like to get, both more compelling for my shooting than a 50. Yet, part of me thinks "you really need to have a good 50". I would have loved it for the wedding I shot.(Which I shot mostly with the FA 50 1.7) And those are 200 keepers not included in my above count. They are in a separate library.)
Life is full of decisions with that have to be made when there's no good clear cut answer.
If I'm ever asked to do another wedding, maybe I'll consider it.
Last edited by normhead; 07-20-2018 at 08:57 AM.