[biz-engineer]

????????? ??DFA50mmF1.4?? - ????Google translationGoogle ??

Extracts from the translation:

-> "we will try our best to ensure objectivity of the review"

-> "no [Pentax] camera is born, and the ceiling of image quality is constantly improving"
Need to try objectivity harder. The ceiling of image quality has reached a plateau since the D800E. For me it's impossible to distinguish a K1 photo from a D850. And I am not sure how much sharpness is needed at f1.2. We live in a world where more and more opinions are disconnected from practical realities.

[ayersliao]

Thank you. Yours is the mobile phone version of the document. Here below the one for computers:

「星」勢力來襲！HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW 大光圈定焦鏡評測！ - Pentax單眼相機 - 相機討論區 - Mobile01

Google translation

Hi Folks,
It is clearly a pity that the author of this review is a Pentax hater. In Mobile01, the reliability of a Pentax-related article would be better if written by another guy.

1) In this article, the author said, "Its magnification ratio is 0.18x, so the macro ability is alright"
==> Com'on, someone replied in the thread saying
Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART 0.18X
Nikon AFS 50mm f1.4 G 0.15X
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM 0.11X
Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA 0.15X

2) The author said, "According to MTF, central sharpness in F1.4 is OK, and corner sharpness needs to be improved"
==> I think it was out of focus in the photo. And, I think the author is the only one who feels the sharpness is merely OK

3) The author said, "The combo of K-1 ii and DFA*50 weighs almost 2 kg. It's a huge burden. PENTAXIANS COULDN'T HELP BUT HOPELESSLY STICK TO IT. IT CAN'T BE HELPED."
==> Logic????? Just a Pentax hater.
==> Taiwanese lesson: 愛到卡慘死 literally means "Love and die tragically". It is usually used to describe a woman married to a jerk.

4) The author said, "Corner is not sharp until F4"
==> DFA* is sharper than its competitors actually. But the author just ignored the fact.

5) Poor LoCA
==> Well, maybe at this point he is not totally wrong. In different reviews, DFA* demonstrates more LoCA but less in other reviews. The author should have tried other lenses in the same position.

6) The author said, "I thought its flare and ghost would be scarce, but they are obvious."
==> I think in such harsh scene, other lenses would show more flare and ghost.

7) The author appraised its starburst, vignette, and lack of cat-eye effect.

8) The author in conclusion said, "K-1 ii is TOOOO SLOOOOOOOW. Shooting pace would be bothered and interrupted severely."
==> Hello? Are you reviewing the camera?

9) The author complained about the high price
==> It's not a third party lens OK?

So, I think his review is similar to that by DPreview, both written by Pentax -haters.

[Fontan]

Reviews are just reviews, and I read them but I put more emphasis on files so I can instinctively evaluate it myself, if I were in the market for that particular lens. Otherwise I don’t read them. I just don’t care what others think of Pentax products. The truth of the matter is that very few of us can differentiate subtle differences from one brand of lens to another at a certain focal length by just looking at files. To me just too much talk for too little benefit.

[Wheatfield]

When are they going to update this lens? It's been out for well over a month now.

How do you update perfection?

[swanlefitte]

How do you update perfection?

I don't know but it needs to test better than..."Canon 35mm f/1.4 is our highest rated lens ever tested under this methodology, with a score of 42.42 Nanometers!!!!"
Lens Rentals | Blog
😅😅😅

[monochrome]

I don't know but it needs to test better than..."Canon 35mm f/1.4 is our highest rated lens ever tested under this methodology, with a score of 42.42 Nanometers!!!!"
Lens Rentals | Blog
������

Out of curiosity I clicked the ‘Lens Rentals Database’ link to see what else has been tested. (or is this lens Best because it is Only, so far)?

The link is a YouTube Video.

[swanlefitte]

Out of curiosity I clicked the ‘Lens Rentals Database’ link to see what else has been tested. (or is this lens Best because it is Only, so far)?

The link is a YouTube Video.

Total sarcasm.

[Tom S.]

How do you update perfection?

By offering a $300 rebate?

[Wheatfield]

By offering a $300 rebate?

Well, that would be how to cheapen it.

[Mistral75]

Detailed review (seven pages) of the HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW by Jean-Marie Sépulchre for Le Monde de la Photo (a French monthly magazine, print + web):

TEST Pentax HD D-FA* 50 mm f/1,4 SDM AW [BONUS MDLP N°110] - Le Monde de la Photo

Pros:

• Build quality
• Very high level of sharpness
• No distortion.

Cons:

• Chromatic aberrations are a little strong
• High price.

[Wheatfield]

I'd say that's an excellent solution. I can't speak for the FA43 (although I'd love to own one), but the DA70 is a very fine lens for portraiture, so long as you have a little room to work with. And it's both tiny, and light... shoot all day without breaking sweat

Old post to be replying to, I realize, but on APS-C, I think the 70 is a better lens than the 77. Their rendering is very similar, with the 70 requiring significantly less working distance. When we got a room with enough length to really back up, I would be using the A*85/1.4 for full lengths, but that was just because I could. The 70 held it’s own in the studio.
I have the 43, I quite like it, but most of the time its the wrong lens for me. When its the right lens, it is very nice indeed.

[Mistral75]

If the HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW is too expensive for your budget, just buy a half one.



Picture taken by somebody from the Fujiya Camera shop and posted on Twitter フジヤカメラ店 (@fujiyacamera) | Twitter

[normhead]

Detailed review (seven pages) of the HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW by Jean-Marie Sépulchre for Le Monde de la Photo (a French monthly magazine, print + web):

TEST Pentax HD D-FA* 50 mm f/1,4 SDM AW [BONUS MDLP N°110] - Le Monde de la Photo

Pros:

• Build quality
• Very high level of sharpness
• No distortion.

Cons:

• Chromatic aberrations are a little strong
• High price.

Aberrations are strong compared to what?

[Mistral75]

The detailed comment (page 4) is the following:

L’aberration chromatique est un peu trop élevée à f/1,4 avec une frange de 2,1 pixels, mais elle diminue notablement pour devenir très bonne (0,8 pixel) aux ouvertures moyennes.

Translation: 'Chromatic aberration is a bit too high at f/1.4 with a fringe of 2.1 pixels but it drops noticeably to become very good (0.8 pixel) at medium apertures.'

[Wheatfield]

It's called diffraction, on some sensors you won't notice until f/11, on others you might see effects @ f/5.6. Diffraction will be the result of both the lens and sensor combination.

But also as I pondered out loud (tongue in cheek) if perhaps during the test that the ISO was raised as the lens was stopped down which may have brought the NR accelerator into play and take a percentage of absolute resolution as shown in the MTF50 chart. This would make more sense to me than what looks to be almost a 10% drop between f/5.6 & f/8.0 on a brand new optic.

I don't know about 10% better than f/8, but 5.6 is the best aperture for this lens, and at f/5.6 it is quite awesome.

It would be a pretty incredible lens for outdoor portraiture on APS-C, though the model would need either have a flawless complexion or look like Sam Elliot. I think it would be a bit of a waste in the studio because it's wonderful bokeh wouldn't show as much.

---------- Post added 03-02-19 at 05:01 PM ----------

I have to say, that would be my choice too. Phenomenal though the DFA*50/1.4 clearly is, for APS-C work the DA*55 is way more than capable...

I didn't really like the bokeh from the DA*55/1.4. Nice sharp lens though it needs to be stopped down a bit. One of my best photos was shot with it.
It's a great studio lens, the bad bokeh isn't important.