[luftfluss]

Today, lenses needs to be "surgical" in all aspects, without any character. It should be corner to corner sharp while pixel peaking at 400% (or not)?

Not true, really. From what I've seen, the DFA* 50/1.4 has "character", which is bold and contrasty yet with impressively gentle OOF rendering.

In the m4/3 world, Olympus and Panasonic lenses of similar specification often have different rendering signatures. And Olympus has a trio of f/1.2 primes that were designed with a specific aesthetic in mind.

And all these lenses do have good corner sharpness.

[luftfluss]

I know it was voted that, but it didn't make sense to me at the time or now. Compared with lenses like the FA *85, FA 200 f4 macro, and some of the other truly special lenses that Pentax has put out over the years, it is hard for me to call it the best Pentax lens ever.

Don't get me wrong, I really like it, particularly on full frame, but it does have its flaws.

I would have said that it indicates that it is the most used, high quality lens available to Pentaxians. It is reasonably affordable and I have always thought that short telephoto with wide aperture gives a lot of options for bokeh that wider lenses, even those with wide apertures, don't have.

^^^ This and this.


The FA 77 is far more attainable, and folks have seen far more photos from it, than the FA* 85 and especially FA 200/4 Macro. Add the fact that the 77 is part of the iconic Limited series and really what you have is a - fun! - tournament that was tilted strongly towards a popularity contest.

[normhead]

That's not what I said. Read monochrome's post - he describes the situation nicely.
Indeed, we cannot agree on what is "better" (or even "good"), because that's a highly personal judgement and what is better for me might not be better for you. Say, someone is shooting landscapes and would stop down the lens quite a lot; someone else is into astrophotography and want all the light he could get. There can be no product optimally serving both needs.

Then, we each have our preferences, and even when they're conflicting each others' nobody's wrong.

All this means we can only objectively agree that product X is better than product Y at some objectively measurable characteristic C. Say, the D FA* will be sharper center to corner, with faster, silent autofocus, heavier, less purple fringing... but in the end you might still prefer the FA Limited and that would be perfectly fine.

Ya, my opinion exactly. But still, the majority of the forum says the 77 is the best. It should be noted that when dissenting opinions are presented. And if the reasons why it's considered the best aren't accurately presented, the criticism is one sided and by definition unfair.

Personally I don't care what the rest of the forum thinks, if I'm the only dissenter I still like what I like for the reasons I like it. And I hope others would do the same. But to start pointing out the reasons why you think the 77 isn't the best. It doesn't change the vote. And the point is, you're speaking from a minority opinion.

One of the things most valued about the FA ltds was their size. Modern Pentax designs apart from the 55-300, do not even compete. They are not competition for the Ltds, they are whole different class of lens, seeking a level of optical excellence many find pointless and un-necessary.

But to be fair, once we have a few more DFA primes, we should have a new contest to see if the forum has changed it's mind.

[Kunzite]

Not true, really. From what I've seen, the DFA* 50/1.4 has "character", which is bold and contrasty yet with impressively gentle OOF rendering.

In the m4/3 world, Olympus and Panasonic lenses of similar specification often have different rendering signatures. And Olympus has a trio of f/1.2 primes that were designed with a specific aesthetic in mind.

And all these lenses do have good corner sharpness.

Oh, yeah. Very little was compromised in order to make such a lens; and it's still less expensive than the competition. A halo product which is usable and affordable.
What's not to like?

[luftfluss]

Oh, yeah. Very little was compromised in order to make such a lens; and it's still less expensive than the competition. A halo product which is usable and affordable.
What's not to like?

Yeah, 50mm isn't even an espeicially attractive focal length for me but what I see from that lens is sooo good.

[mike22]

Always new options to consider Looks interesting

[reh321]

Yeah, 50mm isn't even an espeicially attractive focal length for me but what I see from that lens is sooo good.

Traditionally, the 50mm lens is used to represent Image Quality of the entire line - and Pentax is very traditional.

[pres589]

Slowly I've come around on 50's. To me they're kind of like 28's; nicely wide-ish on FF, perfectly normal on crop. I like them on both. On full-frame, 50's are a slightly tight normal which is great for a little subject separation, and on crop they're great for portraits and whatever barely-telephoto shots you might want to have. I don't want a lens so large as the D-FA*50 for my own purposes but if I was a serious photog a KP and that lens seems like a seriously great setup for all sorts of work.

I feel like there are a couple of other recent-ish Pentax zooms that do well as far as IQ vs. their physical size, such as the 18-135 and 28-105, that hang with the 55-300 RE. [note, I have not personally used either the 28-105 or the 55-300 RE myself] But by and large, it seems like the situation is Pentax lenses that perform at top-of-class levels are also going to be quite large and heavy. I'm still wanting a D-FA*24 f2 or similar but I don't know if I want to have to lug it around after it lightens my wallet.

[zmohie]

Not true, really. From what I've seen, the DFA* 50/1.4 has "character", which is bold and contrasty yet with impressively gentle OOF rendering.

In the m4/3 world, Olympus and Panasonic lenses of similar specification often have different rendering signatures. And Olympus has a trio of f/1.2 primes that were designed with a specific aesthetic in mind.

And all these lenses do have good corner sharpness.

Yes the dfa*50mm has very pleasant colors rendering and wonderful bokeh plus sharpness across the frame even wide open.

[reh321]

Slowly I've come around on 50's. To me they're kind of like 28's; nicely wide-ish on FF, perfectly normal on crop. I like them on both. On full-frame, 50's are a slightly tight normal which is great for a little subject separation, and on crop they're great for portraits and whatever barely-telephoto shots you might want to have. I don't want a lens so large as the D-FA*50 for my own purposes but if I was a serious photog a KP and that lens seems like a seriously great setup for all sorts of work.

I feel like there are a couple of other recent-ish Pentax zooms that do well as far as IQ vs. their physical size, such as the 18-135 and 28-105, that hang with the 55-300 RE. [note, I have not personally used either the 28-105 or the 55-300 RE myself] But by and large, it seems like the situation is Pentax lenses that perform at top-of-class levels are also going to be quite large and heavy. I'm still wanting a D-FA*24 f2 or similar but I don't know if I want to have to lug it around after it lightens my wallet.

I typically don't use prime lenses any more. At one time I did, but most prime lenses are designed for "FF" cameras, and I haven't had a digital "FF". More importantly, even when I was using 35mm film, I found that with a prime lens, perspective and framing are chained together, while a zoom allows me to pick the perspective I want and then pick the framing I want, and I love the freedom that results from unchaining the two.

[mlt]

An updated 24mm either 1.4, 2.0 or 2.8, with a modern motor and coatings would definitely add to my purchase wish list. The updated 85 F1.4 is still coming, hopefully, so they get on to other things on the road map.

[luftfluss]

Traditionally, the 50mm lens is used to represent Image Quality of the entire line - and Pentax is very traditional.

Oh, sure, it's just that 50mm doesn't work for me enough to drop a grand on - I'd have to sell other lenses to afford it - and I have that approximate focal length nicely covered by the Helios 44-2, DA 40 Ltd, and F 50/1.7...

[house]

I recently saw the lensrentals tamron sigma 35mm showdown. Just look at those (measured) MTF's! The competition is pretty stiff these days and apparently the possible quality has improved hugely recently. This is quite a tough time to launch lenses as you'll need to be ahead of a fast moving curve to be among the best. I don't think that was really the case between the 80's and 00's?

You can't really charge top dollars for a "character" lens.

[reh321]

Oh, sure, it's just that 50mm doesn't work for me enough to drop a grand on - I'd have to sell other lenses to afford it - and I have that approximate focal length nicely covered by the Helios 44-2, DA 40 Ltd, and F 50/1.7...

But the 'DA' is not a "FF" lens, and the others were film lenses built to a different standard
{personally, I like the old standard better, because it resulted in smaller lenses}

[pres589]

I typically don't use prime lenses any more. At one time I did, but most prime lenses are designed for "FF" cameras, and I haven't had a digital "FF". More importantly, even when I was using 35mm film, I found that with a prime lens, perspective and framing are chained together, while a zoom allows me to pick the perspective I want and then pick the framing I want, and I love the freedom that results from unchaining the two.

You shoot Pentax, which has a not-insignificant number of "designed for crop" primes, which is actually a problem when the K-1 came along and there weren't a lot of OEM lenses available for it. Also I don't see the problem with shooting a full frame lens "in the sweet spot" with a crop body (disregarding the whole digital vs. film lens & coatings differences that exist now with 'modern' lenses). I had my Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG out with my K-5 II this past weekend to shoot some wide-portraits and group shots. At no point was I annoyed that it was a full-frame lens; what annoyed me was the hunting AF. If I were to drop some money on a serious improvement to my kit, it would be a fast (f2.0 or faster) prime, preferably a 24mm, and I would want it to be full frame even though I do not intend to move to a K-1 or similar at this time; I love 24mm to 28mm optics on crop. The next move would be to finally update my digital body and make the K-5 II a copy-stand-only unit so that I can have slightly better low-light performance and improved AF. Pentax just doesn't offer this combination at this time and I'm not sure that I want to spend ~$400USD on an FA*24 and I don't really want to pay for a Sigma that might also have hunting/poor AF.