Originally posted by monochrome And the hood is missing the polarizer window. These things are collector money. They have to be perfect.
He is asking collector money for something that isn’t even user quality. Missing the polarizer door is a fairly minor flaw in a user lens, but the amount of fungus in that one is quite alarming. I don’t see it as being user quality. It might be an OK parts lens, but nothing more.
---------- Post added 03-27-19 at 10:27 AM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome I think every lens has its own character.
This is why I have at least half a dozen 50mm lenses. Every one of them excels at something and while not necessarily failing elsewhere, is not playing to all it’s strengths. Even the new DFA 50/1.4 has a failing, that being it’s a bit big and heavy if one is going for a long walk.
Quote:
We as a group want to rate, score and rank everything, declare one the objective winner and then argue about the result. We argue because Best comes after Better and Better comes after Good, but we don’t always agree what precisely defines ‘Good’. There is no universally accepted Standard so there can be no universally agreed best lens..
If one breaks things down to fit for purpose if becomes easier. Certainly the 50/2.8 Macro is the better close focus lens, but it is not the best low light or limited DOF lens.
Quote:
Bench testing the FA50/2.8 Macro against the DFA*50/1.4 on a K-1 would be an interesting exercise, but ithe scores wouldn’t answer the question which is a better lens. First, we wouldn’t agree on what defines good. Second, a bench test doesn’t allow subjective character elements to be scored.
Throwing in the 8-element Super Takumar 50/1.4, the DA*55/1.4 and the FA43/1.9 would just further muddy the waters. The 4 of those 5 lenses that I have are all ‘Best of’ in one way or another, but none is, in all ways, Best.
[EDIT] On second thought, the DFA*50 is.
Bench testing takes everything to the lowest common denominator. You have to be far enough away from the target that the longest focusing lens can compete, you have to have enough light that the slowest one can compete, etc.
This is why I’m not really much for lens tests. They don’t really tell you much about how a lens performs at it’s best, only how it performs at another lens’s worst.
Comparing a DFA 50/1.4 an FA50/1.4 macro is, in my mind a pretty pointless exercise. Comparing it to the other non macro 50mmish lenses is somewhat more useful since they are all designed for similar purpose.
Oh wait, I pretty much did just that very thing. The D FA* 50/1.4 blew them all away in every metric except portability.
---------- Post added 03-27-19 at 10:36 AM ----------
Originally posted by fsge I believe 900 copies of this FA*200 is closer to reality.
You had a great deal with yours !
900 is still not a lot of them, and I expect there has been some attrition, which is sad, as it is as fine a lens as can be had.
I first saw the FA200/4 Macro at a photography seminar in 2005. I decided I wanted one and when I got home checked and it was still listed on the PCI website to I had my local pusher order one. He gave me a price quote of just over $3K and asked if I really wanted it at that price. I said yes, because I’m just a boy who can’t say no.
He got back to me the next day saying it was no longer available, so I put some pressure on him, pointing out that Pentax was still listing it. He went to work and called around, and found one in a Reps kit in the USA. PCI brought it up, did a full CLA on it and sent it out. I ended up paying $1300.00 for it.
Sometimes it pays to be a one person profit center for a company.