[normhead]

E photozine does have a comparison and it isn't even close

In your opinion. I don't think the comparison says what you think it dose. But compared on different formats it is never going to be precise.
You seem to be saying the DFA*50 1.4 is sharper at the edges than the 50 macro, yet just the other day I read a complaint that the DFA* 50 tested out at over 2 pixels CA at the edges wide open. That's not going to produce peek sharpness. My own personal preference is for less than .7 pixels CA. So ya, the DFA can be addressed as inferior in some aspects. It's not a slam dunk.

You seem to be arguing that you can produce that kind of smooth bokeh without compromising another part of the performance. I'm pretty sure that's not correct..

[Rondec]

In your opinion. I don't think the comparison says what you think it dose. But compared on different formats it is never going to be precise.
You seem to be saying the DFA*50 1.4 is sharper at the edges than the 50 macro, yet just the other day I read a complaint that the DFA* 50 tested out at over 2 pixels CA at the edges wide open. That's not going to produce peek sharpness. My own personal preference is for less than .7 pixels CA. So ya, the DFA can be addressed as inferior in some aspects. It's not a slam dunk.

You seem to be arguing that you can produce that kind of smooth bokeh without compromising another part of the performance. I'm pretty sure that's not correct..

Did you look at the charts on the link I posted?

The DFA *50 has better border sharpness on full frame at f1.4 than the DFA 50 macro has on APS-C at f2.8. That's not a knock on the DFA 50 macro, it is just saying that the DFA *50 is that good.

I've said elsewhere that I shoot with the DA *55 and that I am not going to get the DFA *50 as I don't really need wide open performance and the DA *55 is good enough for me, but there is no denying that the DFA 50 is in a top echelon of lenses and better than a lot of the other lenses in Pentax's line up with regard to performance.

As far as CA, you have to compare like to like. At f2.8, the DFA *50 has less than .5 pixels of CA, both edge and center -- similar to what the DFA 50 macro has at f2.8. It has more at f1.4, but the DFA 50 macro doesn't go to f1.4, so you can't do a comparison there.

[normhead]

Did you look at the charts on the link I posted?

The DFA *50 has better border sharpness on full frame at f1.4 than the DFA 50 macro has on APS-C at f2.8. That's not a knock on the DFA 50 macro, it is just saying that the DFA *50 is that good.

I've said elsewhere that I shoot with the DA *55 and that I am not going to get the DFA *50 as I don't really need wide open performance and the DA *55 is good enough for me, but there is no denying that the DFA 50 is in a top echelon of lenses and better than a lot of the other lenses in Pentax's line up with regard to performance.

As far as CA, you have to compare like to like. At f2.8, the DFA *50 has less than .5 pixels of CA, both edge and center -- similar to what the DFA 50 macro has at f2.8. It has more at f1.4, but the DFA 50 macro doesn't go to f1.4, so you can't do a comparison there.

Honestly, I didn't see numbers for the 50 macro, all I had to go on was the chart.






The 50 macro is more than 100% on the resolution curve, the DFA 50 is less than 100. I rest my case. You do realize that when comparing on different formats, lw/ph is a function of how many lines you can reproduce on the sensor, and the APS-c sensor can produce less lines for the same pixel density, because there are fewer pixels.

What you see as conclusive evidence is far from conslusive in terms of the absolute sharpness of the lens. A Sigma 70 proceeds (at Imaging resources) 2100 lw/ph on a K-5, and 3400 in K-1. It's the same lens different sensors. So this is not direct comparison until we have both lenses tested on FF. But looks to me, if the same criteria is used for both lens graphs, the FA 50 macro has the upper hand.

Not at ƒ11, the 50 macro is excellent centre edge and border, the DFA*50 macro not so much.

At f8 the FA macro is still up in the excellent range even at the edge.The DFA 50 1.4 has fallen into territory that on other sites is what the K-3 could produce with an FA 50.

Impossible to draw conclusions without direct comparison tests, but it doesn't all go the way of the DFA 50 1.4, at least from preliminary scanning of related data. I Know we all want to think we can buy one lens that is best at everything. But I seriously doubt that will ever be a 1.4 lens.

They are best at what they are best at, just like other high quality lenses.

I've seen different numbers fo DFA 50 CA from source I can't find.

[Rondec]

What I think is clear is that the DFA *50 is optimized for performance between f1.4 and f5.6. It isn't a macro lens and if you want to shoot at f8 to f11, particularly in macro settings, obviously the 50 macro is better.

I just have a hard time with people disparaging the DFA *50. It is one of the best lenses that Pentax has produced and has the sort of wide open performance that is unusually good, compared to most other lenses with similar focal lengths on the market.

[normhead]

What I think is clear is that the DFA *50 is optimized for performance between f1.4 and f5.6. It isn't a macro lens and if you want to shoot at f8 to f11, particularly in macro settings, obviously the 50 macro is better.

I just have a hard time with people disparaging the DFA *50. It is one of the best lenses that Pentax has produced and has the sort of wide open performance that is unusually good, compared to most other lenses with similar focal lengths on the market.

And I have trouble with people saying it's everything in a lens. It's not, but I agree, it's best in class performer, and a high point of lens design, in the world, not just the Pentax world. It does what it does best better than any other lens does. And if someone were to dismiss Pentax right now I'd probably say 'Ya, your camera is good, but have you tried the new Pentax 50 1.4" It's a lens for a company to hang it''s hat on. Really the first since the 31 or 77. And I don't own either of those. The fact that the company makes a great lens, doesn't mean it's appropriate for everyone.

[Mistral75]

(...) the new Pentax 50 1.4" It's a lens for a company to hang it''s hat on. Really the first since the 31 or 77. (...)

The first since the FA 77mm Limited, the FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro and the FA 31mm Limited (introduced in 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively) I would say. The FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro was a hell of a lens, even though its sales were almost confidential.

[normhead]

The first since the FA 77mm Limited, the FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro and the FA 31mm Limited (introduced in 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively) I would say. The FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro was a hell of a lens, even though its sales were almost confidential.

I always forget that lens as it's so rarely mentioned.

[robbiec]

What I think is clear is that the DFA *50 is optimized for performance between f1.4 and f5.6. It isn't a macro lens and if you want to shoot at f8 to f11, particularly in macro settings, obviously the 50 macro is better.

I just have a hard time with people disparaging the DFA *50. It is one of the best lenses that Pentax has produced and has the sort of wide open performance that is unusually good, compared to most other lenses with similar focal lengths on the market.

Easy answer to this. Get one of each - As you say the DFA*50s area of excellence is f/1.4 - f/5.6 and the (D)FA50 Macro's area of excellence is from f/4 - f/11. Very different lens' but each have their own personality and qualities. Now if only Pentax would rebody the macro, add HD, the new AF motor, a focus lock and AW, then we'd be laughing. Would be worth at least a hundred threads of my macro 50 is better than your standard 50 type discussions with pixel peeping down to atomic level

[pres589]

Easy answer to this. Get one of each - As you say the DFA*50s area of excellence is f/1.4 - f/5.6 and the (D)FA50 Macro's area of excellence is from f/4 - f/11...

Doesn't the DA 50 1.8 perform quite well from f4 to f11? From those f-stops, unless you're doing actual macro work, why bother with the Macro?

[robbiec]

Doesn't the DA 50 1.8 perform quite well from f4 to f11? From those f-stops, unless you're doing actual macro work, why bother with the Macro?

Quite well and exceptionally well are very different things and stuff we typically like discussing I guess. I wouldn't mention the DA50/1.8 in the same sentence as the HD DFA50, very different beasts and my FA50/2.8 Macro would probably not be adverse to being used as a hammer to actually smash the DA50 into little plastic bits (and I would hypothesize that it would probably perform equally well afterwards )

[pres589]

My point was, if we're able to stop well down, the D-FA 50 Macro and DA 50 1.8 are probably not that different in performance. If you're already the weirdo carrying two 50mm lenses on you at the same time (which was the premise you laid out) why not take the plastic fantastic 50 and leave the weight/bulk/street value of the 50 Macro behind on the shelf?

At f1.x the D-FA*50 beats all comers in k-mount today from what we've been shown so far. At f8, the other two lenses you mentioned beyond the *50 are probably about neck and neck. That's my point.

[Merv-O]

My point was, if we're able to stop well down, the D-FA 50 Macro and DA 50 1.8 are probably not that different in performance. If you're already the weirdo carrying two 50mm lenses on you at the same time (which was the premise you laid out) why not take the plastic fantastic 50 and leave the weight/bulk/street value of the 50 Macro behind on the shelf?

At f1.x the D-FA*50 beats all comers in k-mount today from what we've been shown so far. At f8, the other two lenses you mentioned beyond the *50 are probably about neck and neck. That's my point.

But wide open with the high ISO capability of the K-1 series suggests that they were going for a general all around lens. You can shoot at 5.6 easily even in bright light and possibly use an electronic shutter at 1/12000 for an extra sharp picture. The lens is worth the money, though the weight and size are a bit offputting.

[Rondec]

If you are looking for f8 sharpness, there are tons of lenses that can satisfy. I don't know that that sets the 50 macro apart, except that it has the ability to focus particularly close. But at f8, the DA 50, Sigma 50, FA 50, FA 43, and DA *55 should be all be pretty decent (along with a plethora of older lenses).

There are plenty of people who really do shoot wide apertures a lot. I seldom shoot anything but f2 or f2.8 on my DA *55.

[reh321]

If you are looking for f8 sharpness, there are tons of lenses that can satisfy. I don't know that that sets the 50 macro apart, except that it has the ability to focus particularly close. But at f8, the DA 50, Sigma 50, FA 50, FA 43, and DA *55 should be all be pretty decent (along with a plethora of older lenses).

There are plenty of people who really do shoot wide apertures a lot. I seldom shoot anything but f2 or f2.8 on my DA *55.

The point we are circling around is that different people have different needs, and that leads to different lenses in the bag. Since I would seldom shoot FF {if I had one right now} at below f/8, I would have little use for the "Fat Fifty"; you're needs are obviously a much better fit for it.

[RobA_Oz]

The first since the FA 77mm Limited, the FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro and the FA 31mm Limited (introduced in 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively) I would say. The FA★ 200mm f/4 Macro was a hell of a lens, even though its sales were almost confidential.

We also tend to overlook the FA43 Limited (introduced in 1997), which has become the main reason for my hesitation in obtaining the D FA*50/1.4. The secondary reason is the FA50/2.8 Macro. The tertiary reason is the current price, but the next 15-20% discount offer from CRK in Oz will obliterate that.