[PJ1]

the DA 50 1.8 is not as good as FA 50 f1.4 which is not nearly as good as D-FA* 50/1.4

And none of them are as good as the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 (8 element). It's time they updated a real lens.

[pres589]

It depends on the lens and purpose if I'm okay with variable aperture or not. Landscapes? Sure, variable aperture is okay with me, rarely would I shoot wide open. Portraits? Please give me a constant f4. If the Pentax 28-105 was a constant f4, I would have purchased that recently, instead of the Tamron 28-75. The goal is general purpose and portraits and I don't think variable aperture makes sense there.

---------- Post added 02-26-20 at 05:47 PM ----------

And none of them are as good as the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 (8 element). It's time they updated a real lens.

Now you have me thinking about modern coatings on the M 50 f4 Macro, like an HD M flavor. I give this concept two thumbs up!

[sundown]

I dream of the rumoured D FA 50-300 3.5-5.6 and an imaginary D FA 18-35 4-5.6 or something similar and I will be happy . Ideally, if they make a wide zoom and stretch it to 16mm, that will be fantastic, you will cover so much ground with an aps-c camera with these 2 lenses and a D FA 28-105 (apart from covering ground in FF of course) .. and it will all be sharp at f/8 for landscapes ^_^. FF owners like myself will be tempted to buy another crop Pentax down the line.

[house]

Totally agree for f/4 vs f/2.8 for price, size and weight reason. Personally, I also don't understand why they put rounded aperture blade on a landscape lens... My question was just what is the point of wishing a lens were constant f/4 when it is f/2.8-4 lens.

Star bursts are an annoying aberration. They distract from the scene and block out some of it.

[ThorSanchez]

Star bursts are an annoying aberration. They distract from the scene and block out some of it.

Except when they add some pop or artistry to a scene, or are just a tasteful and complimentary part of a photo. I'll often use the 15mm LTD (non-HD version) specifically for the starbursts.

[reh321]

And none of them are as good as the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 (8 element). It's time they updated a real lens.

I would prefer something the size of the older lenses, but I'm not sure it would sell these days. The old lenses had interesting rendering in the middle, but people today seem to expect the corner-to-corner sharpness that wasn't a thing back then.

[superdave]

Star bursts are an annoying aberration. They distract from the scene and block out some of it.

Starbursts still exists with rounded aperture blades... but they are ugly and distracting.

[Wheatfield]

Just for my information, why many people prefer a constant f/4 instead of f/2.8-4, I never understood?

If one is doing fill flash, a constant aperture becomes very important. Otherwise, it isn't that big a deal.
At one time, the manufacturers more or less differentiated their high end zooms from the ones for the plebs by whether it was a constant aperture or not.

---------- Post added Feb 27th, 2020 at 11:01 AM ----------

Yes and the DA 50 1.8 is not as good as FA 50 f1.4 which is not nearly as good as D-FA* 50/1.4 and all of them are currently being offered by the same manufacturer.

The FA 50/1.4 is a relic which should be put out of it's misery, the DA 50 and D FA* 50s are for different formats. I suspect they keep the FA 50 around simply because it costs them nothing to do so, and it gives a very inexpensive, albeit quite inferior, alternative to the F FA* lens.

[Serkevan]

The FA 50/1.4 is also a fourth of the weight and size. One could bring the HD FA 35/2, the FA 50/1.4 and the D-FA 100/2.8 WR macro together (all available new), plus an M20/40, and still be under the weight of the D FA* 50/1.4 (and probably even under the size). The three new lenses together cost $120 more than the super-fifty, as well.


Having the only normal lens be out of reach of most folks is not a clever marketing decision.

[pres589]

The FA 50/1.4 is a relic which should be put out of it's misery, the DA 50 and D FA* 50s are for different formats. I suspect they keep the FA 50 around simply because it costs them nothing to do so, and it gives a very inexpensive, albeit quite inferior, alternative to the F FA* lens.

Is the FA 50 1.4 really that bad? Meaning, no better really than my M 50 1.4? Pentax's 50ish line-up would look really odd if the FA 50 1.4 was gone; FA 43 Ltd, DA 50 1.8, D-FA 50 2.8 Macro, DA*55 1.4, and then the D-FA*50 1.4. I guess we have plenty of 50's but it seems like the FA 50 1.4 fills a noticeable hole in that group.

[zapp]

The FA 50/1.4 is also a fourth of the weight and size. One could bring the HD FA 35/2, the FA 50/1.4 and the D-FA 100/2.8 WR macro together (all available new), plus an M20/40, and still be under the weight of the D FA* 50/1.4 (and probably even under the size). The three new lenses together cost $120 more than the super-fifty, as well.


Having the only normal lens be out of reach of most folks is not a clever marketing decision.

I still go for the DFA 50, but I also agree that smaller lenses are needed for many different reasons. Small standard lenses are covered, so offer something more special to the rest.

[Serkevan]

I still go for the DFA 50, but I also agree that smaller lenses are needed for many different reasons. Small standard lenses are covered, so offer something more special to the rest.

Honestly, while I would love to have a DFA* to play around with - it would stay at home most of the time. When traveling I normally don't want to carry a lens that weighs as almost as much as my DFA 28-105 + Tokina 70-210/4.5 put together.

[biz-engineer]

The FA 50/1.4 is also a fourth of the weight and size. One could bring the HD FA 35/2, the FA 50/1.4 and the D-FA 100/2.8 WR macro together (all available new), plus an M20/40, and still be under the weight of the D FA* 50/1.4 (and probably even under the size). The three new lenses together cost $120 more than the super-fifty, as well.

What folks might not realize is that the latest prime lens designs resolve in corners as much as the maximum resolving power a FA lens can achieve in the center stopped down.
So yes, the newer lenses are larger heavier more expensive, but the quality is significantly superior to the old glass. There is a market reason why old glass is cheaper, if it was more expensive nobody would get any old glass, all purchased would be on the new glass.

[Wheatfield]

Is the FA 50 1.4 really that bad?

No, the D FA* 50/1.4 is that good.

Meaning, no better really than my M 50 1.4? Pentax's 50ish line-up would look really odd if the FA 50 1.4 was gone; FA 43 Ltd, DA 50 1.8, D-FA 50 2.8 Macro, DA*55 1.4, and then the D-FA*50 1.4. I guess we have plenty of 50's but it seems like the FA 50 1.4 fills a noticeable hole in that group.

Actually, I think the M is the better lens. I did a head to head with the FA and D FA* 50/1.4s. The new lens was far and away superior until about f/8 where the FA caught up quite a bit.

[pres589]

Interesting. I figured that the M 50 1.4 was the worst of all Pentax k-mount 50 1.4's, and not based on my own experiences, as it's the only 50 1.4 I own. I don't doubt that the FA 50 gets much better stopped down and I've the same experience with my M 50.

My hope is to eventually move to either a K 50 1.2 or one of the better 55 f1.2 k-mount lenses designed by Tomioka and made by Cosina.