[Wheatfield]

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.

I have the A 50/1.2, which is the same optical formula, but I expect the K is better built. I really like the pictures I get from it. It is hard to focus with modern screens.

[Rondec]

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 don't know that I would call it the only normal lens. The FA 43, 50 macro, and DA *55 all feel like they are close enough to qualify and honestly, all of them perform better than the FA 50 f1.4. Of course the queen of the hive is the DFA *50. My experience is that when you have a top end lens you end up taking it with you, regardless of weight, because you can see the difference in the photos.

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.

The FA 50 f1.4 needs to be stopped down at least to f2.8 to be sharp. The biggest thing I found when I used it (on APS-C) was that it really lacked contrast and additionally, it was really prone to flare. You could help the second with a lens hood, but the contrast just wasn't great. Probably giving it an HD treatment and new skin would help it, along with releasing it with a lens hood. Odds are that would jump the price up into the 375 dollar range though, considering the price of the HD FA 35mm.

[pres589]

I have the A 50/1.2, which is the same optical formula, but I expect the K is better built. I really like the pictures I get from it. It is hard to focus with modern screens.

Wheatfield, the want for a 50 1.2 is driven really by my continued shooting of film, where I have nice split prism focusing screens. Otherwise I would need the AF indicator on a digital body or the use of Live View with magnification. Without film I wouldn't be interested in such a lens.

Rondec, yeah, I could see all of that being the case. I would rather see the FA 50 1.7 come back as in an HD variant over the 1.4 and I think that would play better with the other lenses near it in the Pentax portfolio.

[northcoastgreg]

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.

I'm not sure I understand this. So if Ricoh came out with an FF wide angle zoom, that would strongly appeal to APS-C users as well? Are we sure of that? Because when Ricoh gets around to introducing that DFA 70-300 f4.5.6 that's on the roadmap, the DFA zoom line-up will consist of four telephoto zooms, two standard zooms, and one wide-angle zoom. Why is the DFA zoom line-up shaping up to be so telephoto centric? I think there's an obvious explanation. Ricoh may feel reluctant to introduce lenses that would appeal only (or primarily) to their much smaller FF user base. Not many APS-C users are going to buy an expensive (and if they're any good they're expensive) FF wide angle zoom, when they can get cheaper APS-C lenses that cover the same focal range. But APS-C users may be interested in any of the DFA telephoto zooms. Ricoh has even gone so far as to try to make a sales pitch to APS-C users regarding the new DFA 70-210 on their website introducing the lens.

[house]

I'm not sure I understand this. So if Ricoh came out with an FF wide angle zoom, that would strongly appeal to APS-C users as well? Are we sure of that? Because when Ricoh gets around to introducing that DFA 70-300 f4.5.6 that's on the roadmap, the DFA zoom line-up will consist of four telephoto zooms, two standard zooms, and one wide-angle zoom. Why is the DFA zoom line-up shaping up to be so telephoto centric? I think there's an obvious explanation. Ricoh may feel reluctant to introduce lenses that would appeal only (or primarily) to their much smaller FF user base. Not many APS-C users are going to buy an expensive (and if they're any good they're expensive) FF wide angle zoom, when they can get cheaper APS-C lenses that cover the same focal range. But APS-C users may be interested in any of the DFA telephoto zooms. Ricoh has even gone so far as to try to make a sales pitch to APS-C users regarding the new DFA 70-210 on their website introducing the lens.

Thats an interesting argument. Explains the otherwise mindboggling priorities Pentax seems to have.

[Serkevan]

I don't know that I would call it the only normal lens. The FA 43, 50 macro, and DA *55 all feel like they are close enough to qualify and honestly, all of them perform better than the FA 50 f1.4. Of course the queen of the hive is the DFA *50. My experience is that when you have a top end lens you end up taking it with you, regardless of weight, because you can see the difference in the photos.

The Limited and the DA* are substantially more expensive, and the 50 macro is f/2.8. As you said, an HD FA 50/1.4 with lens hold would be already an improvement, which will probably happen when/if they run out of stock. I don't expect a redesign anytime soon.

As for me, while I certainly don't have any top-shelf glass so I haven't had a chance to get too addicted , I tend to use the camera while hiking or city walking, situations in which the lenses are on my back for 8-10 hours. Weight also matters for airlines (although you can get away with a *lot* there by virtue of creative packing )

[sundown]

I'm not sure I understand this. So if Ricoh came out with an FF wide angle zoom, that would strongly appeal to APS-C users as well? Are we sure of that? Because when Ricoh gets around to introducing that DFA 70-300 f4.5.6 that's on the roadmap, the DFA zoom line-up will consist of four telephoto zooms, two standard zooms, and one wide-angle zoom. Why is the DFA zoom line-up shaping up to be so telephoto centric? I think there's an obvious explanation. Ricoh may feel reluctant to introduce lenses that would appeal only (or primarily) to their much smaller FF user base. Not many APS-C users are going to buy an expensive (and if they're any good they're expensive) FF wide angle zoom, when they can get cheaper APS-C lenses that cover the same focal range. But APS-C users may be interested in any of the DFA telephoto zooms. Ricoh has even gone so far as to try to make a sales pitch to APS-C users regarding the new DFA 70-210 on their website introducing the lens.

What I mean is, from my perspective of a full frame user, it will be great to see an affordable wide-angle zoom with variable f-stops that goes to 16, whether that's possible or not - I am not debating that. I don't even mind if the widest goes to 20, I just want 24mm covered and I am only saying I am wishing for it. It's evident that such an 'affordable' zoom range is missing in the FF line, given that that there is supposed work on a 50-300 or 70-300, plus the 28-105, and given that you have a premium wide for aps-c now and affordable ones that reach 16 as well. Maybe a FF wide angle is deserving of that too?

My logic is, should that wide zoom go to 16mm, I would happily buy an APS-C body as well, granted it will be a smaller and lighter body, and my zoom lens collection would consist of a range from 16 to 300. But if such hypothetical wide zoom is created for the D FA line, and if it only goes to 18 or 20, I won't be incredibly interested in an aps-c body. Just my own logic and preference - the best of both worlds.

What I did not mean is that a Full Frame wide-angle, variable F-Stop that goes to 16 will be of an immediate interest to APS-C users. But out of curiosity, how much more expensive do you imagine it to be so that it puts them off? $1,296.00? As much as the current star aps-c wide zoom or the FF 15-30?

[Rondec]

The Limited and the DA* are substantially more expensive, and the 50 macro is f/2.8. As you said, an HD FA 50/1.4 with lens hold would be already an improvement, which will probably happen when/if they run out of stock. I don't expect a redesign anytime soon.

As for me, while I certainly don't have any top-shelf glass so I haven't had a chance to get too addicted , I tend to use the camera while hiking or city walking, situations in which the lenses are on my back for 8-10 hours. Weight also matters for airlines (although you can get away with a *lot* there by virtue of creative packing )

Looking at used prices, the FA 43 is going for 400 and the DA *55 for 360, so not that much out of line with what the FA 50 f1.4 is selling for. I would prefer to save for one of those than to go with the FA 50 f1.4, but I'm glad there are options out there.

[Serkevan]

Looking at used prices, the FA 43 is going for 400 and the DA *55 for 360, so not that much out of line with what the FA 50 f1.4 is selling for. I would prefer to save for one of those than to go with the FA 50 f1.4, but I'm glad there are options out there.

The used market is a completely different story, so I just considered new prices... for the record, I am putting my savings towards a used good quality fast prime, probably a Ltd (whether 43, 70 or 77 is another story...)

[reh321]

The used market is a completely different story, so I just considered new prices... for the record, I am putting my savings towards a used good quality fast prime, probably a Ltd (whether 43, 70 or 77 is another story...)

Being on a fixed income, I am basically using “savings” to live. With my DA 77-420mm PLM {DA 55-300mm PLM + 1.4TC}, DA 55-135 DC, and Sigma 10-30mm on my KP and Q-7, I don’t need anything, so I plan to take photos without spending anything. Of course, if Pentax would revive the “Q” line with a EVF-equipped member, I would look for the money, but I don’t expect that to happen.

[Zygonyx]

Looking at used prices, the FA 43 is going for 400 and the DA *55 for 360, so not that much out of line with what the FA 50 f1.4 is selling for. I would prefer to save for one of those than to go with the FA 50 f1.4, but I'm glad there are options out there.

I got DA*55/1.4 new in London 3 years ago for your price, and i find it largely good enough on K-1 even wide open.

[RobA_Oz]

I have the A 50/1.2, which is the same optical formula, but I expect the K is better built. I really like the pictures I get from it. It is hard to focus with modern screens.

Why would you expect the K version to be better built? From outward appearances, they’re very similar, with the major difference being the front bezel with the lens nomenclature.

I have the A version, and its build seems as good as the K lenses I own, although I don’t have a K 50/1.2 to make a direct comparison.

[northcoastgreg]

But out of curiosity, how much more expensive do you imagine it to be so that it puts them off? $1,296.00?

The problem is that it's expensive to produce a quality wide angle zoom, even if it has a slow aperture. A DFA 18-35 f4-5.6, if it were optically on par with the DFA 28-105, would almost certainly cost more (a good reference point here is the Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5, which sells at B&H—to the much larger Nikon FF user base—for $750). And if Ricoh can't sell many units of the lens, then they would have to charge even more for the wide angle zoom, which would then make it even harder to sell, as increasing price generally leads to fewer sales. But if they bring the price back down, then they have to worry about losing money. It's very challenging to be a budget brand when you have a very small user base.

Would such a lens appeal to APS-C users? It's hard to think so, for two reasons: price and size. Let's say they produced an DFA 18-35 f4-5.6 weighing a little less than a pound and sold it for $700. Why would an APS-C user buy an 18-35 f4-5.6 lens that costs $700? He could buy the DA 20-40 for $200 less, and it would weigh a third of a pound less. He could also buy a DA 16-85 for $200 less and have much more range to work with at roughly the same weight. The only reasonable justification I can think of for buying an FF wide angle zoom for an APS-C camera would be if you were planning to switch to FF later on and you didn't want to be forced to buy all new lenses when you made the switch.

Now I do believe that a slow aperture wide angle zoom is, and will continue for some time, to be the biggest hole in the Pentax FF line-up. The fact that the heavy (and filter ringless) DFA 15-30 is the only DFA game in town wider than 24mm is a real problem.

[house]

The fact that the heavy (and filter ringless) DFA 15-30 is the only DFA game in town wider than 24mm is a real problem.

Yup, I've had several near purchases of a K-1. The idea of the dfa 15-30 as the only wide AF option has made me hold off.

But I really want primes. If they come out with a decent wide prime I might go ff. That is unless I've caved for the DA 11-18 first. Another lens I dont really like.

[reh321]

That is unless I've caved for the DA 11-18 first. Another lens I dont really like.

DA* 11-18?
Why do you not like it??