[Jazzyboy]

Yahoo... Thanks Redpigeons... what I like more than compliments on my photos is compliments on the design of my website... it was hard work and still uncomplete.

[Class A]

I moved (a revised version of) my posting to the "Pentax SLR Lens Discussion" version of this thread. Perhaps the moderators could merge them?

[Rupert]

I want this lens because it is a fine looking lens, with that very handsome hood. What a sight it would be mounted on my K20D!
Otherwise, it is most likely overpriced and if better than the 50 1.4, not by much....and I am guessing at that conclusion. Some other sites have given it a much higher rating than DPR...but what's new about that? If it says Pentax on the body or lens, DPR automatically assigns a "Just" or "Barely" to it before they get it out of the box. If you want the truth, it is better to trust the shooters you know than DPR. I only know one that has the DA55* and he says it is a fantastic lens...his favorite, and he has never lied to me. And....it does look great!
Regards
Rupert

[Jazzyboy]

If Pentax is not able anymore to release affordable 50 or fifty-something mm f/1.4 lenses, they really should consider giving us a 50mm f/1.7 like they used to.
No DA*, just a simple DA or better... a DFA.

[melander]

I don't feel pissed by this review. This lens is definitely too expensive and it's not even full frame... If you think about it, this 55mm was the first of the overpriced lenses Hoya has been cooking for us since last year. The 60-250mm was the next one and then we had the price increase of all the other lenses.
If their plan is to continue to sell overpriced lenses, then they have to meet perfection otherwise it's not worth it.

Actualy, it do cover full frame. Read the review again.

[Rondec]

Yes, both the 60-250 and the 55 cover full frame (as posted by falconeye). Whether people like it or not, Pentax released the 55 to compete, not with other 50s, but with the spot of the 85 f1.4, just as the 60-250 is to compete with 100-400 lenses. I am sure that when Pentax looked at their pricing, they felt like they were competitive in their prices, but the problem is that 55 is still 55, whether it is on a crop frame or not.

[wlachan]

Follow the same logic, the DA*200/2.8 should be priced between 3-5k since it is competing with FF 300/2.8.

[baldeagle21b]

As usual, dpreview plays down the positive and plays up the negative, and makes the common error of comparing the FA50/1.4 with the DA*55/1.4. It's as if Andy Westlake reads the forum and summarized the comments in his review. I tire of that place and its group hysteria.

[Jazzyboy]

Actualy, it do cover full frame. Read the review again.

You cannot even justify the price saying it's a fullframe lens because it's not.
This myth of some DA lenses being also fullframe lenses is just adding more confusion to a Pentax complex lens strategy already.
Of course you can choose to play it hardcore and for instance take your DA 40mm Ltd and put it on a fullframe body.
If you don't have a good friend near you at that moment, nobody can prevent you from doing that. But the next thing you'll have to do is take a knife (a japanese knife, they are the best) and cross off the limited mention on the lens because given the images it will produce, it will no longer deserve to be called "Limited". The same thing goes with your fullframe 55mm Da*

You should read again the last sentence of my post :
"If their plan is to continue to sell overpriced lenses, then they have to meet perfection otherwise it's not worth it."

I am sure that when Pentax looked at their pricing, they felt like they were competitive in their prices, but the problem is that 55 is still 55, whether it is on a crop frame or not.

Exaxtly. They should have thought about it.

[wlachan]

You should read again the last sentence of my post :
"If their plan is to continue to sell overpriced lenses, then they have to meet perfection otherwise it's not worth it."

Ditto. People are willing to pay when quality is assured. Quite possible all their reference samples are damn good, but the chance of getting the same quality in the consumer level is so much more important than how much potential they had.

[melander]

You cannot even justify the price saying it's a fullframe lens because it's not.
This myth of some DA lenses being also fullframe lenses is just adding more confusion to a Pentax complex lens strategy already.
Of course you can choose to play it hardcore and for instance take your DA 40mm Ltd and put it on a fullframe body.
If you don't have a good friend near you at that moment, nobody can prevent you from doing that. But the next thing you'll have to do is take a knife (a japanese knife, they are the best) and cross off the limited mention on the lens because given the images it will produce, it will no longer deserve to be called "Limited". The same thing goes with your fullframe 55mm Da*

You should read again the last sentence of my post :
"If their plan is to continue to sell overpriced lenses, then they have to meet perfection otherwise it's not worth it."


Exaxtly. They should have thought about it.

No, But I justify the price with it beeing weather sealed, awesome build quality and stunning pictures (yes, I do have one)

And I never said it was designed for full frame, only that it covers fullframe all the way down to f1.4.

I have an idea, go out and do this to your FA50


Sony Ericsson c702

This is why I pay to get DA* lenses. To be able to go out in rain, snow, sand, etc etc without even a second tought about the camera/lens. When your out in the wilderness be it on foot or in a kayak you dont wanna have to worry about your camera.

[Pål Jensen]

You cannot even justify the price saying it's a fullframe lens because it's not.
This myth of some DA lenses being also fullframe lenses is just adding more confusion to a Pentax complex lens strategy already.
.

I don't know if it is FF or not, but it makes no sense not making it FF. Actually making standard lenses (ie. 50mm or longer) or telephoto lenses covering the APS image circle only probably cost more money than making them FF; they have to include a baffle that limits the image circle - totally pointless. The Pentax DA* telephotos are all FF and I would assume the DA* 55/1.4 to be as well. The APS image circle limitation only works dividents for wide angles.....

[Pål Jensen]

Follow the same logic, the DA*200/2.8 should be priced between 3-5k since it is competing with FF 300/2.8.

One should take into consideration that the sales volume of the 55/1.4 is very small. It also a brand new construction. The FA 50/1.4 optics dates from the 60's. It has sold millions in one form or other in the days all cameras came with a 50mm lens.
However, one should expect better quality control.....

[Pål Jensen]

If Pentax is not able anymore to release affordable 50 or fifty-something mm f/1.4 lenses, they really should consider giving us a 50mm f/1.7 like they used to.
No DA*, just a simple DA or better... a DFA.

A 50/1.7 will cost practically the same and not be as desireable. The price is not due to expensive glass, but low volumes. 50mm lenses aren't very popular anylonger.
I believe the Limited lenses owes their existence from this fact; material cost is not the big cost driving factor on niche items like prime lenses; just as well make them exclusive justifying a higher price tag.

[fs999]

I don't feel pissed by this review. This lens is definitely too expensive and it's not even full frame...

It is full frame ! I use it with my *ist film camera !