[Rondec]

Why full frame lenses would command a premium in a Pentax line up devoid of a full frame body is beyond me. I agree with Pal that the issue has to do with a combination of materials cost and R and D cost. If it costs 100,000 dollars to develop a lens and you only sell 1000 copies, you have to add one hundred dollars per lens to consumer price. For this reason, lenses that sell fewer copies will be more expensive -- particularly in the Pentax line up. Nikon and Canon sell more copies, even of their expensive lenses and so their fixed, up front costs are divided among more photographers.

[K-9]

Yeah, my 55/1.4 must be the other good one they built. It was expensive, but to me it was worth the price of admission.
I sold my FA50/1.4 and my Voigtlander 58/1.4 after seeing what the DA*55/1.4 was giving back.
It's not that the latter two aren't decent lenses, but the DA is definitely a cut above both the FA and the Nokton.

You'll have to try the F 50mm f1.4.

... 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.

But for those of us who never take their gear out in inclement weather, the $300+ more that you will spend over the FA is simply not worth it.

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

Yes, but I don't believe you'll get auto focus with it. Possibly not Aperture Priority mode either. I know you wouldn't with the MZ-S as this lens has no aperture ring.

[melander]

But for those of us who never take their gear out in inclement weather, the $300+ more that you will spend over the FA is simply not worth it.

Thats true, but WHY would anyone buy a DA* lens if you dont need the weather sealing? Ye I know, there is that LBA factor. But seriusly, the DA* are for those that go outside.

If you are in the market for a weather sealed lens you wont complain about the price. Those that complain are those that just see it as 50/1.4. Myself, Im no fan of plastic bags

[Wheatfield]

You'll have to try the F 50mm f1.4.

I had the FA50/1.4, as well as the Nokton 58/1.4. I've let both of them go. The DA* is actually sharp at f/1.4, something neither the FA or Nokton could achieve.
If all you do is shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, the FA is a fine lens, if you want to shoot wide open, it's not such a good lens anymore.
Whether this is worth the price of admission is up to the individual photographer.

[K-9]

I had the FA50/1.4, as well as the Nokton 58/1.4. I've let both of them go. The DA* is actually sharp at f/1.4, something neither the FA or Nokton could achieve.
If all you do is shoot at f/5.6 or smaller, the FA is a fine lens, if you want to shoot wide open, it's not such a good lens anymore.
Whether this is worth the price of admission is up to the individual photographer.

The F 1.4 is sharper than the FA 1.4, although I haven't tested it at f1.4 to see how sharp it is. The MTF score of the F @ 1.4 on photodo is slightly higher than the FA.

I can't imagine who shoots consistently at 1.4 and why??

[MikePerham]

Well, I scanned through this whole thread and to those who are turned off by the DPR review, I would suggest two points. The difference between a 50mm and 55mm for portrait work is significant ...that is why Pentax made this lens a 55mm. Anyone seriously looking for a prime portrait lens would be better served by the DA* 55.

Secondly, there have been numerous other reviews that were not so damning and never had any trouble with the back/front focus issue. I plan on buying this lens as soon as my Sister-in-law pays me for the K10D I sold her, and so I just down loaded the charts from Yvon Bourque's blog so I can test this lens (and my others just for curiosity) when I get it. I might add, if you read the accompanying article, Yvon states he has never had a problem with back/front focusing with any of his lenses. Nor have I...

[K-9]

Well, I scanned through this whole thread and to those who are turned off by the DPR review, I would suggest two points. The difference between a 50mm and 55mm for portrait work is significant ...that is why Pentax made this lens a 55mm. Anyone seriously looking for a prime portrait lens would be better served by the DA* 55.

Secondly, there have been numerous other reviews that were not so damning and never had any trouble with the back/front focus issue. I plan on buying this lens as soon as my Sister-in-law pays me for the K10D I sold her, and so I just down loaded the charts from Yvon Bourque's blog so I can test this lens (and my others just for curiosity) when I get it. I might add, if you read the accompanying article, Yvon states he has never had a problem with back/front focusing with any of his lenses. Nor have I...

Extremely disagree here. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the 75mm equivalent of the 50mm and the 82.5mm equivalent of the 55. I used to use the FA 85mm for all my portraits and the one thing I quipped about was I wanted to get in closer, hence a longer lens. But wait, the 50mm on the APS sensor of the K20d allows me to get in closer for a tighter headshot than even having a 100mm on film.

The 50mm focal lengths on the Pentax DSLR's is just fine, and the 55mm is in not a significant difference. They just decided to make a new 55 instead of a 50, and I doubt it had anything to do with them considering any substantial benefit to portraitists. There's no way I would be any better served with the 55 than a 50. Those 7.5 extra mm's is miniscule.

[MikePerham]

Extremely disagree here. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the 75mm equivalent of the 50mm and the 82.5mm equivalent of the 55. I used to use the FA 85mm for all my portraits and the one thing I quipped about was I wanted to get in closer, hence a longer lens. But wait, the 50mm on the APS sensor of the K20d allows me to get in closer for a tighter headshot than even having a 100mm on film.

The 50mm focal lengths on the Pentax DSLR's is just fine, and the 55mm is in not a significant difference. They just decided to make a new 55 instead of a 50, and I doubt it had anything to do with them considering any substantial benefit to portraitists. There's no way I would be any better served with the 55 than a 50. Those 7.5 extra mm's is miniscule.

Well, difference of opinion is what makes the world go round. I have been using my 16-50 for portrait work and switching to the 50-135 to get a bit longer ...would dearly love a fast 55 prime for this purpose; have not had one since I abandoned Canon. And actually the 55 is closer to an 85mm (55 X 1.54 = 84.7), which is the focal length I used back in my F1 days (that I traded to an LX). Always liked the rendition of head and shoulder available light shots with that lens.

[redpigeons]

This is obviously where APS-C suffers

Normal lenses-- 50mm where usually cheaper lens.

Wide fast lenses like a fast 35mm are expensive.

but 35mm is the "normal" for crop... and 50 is still 50mm you can't market it as an 85mm.

I love Nikon for the new cheapo 30mm 1.8 I think Pentaxsince they sticking with aPS-C must have a cheap fast normal lens

[AM2]

Sample variations aside, the DA*55/1.4 is a very nice lens; what's not so nice is it's price. Having the FA50/1.4, which I purchased for $249USD more than 3 years ago does the job and does it very well. Can't get myself to pay approximately $700CAD to get 5mm extra. I'd rather pay that much money to get a second FA77/1.8, before Pentax stops making them!

As for weather sealing, if I want to take a lens out in the rain, it'll be my DA*16-50 and use the 50mm end. Haven't yet had to need to take F1.4 portraits while standing in the pouring cold rain.

I'm also in the camp that simply doesn't buy the idea that the 55/1.4 is the APS-C equivalent of the 85/1.4. The magnification is not the same, the field curvature values are not the same, the blur is not the same. If I want the same sized frame as 35mm fullframe gives with an 85mm, I'll take a few steps back, but a 55 is a 55 and an 85 is an 85mm!

[wlachan]

Thats true, but WHY would anyone buy a DA* lens if you dont need the weather sealing? Ye I know, there is that LBA factor. But seriusly, the DA* are for those that go outside.

If you are in the market for a weather sealed lens you wont complain about the price. Those that complain are those that just see it as 50/1.4. Myself, Im no fan of plastic bags

There is nothing wrong with plastic if designed and made properly. People were buying A*, F* & FA* lenses for quality, the same reason some people buying the DA* and expected nothing less. Weatherseal is just one factor, but not neceassily the sole reason for their existance.

Well, I scanned through this whole thread and to those who are turned off by the DPR review, I would suggest two points. The difference between a 50mm and 55mm for portrait work is significant ...that is why Pentax made this lens a 55mm. Anyone seriously looking for a prime portrait lens would be better served by the DA* 55.

I swear that I am not trying to be a smartass, but what is the difference between 50 and 55mm other than 5mm difference in focal length? Significant in what way? Extra 5mm will put you at an advantage in portraiture in what sense? Now, is that difference worth the price difference between these lenses?

I am just curious, as my knowledge in these kind of things is spotty at best.

[Caat]

The F 1.4 is sharper than the FA 1.4, although I haven't tested it at f1.4 to see how sharp it is. The MTF score of the F @ 1.4 on photodo is slightly higher than the FA.

I can't imagine who shoots consistently at 1.4 and why??

They have the same optical design so performance will be, or should be identical. The MTF difference at photodo is likely due to sample variation.

[MikePerham]

I swear that I am not trying to be a smartass, but what is the difference between 50 and 55mm other than 5mm difference in focal length? Significant in what way? Extra 5mm will put you at an advantage in portraiture in what sense? Now, is that difference worth the price difference between these lenses?

I am just curious, as my knowledge in these kind of things is spotty at best.

It may be subtle, but yes there is a difference. As to the price issue, to me it is worth the difference, but that is a personal thing. Your own paradigm and budget will dictate whether or not that is true for you.

[fs999]

Yes, but I don't believe you'll get auto focus with it. Possibly not Aperture Priority mode either. I know you wouldn't with the MZ-S as this lens has no aperture ring.

Aperture priority works fine on my *ist, thanks !