[PF Staff]

An in-depth comparison of three generations of 50mm lenses from Pentax: the fully manual M50, the ubiquitous FA50 and the modern, state-of-the-art DFA50.

Read more on the PF homepage...

[pres589]

Thank-you for this review. I thought it was pretty great to compare these three f1.4 50's. The copy of the M 50 used seems to be exceptional. It makes me wonder if I've been too harsh in the performance of the copy I have.

[tokyoscape]

Thanks, and I a kind of wish you added *55 in there too. It is not a 50 but it 1.4 and perhapes the right racehorse to the new *50.

[dms]

It would appear the DFA does not have DOF markings, which would be (for me) a significant consideration/oversight.

[IgorZ]

Thanks, and I a kind of wish you added *55 in there too. It is not a 50 but it 1.4 and perhapes the right racehorse to the new *50.

They did a comparison between the 55, the dfa 50,and a rokinon 50mm.

[reh321]

An in-depth comparison of three generations of 50mm lenses from Pentax: the fully manual M50, the ubiquitous FA50 and the modern, state-of-the-art DFA50.

The M50 was the beginning of miniature lenses - the DFA* ended that with gusto.

[Rondec]

The M50 was the beginning of miniature lenses - the DFA* ended that with gusto.

I think Pentax will continue to have a limited line up which will be smaller. On the other hand, the * lenses have always been decent sized, even dating back to the A series of lenses (I think the M 300 was a star lens too).

I for one hope that they continue to update and improve the limited line ups as well as releasing lenses with fast apertures that are sharp wide open.

[reh321]

I think Pentax will continue to have a limited line up which will be smaller. On the other hand, the * lenses have always been decent sized, even dating back to the A series of lenses (I think the M 300 was a star lens too).

I for one hope that they continue to update and improve the limited line ups as well as releasing lenses with fast apertures that are sharp wide open.

Yes, but the OP was comparing M 50 f/1.4 to DFA* 50 f/1.4.
I hope Pentax continues to release "non star" lenses for those of us with small bags and wallets, but most recent releases seem to have been "star" lenses.

[lytrytyr]

I think the M 300 was a star lens too.

Both were, the K-mount and the 67.

[arnold]

An informative and interesting write-up this. A real world test might be ten pictures submitted by each lens of the same scene. Then be asked to put them in the order one thinks the lens was that took them, This means not going from lens to picture, but picture to lens. Perhaps the wider apertures would make things easier, but I believe there would be a struggle to differentiate the lenses at the smaller openings.

[RGlasel]

the DFA does not have DOF markings, which would be (for me) a significant consideration/oversight.

I can't think of a way to put meaningful DOF marks on a lens without an aperture ring, which is also absent from the D FA. The D FA is limited in how it can be used on Pentax cameras built before the nineties (when was AV mode introduced?).

[dms]

I can't think of a way to put meaningful DOF marks on a lens without an aperture ring, which is also absent from the D FA. The D FA is limited in how it can be used on Pentax cameras built before the nineties (when was AV mode introduced?).

My DA 20-40 mm limited has no aperture ring and has DOF markings for the 20 mm FL (although the limited rotation of roughly 90 degrees makes things very cramped). And even if it wasn't possible it is a consideration in comparing the three lenses.

[lytrytyr]

My DA 20-40 mm limited has no aperture ring and has DOF markings for the 20 mm FL (although the limited rotation of roughly 90 degrees makes things very cramped).

My DA 20-40 LTD has wide DOF markings for 20 mm by the aperture numbers,
and narrow ones for 40 mm by the focus markings.

That's not as good as the spiral lines that used to show up on old varifocal lenses,
but it's the best modern compromise that I've seen.

It would appear the DFA does not have DOF markings, which would be (for me) a significant consideration/oversight.

Meaningful DOF gets less and less as the pixel density and expected sharpness increase,
so I can certainly understand Pentax' reluctance to provide any hard-engraved suggestion in that regard.

[jcdoss]

I wonder how a 1970s 50mm f1.4 lens would have compared if they were allowed to supersize it? A comparison of pocketability might be amusing! "Which guy has a DFA in his pocket?"

[dms]

My DA 20-40 LTD has wide DOF markings for 20 mm by the aperture numbers,
and narrow ones for 40 mm by the focus markings.

Yes, thanks for the correction.