[Wheatfield]

Hi friends. Can you guys tell this rookie why there is such a price difference in these 2 Pentax lenses. The first lens is the Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA* 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Silver Edition lens which currently goes for $1,196.00 on B & H and the second is the Pentax Normal SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens which currently goes for $346 on B & H. Both are 50mm F1.4 auto focus lenses. Is the direct drive motor the only reason the silver lens is so much more expensive. Is it worth it the extra $700 for that type of drive? Any other major advantages to the more expensive lens? Just looking for an additional low light lens for H.S. basketball in really poorly lit gyms. Thanks guys!

The older lens is optically identical to the older A50/1.4, so is a design that dates back to the early 1980s.
The D FA* 50/1.4 is sharp wide open, the FA isn't. The newer lens has higher contrast and resolution. It is, of course much larger and heavier, the price we seem to have to pay for optical excellence these days.

Focus speed and accuracy is improved on the D FA* lens as well. Also, the newer lens is close to silent during operation while the screw driven FA lens is noisier. I've never found this to be an issue, but I also don't do the type of photography where it would be.

In my side by side test, the FA lens didn't catch up to the D FA* lens until past F8, where all lenses seem to be more or less equal anyway.
If your goal is to have a lens that is excellent from wide open to minimum aperture the D FA* lens is the one to go for. If you are planning on doing most or all of your shooting at f5.6 or below, the FA lens is a good choice as you won't be using the superb wide aperture performance of the D FA* lens.

[Just1MoreDave]

K3-III is an APSC camera; DFA 50 is a full-frame lens so you are paying for a feature you won't use. What about the DA*55? Image quality and overall performance are fantastic and the price is considerably lower than the DFA50.

I think the DA* 55 would focus too slowly for sports. Mine is very deliberate, though precise. Image quality is really good.

[ramseybuckeye]

For what it's worth, and I have neither, it seems to me the advantages of the new lens is the more perfect optics, more relevant for artistic photos, maybe not a real optical advantage for sports. The autofocus speed may be a real factor, as I mentioned I wouldn't know the difference having neither. Also realize that shooting at 1.4 will give you a very narrow focus field, not really suitable for sports. You would possibly have to go up to F2 or more likely F2.8 to get enough depth of field to catch moving subjects and not continually look to be out of focus. I've shot some high school basketball at 2.8 with high ISO (up to 6400) and even 5.6 and got pretty decent results. But I also know every gym is different. I also feel you would get a lot more flexibility with a zoom for sports, not that you can't use a prime, but it can be kind of tough moving around in a gym during a game.

[mikesbike]

I have a fairly new (about 3 months) K3-III. Makes total sense what you are saying about the older camera bodies, thank you for that info. I have an old 80-200 Pentax (F2.8) which I love but I'd like to have another full plus stop as some of these gyms literally have areas of the court that are almost dark. I shot a youth gymnastics tournament for a friend a the University of Denver and of course they stick the younger kids in smallest DU practice gym as opposed to Magnus arena where DU hockey plays. The practice gym was ridiculously dark which prompted my search for an additional lower cost 1.4 lens. I wanted something near a 50mm because I'm able to get really close to the action at these youth gymnastics tourneys (and wrestling tourneys) and I also thought it would be beneficial with the HS hoops too. At times during basketball games I'm too close with the 80-200 (end up cutting feet/legs off under the hoop) and I thought the additional stop would definitely help there too. Thanks again for all of the great info.

I have shot more wrestling tourneys over about 20 years years than I could count, (recently shot my first-ever grade-school tourney which included my coach-friend's 6-year old) and have not needed an especially fast lens for these because of flash being allowed. Indoor roller hockey is a different matter- much faster action and no flash, so I need a fast lens. Of course at first I just shot film. But in more recent times, digital has made this kind of venture much easier than having film processed and prints made. Now I just take a card reader and stick the SD card into it, then plug into a coach's computer for download.

The gym lighting is generally enough so the flash is as much for fill as it is for primary illumination, which is fine so the flash recycles quickly. Even if the lights were much brighter, the type of lighting is often hard to balance on its own to avoid odd coloration, and the downward illumination often creates significant shadows on downward-turned faces, all of which the flash helps to even out. I prefer to use a zoom lens to frame my shots as desired. If I am very close to the action, I might prefer my Sigma 17-50mm DC HSM f/2.8 as it allows plenty of aperture latitude, but my more general-purpose Pentax DA 18-135mm DC WR lens works fine too. I usually shoot in Manual mode, but sometimes in TV mode to regulate shutter speed in order to get a balance of clarity and perhaps adding some blur of the hands, feet, or a competitor flying through the air, while the camera will automatically fill in aperture. Usually the difference in distances and without narrow apertures being used, will create less sharpness of background compared to the competitors so they will stand out well enough, but at the same time I like to mostly have the background still very recognizable in order to capture plenty of context. For example, if the shot angle allows, I like to get the coaches and team-mates in the background shouting encouragement, or from a different angle perhaps some spectator reactions. This will make for more interesting results, and often will include people who are important to the participants, who will be saving these photos, and in future times will greatly value revisiting these events.

As to the DFA 50mm f/1.4- it is a wonderful lens. However, I do not need one. I do have the FA 50mm f/1.4 and know well of its shortcomings. However, these can be worked around. It is very good for portraits using APS-C, as razor sharpness is really not necessarily desirable for this usage anyway. It also sharpens up pretty well in the central area with just a bit of stopping down. I also have the Pentax "F" 50mm f/1.7 which is pretty sharp even wide open, even edge-to-edge. Discontinued, this is a very good lens at low cost used. if you shoot it at f/1.8 or at f/2 it will provide at least a stop better than f/2.8 and will perform sharper than the FA 50mm f/1.4 in that aperture range.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 02-16-2023 at 05:18 PM.

[photogem]

Just read a ton of reviews from users, thanks again for the link-so helpful! Well this sentence alone from a review is almost enough to scare me off. "Probably the worst auto-focus era 50mm prime from a major camera manufacturer. This lens isn't even in the same ballpark as the offerings from Minolta, Canon, or Nikon. The sharpness is terrible, the lens is almost unusable wider than f4.0"

And if you read further on:
"This lens is wholly inappropriate as a landscape lens on the K-1 II, being unable to capture crisp detail across the frame at f8.0, as if it has a vintage UV filter from 1965 permanently attached."
Do you realize what a lot of nonsense this is?

[StigVidar]

What camera do you plan on using the lens with?
If it's a current camera like a K1-II or K3-III, the HD 50 is superb, focuses quickly and really a great choice, although heavier.
If its an old camera (film or something under say 16 megapixels), the resolution of the lens and drive won't be a huge factor, the camera's sensor won't be able to resolve it.

You might also consider a fast zoom, unless you can get really close to the action with the 50.

The new D FA50/1.4 have a Kaf4 mount so it will not work on older cameras like K-5, K-30 or older. It is supported on K-3, K-50 and newer.

---------- Post added 15-02-23 at 09:44 ----------

K3-III is an APSC camera; DFA 50 is a full-frame lens so you are paying for a feature you won't use.

One is paying for one of the best 50mm lens available for any camera. And all of its 50mm focal length is usable on aps-c, something else would be strange.

If a top quality 50mm is what he wants, then there is not many alternatives. DA*55/1.4 is good, but no match at f/1.4. And the AF is slow compared to D FA50/1.4

---------- Post added 15-02-23 at 10:05 ----------

And if you read further on:
"This lens is wholly inappropriate as a landscape lens on the K-1 II, being unable to capture crisp detail across the frame at f8.0, as if it has a vintage UV filter from 1965 permanently attached."
Do you realize what a lot of nonsense this is?

It is nonsense, I agree with you on that.

My own opinion: at f/2.8 or smaller apertures, there is not much optical differences between FA50/1.4, DA*55/1.4 & DFA*50/1.4.
But wide open at f/1.4 there is quite a bit difference. DFA*50/1.4 is unbelivable good, DA*55/1.4 is very good and FA50/1.4 not so good. Stop down to f/2-f/2.8 and all changes and they are all very+++ good. So one pays for the performance at f/1.4

Other things like AF is a lot more precise on the new DFA*50/1.4. The old FA50/1.4 use screw drive and the DA*55/1.4 use an internal motor with gears. Both of them can focus a little bit in front or back of what you expected and that can sometimes be frustrating if you want critical focus accuracy. The new DFA*50/1.4 use a large ring motor without gears and is a lot better in this regard and was something I noticed straight away when I replaced my own DA*55/1.4 with DFA*50/1.4. I have also owned the FA50/1.4. It is a fine lens, but really not usable wide open, compared to the two others.

[Rondec]

K3-III is an APSC camera; DFA 50 is a full-frame lens so you are paying for a feature you won't use. What about the DA*55? Image quality and overall performance are fantastic and the price is considerably lower than the DFA50.

The DA *55 is a very nice lens, but its auto focus is far too slow to use for anything moving.

[Sandy Hancock]

If you are planning to continue with a crop camera, I'd also suggest you look at the DA*55/1.4

It's not as good wide open as the DFA*50/1.4, and the AF isn't as quick, but it's a great lens at a fraction of the price. The FA50/1.4 simply isn't in the same league as either of the others; I consider it a special interest lens for its lovely bokeh and colour rendering.

For what it's worth, I have all three lenses.

[Chris_K]

If a top quality 50mm is what he wants, then there is not many alternatives. DA*55/1.4 is good, but no match at f/1.4. And the AF is slow compared to D FA50/1.4

Good point on the AF but still, I'd put some more lenses under consideration. At different points in time, I owned all four: F/FA 50/1.4 and 1.7 and I consider the FA 50/1.4 to be the weakest of them. My copy was not usable below f/2 while the F50/1.7 was relatively good from wide-open (verified on three copies). IQ-wise, DA*55 beats them all being fantastic from wide-open.

[Papa_Joe]

Before spending a lot of money, I would try a SMC DA 50/1.8, the niffty-fifty which you can buy for a reasonable price used and which will quite propably do the job quite well.
If not, yo can sell it with nearly no loss.

Set it to 2.8 and screw up the ISO and when you get sufficient pictures, you can think of buying a fast zoom instead (Sigma 70-200/2.8 used).

[pres589]

What camera do you plan on using the lens with? ...
If its an old camera (film or something under say 16 megapixels), the resolution of the lens and drive won't be a huge factor, the camera's sensor won't be able to resolve it.

I don't know if I would agree with this. Without the hardware to make this comparison I can't put my money where my mouth is, but I'd love to see someone with one of the 6mpix Pentax bodies like the K100D Super take shots back to back using the D-FA*50 an an FA 50 f1.4, aperture to aperture. The reason is how much better the new lens controls flair and ghosting and provides extreme center sharpness from wide open which the FA 50 cannot match.


I also think we see an inverse to the idea of "older lenses cannot show improvement when the digital sensor improves" when this sort of thing is tested, but again, I don't have a good body to test this with.

As for testing on film, best way to accomplish that is probably with Tokina's Opera 50 on a Nikon or Canon film body and compare that to whatever 50 f1.4 they were selling in the 90's to create a like-kind test.

[photogem]

The new D-FA50/1.4 is a Kaf4 mount so it will not work on older cameras like K-5, K-30 or older. It is supported on K-3, K-50 and newer.

The K30 does support it with "our modified (and 100% safe) K50 1.10 firmware!

But I would think nobody will really use the D-FA on the K30. To bad the K5IIs doesn't support KAF3 because it is/was a master in lowlight situations, for me even better than the K3.

DA*55/1.4 is good, but no match at f/1.4. And the AF is slow compared to D FA50/1.4

I can't comment on the D-FA50 but am sure it is a masterpiece.
The DA*55 is SDM and thus has a very slow AF, I have it and like it, but:

Just looking for an additional low light lens for H.S. basketball in really poorly lit gyms.

Not as I know it for sports.
Maybe on the K3III a bit better but the K3III can't really "speed up this older SDM motor", only better AF.

One must consider as well that this SDM motor often fails.

[artrasa]

I recently got myself a Pentax Program A camera. At some point I might want to get a 50mm lens to go with it. Would you recommend the FA 50/1.4 or is there some more suitable model? Curious to hear your suggestions.

[pres589]

A lot of the F and FA lenses have awful manual focusing rings and the F/FA 50's are no exception. A Pentax K, M, or A 50 f1.4 (need to check that the A doesn't use a plastic aperture ring, different issue) would be my preference by far. Lots of 3rd party options as well but if you don't want to go on a re/search adventure the ones I've listed are all pretty good.

[JensE]

With respect to the recommendations above, I will repeat that the f/1.7 lenses perform better for your application than the FA50/1.4, because contrast is better wide open and thus AF a lot more reliable. In addition, they're free of focus shift, while there is some with the FA50/1. 4. The praise carries over to the DA50/1.8, which is optically the same as the F/FA 50/1.7, with APS-C coverage. It may be a stopgap solution while saving up.

I don't think AF speed on the DA*55 would be an issue, but I never shot sports with it. It is a really nice lens optically and should track a little better than the mechanically coupled ones.