FA-50 1.4

I currently have an A-50 1.7 and as good as it is in low light focusing is still a problem sometimes. I guess I could get used to it, but I'd like some opinions on the FA50.

The review on photozone.de shows it to be very soft wide open. I don't expect it to perform as well as an FA Limited but am still a little worried. The FA 35 2 is also an option but the results I've had with the A-50 are generally quite good, just the focusing problems.

Everyone would love a FA-31 or 77 1.8 Ltd. but that isn't really possible.

There's nothing to worry about with these Pentax primes.

All the 50mm lenses will give stunning results on digital. For those used to zooms this could be a revelation.

I am currently using the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f1.4 and results are superb. Wide open it will be softer than stopped down, but it will still be useable and to be honest I wouldn't expect to shoot at f1.4 very often if at all.

Look at Photozone's charts as well as the text: The centre is still "good" at F1.4, and the borders "fair". It's "very good" at F2. F2 is still pretty fast. F2.8 it's "excellent", then "stella" at F4!

I have both an A50 1.7 and an FA50 1.4. It is nice to have the autofocus with the FA, and I was immediately impressed by its sharpness.

Please note that I'm not one to believe something must be good just because it cost a lot of money or because Photozone say it's good. I'm having doubts about the 16-45 I've just aquired. Will sell it if I think it's hardly any better than the 18-55 (which is what I'm finding so far).

It's a great lens. f/1.4 is certainly useable, of course it's a bit soft but that's to be expected. As 'iceblinker' says, cost does not always indicate quality... the f/1.4 does not cost a lot of money for what it is, and it certainly costs a lot less than the equivalents from Canon, Nikon or Sony. Pretty good value in my opinion.

The 16-45 should be significantly better, but only if you are producing large prints. If you were using both lenses say at f8 and only printing to 6x4 then you probably wouldn't notice much difference.

What sort of photography are you doing?

From the photozone charts the 16-45 doesn't look mush better than the 18-55. The constant f4 aperture is a bonus, the extra light from the larger front element and the wise angle sharpness are really good if you need it. I'm waiting for the DA* 16-50 2.8, and hoping performace is similar or better. So I'm saving for that as I don't see much point in going for something pricey that I may never use.

I've not really used my 18-55 though, I find the FoV and DoF on the 50-200 is perfect for what I'm doing at the moment. I really need to isolate subjects from the background which isn't really possible with the 18-55. There isn't anything large and interesting that I've seen. I keep putting the 18-55 on the camera hoping to use it only to take it off a few minutes later.

Also just saw that there is a DA* 55 1.4 on its way which looks to be rather good: SDM, weather sealed, large front element (a guess). But that would be much bigger and heavier than the FA 50.

I really just want a fast AF lens at the moment as the A lens is good but can be annoying.

If you're just taking snap shots then you won't see much difference
I have both and use them (18-55 on *ist-Ds), and the 16-45 has the following differences:

* Slightly wider (like 24 vs 28mm on film)
* Contrast is better, IMHO. In difficult scenes the 16-45 shines (like straight into sun; wide dynamics etc)
* Sharpness is superb (but the 18-55 is very very good so it can be difficult to tell except at large sizes)
* Bokeh is nicer on the 16-45. The 16-45 has 8 aperture blades vs 6 on the 18-55.
* Unbelievable close focus at 16mm on the 16-45. Try taking portraits at 30cm. I haven't been able to match this whacky view


I would say the 16-45 is definitely a better lens. But depending on what you shoot and how hard you push things you may not see a marked difference

(And I reckon the same will probably go for the new 16-50/2.8 )
Matt

[quote="Tyr"]Can't see why it would be bigger and heavier than the FA 50 f/1.4. Same focal length and same max aperture. If anything I might expect it to be smaller, since it would presumably be designed for the smaller image circle of the sensor like the other DA lenses.

Well, all the SDM lenses announced so far are 67mm or wider, the motor takes up a fair bit of space. As a line of high end lenses larger front elements mean more light and better performance. It is a 5mm longer focal length and same aperture, doesn't mean it can't be larger. Canon have a 50mm f1.2 with a 72mm front end, a lot of Canon and Nikon lenses have large front elements, especially those with supersonic/ultrasonic motors.

Right... but those other supersonics are fast zooms, which are usually pretty large, are they're still smaller than an equivalent lens for 35mm. "DA" usually indicates a lens designed for the digital sensors, meaning the projected image circle doesn't have to be as large as for 35mm and therefore the lens can be smaller.

Edit: what 55mm are we talking about here? I can't actually find any references, except to a 55mm f/2.8 for the 645D. Which of course would be larger.

Various, on a hobby level.

I particularly want a decent lens for landscapes and urbanscapes for a special trip to Canada. Most of the pics would be viewed on computer monitors, but the occasional large print would be very nice to have too, perhaps even some small posters.

I already have a Sigma 10-20, and a good 50mm, so I'm mostly concerned about the middle of the range.

I wouldn't mind carring and using the heavier lens - but only if I really believe it is better. Being larger and more expensive and well-regarded, it certainly should be, but still I feel the need to see absolute proof to justify the considerable cost.

So far I've just taken some test shots of houses & gardens and interiors with the 16-45 then the same shots with my 18-55. Trouble is they're not "like for like" enough to be consistent and fair. Instead of going mad persuing this approach, I think I'll just have to make a more overall subjective judgement in the end.

Pentax lens roadmap:

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Under the DFA 55 for 645 there is the DA* 55 1.4.

I like the idea and I want.



If I could only have three good primes for my K10D I'd have:

20ish, so DA 21 2.8

50ish, 50-55 something like the FA 50 14.

200ish, an FA* 200 or similar

Thanks for the link. I see the one you're talking about now. By the way I totally agree with your choice of lenses there. 21mm I like, but would prefer something a bit faster than the current pancake. And the 200mm f/2.8 on that roadmap looks very nice indeed. The one thing I'd really like is more "D-FA" lenses that also work with 35mm film since I haven't given it up yet. But realistically I'm in a tiny minority there, and otherwise the roadmap looks very promising indeed. Hopefully once some of them are out people will pay more attention to Pentax, shops will stock them and third-parties will make alternatives. Well ok I thought the same about the K10d and it didn't happen, but I can hope...

It is a shame that there isn't anything faster than the DA 21 2.8 and nothing on the roadmap either. Still 2.8 isn't that bad, although for low light it makes a huge difference just being able to go to 1.8 or 1.7.

Next lens will probably be the FA50 1.4, although I still really want the * lenses so this could be problematic. Probably not though as the * lenses keep getting pushed back.

Isn't the 21mm f/3.2? Not a huge difference of course but still a bit slower. I've been trying to track down a 24mm f/2 or f/2.8 for a while. 28mm isn't quite wide enough. To be honest I expect the new 16-50 would be ideal for moderately wide shots on the digital but I'm still hoping for something that works on film too. Asking too much I know. Anyway the DA* lenses (the first two zooms anyway) shouldn't be pushed back much longer; I was just told I might be able to get my hands on one soon (weeks rather than months).