HD or not HD, that is the question.

So, the Pentax DA70mm F2.4. A nice fastish portrait prime. But which would you choose to buy?
Secondhand, the SMC version is around the £360 mark. New, the HD version is £510. So £150 more.

Has anyone used both and would the HD version be worth the extra cost, especially as £150 could buy some nice photo accessories?

Iain, I have previously owned and used both, the HD version is slightly better in terms of contrast, but they are both very nice. If I were buying new, I would pay the extra for the HD version. Is the HD version worth the extra cost? I guess it depends on ones pockets.

The SMC coatings are very good indeed and continue to serve us well on many lenses. However, the new HD coatings take this to new levels.

In the case of the 70mm I did find it to be slightly prone to flare, so I'd tend to go for the HD version if possible. It is a gorgeous lens in any event.

I'm annoyed by the 'HD' marketing, it means nothing to me and reminds me of HD video (1920x1080 at best - or just over 2MP). I think it's used because 'HD' is seen as a buzz-word despite being meaningless in still photography terms. Even if the coatings are 100% better (unlikely), this would only be useful if you regularly shoot into the sun.

I recently bought an FA43/1.9 (in black), having known about it since the '90s I realised it might be my last chance to buy an SMC-Pentax version. 'HD' doesn't necessarily mean better - just different (and more expensive) - to me.

John.

EDIT - As a film user I'd buy the FA77 instead - BJP stated it was one of 'the best compact full frame portrait lenses ever made'.

HD seems to mean better, if we agree lower flare is better. If we want flare for some reason then it would be worse for that.

Better is always relative to requirements.

There is a least one comparative review out there on the Internet. HD comes out a little better in some respects, but not all.

One of the lenses compared was the 15 Ltd; the original won points in the test because of it's nice starburst flare whereas the HD version 'controlled' flare better but lost the character of the lens in the process.

Thanks all, it is a tough choice.

The SMC will provide nice starburst effect, which is good, yet because of the blades being straight, it has a fussier (for me) bokeh for portraits

The HD has better contrast wide open (which is good) and has better bokeh due to the rounded blades, but loses the starburst effect.

It will basically come down to what is more important for me.

Then again, Would it be so much better than my DA*50-135 for Portraits?
It would be better for travel/street as it is so much smaller than the 50-135

It is a tough decision I have to make really. And the question is what would it give me. (And if anyone says 77mm I will hate you as that is really the one, but I cannot afford it...... )

The HD can be found bit cheaper sometimes if that helps - Wex recently had them on offer at £458.

That is worth knowing. There is no rush at the moment. So I will keep an eye out. Thanks for this Robert.

I have the smc version. I love it.

Maybe you should try before you buy Iain ?
.

I don't have any of the above lenses, however, I helped on a portrait/studio shoot at the weekend and chose my K5 and Sigma 50mm f2.8 ex dg macro as what I believed would be the best combination.

I decided to put my m42 Tokina 135mm f2.8 lens on my K10 to muck around with - this combination blew me away with the results compared to the k5 (and incidentally a Canon 7d sporting a 24 to something 'L' zoom lens)

One of my thoughts was towards the respective coatings the older lens having less or none compared to the sigma may have helped in that one given situation, as an all rounder the Sigma is streets ahead (and of course different in almost all ways) if it is for portraits if used in studio environments maybe the newer coatings 'may' not always be best.

I am not knocking the hd coatings merely sharing my observations and total surprise following the weekends shoot


And the Tokina cost me about £15

Hope this helps


Stu

Thanks Stuey, but I am not in the market for a 50mm. I already have several 50-55mm lens in my possession. Even on APS-C, I have found that there is a little bit of distortion when it comes to head and shoulders shots. It is a classic case of the rendition of a nifty.
Hence why I am looking at the short fast tele of around the 70-90mm Range.
The compression of the image by a short-tele lends itself better for portrait shoot. I know that there is an argument of the FOV of a 50 on APS-C provides the 35mm equiv of a 75mm, and that a 55mm is the equiv of about 83mm, but they are still a 50mm and 55mm.
My 50-135 is much better in this repsect, but it has two "issues"
One, it is a zoom, albeit a mighty zoom, and hence has the compromise of creating a zoom in the first place
Second, at F2.8 it does not often give you that shallow DOF that something faster would give you.
Having said that, it does not matter in the studio, as I normally shoot 1/125sec at F8 anyway. But it would be nice to reduce power and get shallow DOF.

However, it comes down to whether the 1/2 stop of the 70mm would provide more "magic" even though it is not compromised in it's optical quality by being a prime instead of a zoom.

Oh and of course, whether the SMC or HD version is better suited.