Sigma 50f1.4 vs Pentax 40f2.8

I have realised that my lens line up leaves a hole in the middle. On a K200D, with 18-55 kit lens and DA 55-300. I have realised the kit lens' weakness is that it is soft at 55mm, close up and the 55-300, well it has no close up! I am looking for a good "natural" lens to allow me to take portraits as well as close ups of flowers (not strictly macro, but the 45cm is ok).

I am attracted to the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM because of the stunning good reviews, although it appears that quality control is an issue with many front / back focus issues (or is it users not familiar with the small DOF?). It is a substantial lens, but no bigger than the Sigma 70-300 that I used to have.

The Pentax pancake 40f2.8 is also stunning, but with screwdriver drive and f2.8 not f1.4...um..will I notice?

I cannot find any direct comparison between these. Is the quality control of the Sigma so bad?

Please help. Advise on other lenses in this range is welcome (please no second hand ones - in South Africa there is no real Pentax presence)

Thanks
Tim

Just to confuse you further, have you considered the Pentax DFA 50mm f2.8 macro? It is supposed to be tremendous, and would open up proper macro work to you.

You could always opt for a secondhand F50 1.7 (or FA though these are rare and more expensive). Sharper wide open than the 1.4's and only a smidgeon slower. Bokeh's nice and it's great for portraits. Not the prettiest lens, but it performs and provides excellent bang for your buck. You should be able to get one easily for under £150 (as low as £120 or under if you're lucky).

I rather like the look of the F lenses .. not sure why.


How about the DA 35mm f2.8 macro .. lovely little lens.

It's wonderful the response. I had hoped that I would have a concrete answer, but that was naive. What I can tell is that either (or more lenses) would do. How about the new DA 35f2.4? Any experience? DA35f2.4 vs DA40f2.8?

Sorry Dr Mhuni - 2nd hand not an option here. Brand new is also a mission. Cannikon has rather killed the competition in SA.

Tim

I cannot complain.

I hav'ent got, nor tried the DA40, but the images I have seen, it is a very impressive lens.
Now to the DA35 and FA50. I have both, and both are exceptional.

The 35mm is Pentax's little secret. A "cheap" lens that is stunning! It is oh so sharp, and produces an excellent creamy bokeh. Not quite in the FA31 Limited league(what is?) but so close it hurts, and it is less than a fifth of the price of the mighty 31mm.

Now the FA50. Some say it is not as good as the F1.7 version, but it depends on your taste. However, it is the only Pentax nifty still available new, so we can discount the F1.7. F1.4 is addictive, a tad soft, but creative. However it is more or less the same price as the DA40, but is two stops faster. ON the plus side, if you still have Film SLR's then it will be suitable for these due to having the aperture ring (my MZ-5n needs the A ring on a lens.). Downside is that on APS-C DSLR's, it is a little bit long, having an EFOV of 75mm.

Horses for courses really, all three lenses are excellent, and will produce stunning results, so it all comes down to budget and what you want to use it for.
35mm is a great general purpose lens
40mm is a fine tiny Limited, which will get you noticed (what is that small lens? how wierd is that!)
50mm is super fast, and great for portraits.
So, whichever you go for, you will get a great lens.

Of course there is always the DA* 55mm f1.4.

I had the chance to buy that one... passed it by.
unless you need weather sealing in that focal range... it seems a bit pricy compared to the 50 1.4....
if I didn't already have two fast fifties.... I'd have gone for the 40 and 100 macro at that time... now that I have the 35 2.4 I'm glad it worked out this way for me.

If you want a standard walkabout lens which does the same job as a 50mm did on film, go for the DA 35mm f2.4. It's the modern version of the Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, small, sharp, lightweight and sensibly priced.

Of the two you mention I would pick the 40mm, as I've never found 50mm terribly useful on digital. It's just a bit too long. But the 35mm is a lot cheaper and more useful again, unless you need the ultra-compact nature of the 40mm (which can be very handy - I have the old M series 40mm and it's great on an M series body as a pocket SLR).

Personally I wouldn't bother with the 55mm f1.4. Too long for digital IMO. Unless you're planning to shoot portraits in heavy rain I just think it's too much to spend on a single prime lens.

The DA 40 and FA 50 have different purposes.

The DA40 is an almost ludicrously compact lens (it looks like a body cap!), very sharp indeed right from wide open (f2.. The FA50 gives very shallow depth of field (good for blurring the background) and is also good in low light. The latter of these isn't terribly relevant because 50mm isn't the "do everything" focal length that it was on the film cameras the FA50 was designed for (if you want a very low light lens, get the Sigma 30mm f1.4). The Sigma 50 has much better image quality than the FA50 (especially sharpness wide open, and much less vignetting), and also has a silent AF motor. It is however much bigger and heavier than the FA50.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4





...

to answer your first question first:

the 40/2.8 and the sigma 50/1.4 are very very different lenses. the 40/2.8 is probably the smallest lens you will ever use, especially if you count hood sizes. it will not add any weight to your kit, and is excellent optically. i had one, sold it, and regret it a little bit (but only a little bit, since now the gap is very nicely filled by the excellent 31/1..

the 50/1.4 is an excellent lens. but it's heavy. the two stops is a big deal, but so is the weight. so, it's up to you. is background isolation very important? is low light important? then the 50/1.4 is a better bet. is lightweight more important? are you going to be using this mainly for landscapes with a deep dof, then the the 40/2.8 is the one to go for.

lots of people above have suggested excellent alternatives. the 30/1.4 that smeggypants suggests is an excellent lens. the focal length is slightly better suited to me as a walkaround lens than the 40mm or the 50mm. i could walk around with the 40mm, but the 50mm is pushing it one step too far. the 55/1.4 da* is also an excellent lens. the 50/1.4 fa is a good fifty too (pentax has only ever made 50s of the highest calibre—you can't go wrong with any of them), the 50/1.4 pentax fa is also much smaller than the sigma, which you might bear in mind if you want something that fits the bill between the 40/2.8 and the 50/1.4.

lenses, as with most camera equipment, serve different purposes. which one you get should mainly be driven by what you value in a lens; not what other people think.

everyone here has recommended decent lenses. i'd just think about what it is that you want, and then choose the lens accordingly.