• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Pentax D-FA 50mm f/2.8 macro


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 02 June 2015 - 09:44 PM

A shaky, old marvel ...

http://www.photozone...entax50f28macro


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Schlimperdibix

Schlimperdibix

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 02 June 2015 - 09:57 PM

I'm glad I just got used FA 50/2.8 macro which combines the same optical design with the excellent build quality of the good-old FA macro lenses.

 

Btw, great review!



#3 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 03 June 2015 - 07:43 AM

The sharpest Pentax lens ever according to many, a bit of a shame about the level of build quality, maybe Schimperdibix was right getting the previous FA copy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.flickr.c.../124690178@N08/



#4 robbiec

robbiec

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • LocationCork, Ireland

Posted 03 June 2015 - 10:46 AM

This lens is one that has stood out for me as crying out for a refresh for a long time, be it body only and rounded Aperture blades like the DFA100WR macro or something more substantial with rounded Aperture blades, HD coatings, DC motor and WR body and a focus limiter. A bit of a sleeper in the Pentax line up unless you have tried it.



#5 sbc

sbc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 05 June 2015 - 02:48 AM

Thank you for this review. I have waited for it for the longest time, not that I needed it. I have it after What Digital Camera stated that it is even sharper than the DFA 100 macro, which at that time I have already owned.

 

The only disappointment is the AF accuracy at distance above 10M or so. I have to snap a couple of times with refocusing just to make sure I have one sharp image. Strangely this is less of a problem at macro range. I know people will tell me this IS a macro lens and should be used as such but I do not have the luxury to own both the DA* 55 and this lens.

 

The DFA 100 on the other hand has no such focusing problem, so you can't say that this is a common trail for macro lenses.



#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 June 2015 - 07:25 AM

"a bit of a shame about the level of build quality", "I have to snap a couple of times with refocusing just to make sure I have one sharp image." "I'm glad I just got used FA 50/2.8 macro which combines the same optical design with the excellent build quality of the good-old FA macro lenses."

 

Wow. A highly recommended lens I'm sure, I'm totally wrong and I'm also sure it's only early morning because I can't detect the 4  ? in most of the sample pictures. Maybe, if I staid with Pentax, I also would be satisfied with such a hmmm, hey, why not call it "lens"? I never find out. But if a mechanical crappy thing gets this kind of marks, the earlier version must fly beyond the 5 ? horizon?



#7 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 05 June 2015 - 01:55 PM

"a bit of a shame about the level of build quality", "I have to snap a couple of times with refocusing just to make sure I have one sharp image." "I'm glad I just got used FA 50/2.8 macro which combines the same optical design with the excellent build quality of the good-old FA macro lenses."

 

Wow. A highly recommended lens I'm sure, I'm totally wrong and I'm also sure it's only early morning because I can't detect the 4  ? in most of the sample pictures. Maybe, if I staid with Pentax, I also would be satisfied with such a hmmm, hey, why not call it "lens"? I never find out. But if a mechanical crappy thing gets this kind of marks, the earlier version must fly beyond the 5 ? horizon?

 

These images are heavily post-processed (mentioned in the sample section actually) and compressed by Dean.

 

I would have chosen a less aggressive approach and higher quality settings but I didn't plan to shoot any field images in the first place. Thus I am grateful that Dean provided them.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#8 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 June 2015 - 05:01 PM

Would you go as far as to say the sample pictures don't show what the lens is capable of?

 

I know, I'm the party-pooper again and think there's much work behind it. As well as I know, i would never come as close as this to a bee with the 40 mm Micro Nikkor, which I'm pretty impressed of btw., although "only" 3  ?. But behind this flattery there's still the little devil telling me "but I would like to see the real performance, not the post-processed, super-compressed one". Sorry, can't switch that off.



#9 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 05 June 2015 - 09:39 PM

 But behind this flattery there's still the little devil telling me "but I would like to see the real performance, not the post-processed, super-compressed one".

https://pixelpeeper....nses/?lens=1061



#10 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 06 June 2015 - 02:55 AM

 

Interesting site - didn't know this one.

 

One of the problem with most Pentax DSLRs is also the AA filter. Pentax has chosen an aggressive approach here thus many images are softer than they should be (except for the K-3 (II) and K-5 IIs). This is also reflected in the LW/PH actually - we will not  push the conversions settings beyond a certain degree thus the max. LW/PH are comparatively low.

 

However, you can't blame the lenses for this.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#11 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 06 June 2015 - 06:14 AM

Well, you can't blame the Sony lenses as well for the strange way Sony compresses RAW. But those (Pentax and Sony, that is) lenses can be used on their cameras. Primarily. And if the bodies don't bring the lens' quality into the pictures, what else should do?



#12 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 06 June 2015 - 07:31 AM

Did you by now check out the images in the link I gave you? They show that this particular lens is a little gem.



#13 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 06 June 2015 - 09:39 AM

Interesting site - didn't know this one.

I remember browsing that site years ago for some samples from another of my "objects of desire" at the time, but I ran into a problem - that they seemingly haven't fixed - of all lenses that share the manufacturer, the focal length and aperture being collated into a single category. Hence I can't know, for instance, which of the countless versions of the "Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8" lens made that particular image.

So use it with care.



#14 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 06 June 2015 - 11:11 AM

Well, you can't blame the Sony lenses as well for the strange way Sony compresses RAW. But those (Pentax and Sony, that is) lenses can be used on their cameras. Primarily. And if the bodies don't bring the lens' quality into the pictures, what else should do?

 

Well, as mentioned there are at least 5 Pentax cameras that can show the full potential (I forgot the K-S1/S20).

Thus there is no problem.

 

Sony has a bigger problem if you look at it from this perspective - all their APS-C cameras have an AA filter ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 June 2015 - 06:51 AM

I count 4 cameras you listed: K-S1, K-S20 (didn't find that on Ricoh's product portfolio, there's a K-20D or a K-S2), K-3 II K-5 II. So 4 out of 10 will show the full potential? That's not bad. Hope it's buyers know which camera they should choose. At least, it's the best for all bodies just not all bodies will show it.



#16 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 June 2015 - 08:53 AM

The K-3, K-3 II, K-5 IIs, K-S1 and K-S2 have no AA filter AFAIK.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#17 inaki

inaki

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 August 2015 - 12:57 PM

Hello,

One of the issues of these lenses is build quality. But it is not only Pentax´s or Ricoh´s problem. Unless going for Sanyang [murdering the spelling, I know], most AF lenses have increased their price heavily.

For that, you need to go for the older FA lenses, if you can find them.

Not that easy to come by.

 

And the AA filter... it is true. That is the reason, usually, that the Canon-Nikon photos appear to be more liquid, more detailed.

Pity that Cosina is no longer having the "opportunity Voightlanders", those old fashioned marvels.

And Pity 80´s are no longer coming back. I did really liked the Pentax old 80´s desing approach to lenses, from those metal tanks of macro to the petite 50 1.4






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de