Is there such a thing as too much lens?

I agree, its a great lens. I have the 31 and I sold the 43 after buying this lens. There is nothing like owning a modern bright 50 for a FF setup. It’s a special lens, that to me makes more sense for most than its big brother the DFA* 85 will, and can be had when on sale for about half that price. I never owned the DA 55, but I enjoy throwing the DFA 50 on my KP (with grip on the KP for balance) to basically have a portrait lens when I need something brighter than the 50-135. Sure the DFA 50 is heavy, and it doesn’t get taken along unless I know I want it, but like you, I am glad I own it.

In every case beautiful pictures!

Richard Murdey said:

I imagine Pentax K-1 users can be divided into two groups. "Pros" who use the f/2.8 zooms, and "Filthy casuals" like myself, for whom the FA31 Limited is pretty much the apex lens of the K-mount catalog.

Viewed in terms of the f/2.8 professional zooms, the HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is neither expensive nor especially large. This is a perspective I can't relate to, and this review is not written for that user group.

Click to expand...

Great shots.

'Pro' vs. 'casuals' (Alternatively, enthusiasts, amateurs?) never struct me as a useful categorization. There are good and bad pros, good and bad amateurs, and I don't know a single type of photography that might attract solely one audience or the other.

The real distinction, ISTM, is between those that have to watch their budget closely, and those that, either by need or preference, are more open with their wallets. I can see a pro (straight definition: someone who makes money with their gear) being more willing to get a $1000+ lens if they have a use for it than someone who doesn't.

But that's certainly not a rule: if portraits are your thing and you shoot a K-1, then a Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 might just be a must-have, or might be too expensive, regardless of pro vs amateur status.

Richard Murdey said:

I imagine Pentax K-1 users can be divided into two groups. "Pros" who use the f/2.8 zooms, and "Filthy casuals" like myself, for whom the FA31 Limited is pretty much the apex lens of the K-mount catalog.

Viewed in terms of the f/2.8 professional zooms, the HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is neither expensive nor especially large. This is a perspective I can't relate to, and this review is not written for that user group.

'Cuz this lens is HUGE...

Click to expand...

Interesting write up.

Being closer to the "Filthy casual" group, with the stipulation that any lens I might regularly use must fit easily in a jacket pocket... well, maybe the 50 would, but the 85 isn't even close. And I like 85s.

So then I come onto forums like this and view these nice FF images, then read up on how good this "large glass" is, especially with a modern FF sensor.

Hmm, maybe first I shop for XXX Large jacket...

bob5050 said:

Richard Murdey said:

I imagine Pentax K-1 users can be divided into two groups. "Pros" who use the f/2.8 zooms, and "Filthy casuals" like myself, for whom the FA31 Limited is pretty much the apex lens of the K-mount catalog.

Viewed in terms of the f/2.8 professional zooms, the HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is neither expensive nor especially large. This is a perspective I can't relate to, and this review is not written for that user group.

Click to expand...

Great shots.

'Pro' vs. 'casuals' (Alternatively, enthusiasts, amateurs?) never struct me as a useful categorization. There are good and bad pros, good and bad amateurs, and I don't know a single type of photography that might attract solely one audience or the other.

The real distinction, ISTM, is between those that have to watch their budget closely, and those that, either by need or preference, are more open with their wallets. I can see a pro (straight definition: someone who makes money with their gear) being more willing to get a $1000+ lens if they have a use for it than someone who doesn't.

But that's certainly not a rule: if portraits are your thing and you shoot a K-1, then a Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 might just be a must-have, or might be too expensive, regardless of pro vs amateur status.

Click to expand...

Portraits are my thing. And yes the D FA* 85 seemed like a must have, I couldn't justify the weight and cost of the 50 to myself given the alternatives, and I was convinced it was a bad decision to prioritize the 50. I seem to have been proved wrong there But to own either (and indeed to own the K1) you need to be willing to spend a four figure sum, and if it isn't a business expense you need to either make a lot of use of the lens or avoid thinking about the cost per shot.

I think most of Richard's observations on the 50 apply to the 85 - the middle picture with the red berries seems to be the same thing I find with the 85 - sometimes the lens lets you make a picture from almost nothing.

I'd dearly love to see more D-FA* lenses a new 24 or 135 perhaps, although if I owned more than one I'd need to change how I transport equipment.

James O'Neill said:

I think most of Richard's observations on the 50 apply to the 85 - the middle picture with the red berries seems to be the same thing I find with the 85 - sometimes the lens lets you make a picture from almost nothing.

Click to expand...

As someone who has shot with plenty of both "Pro" and "Casual" lenses per the OP's definition, I've gotta disagree. The berry picture is an almost completely ho-hum image (not meant as an insult to Richard- after all, it is merely a test image), that as a "picture" is almost worthless. The only thing the D-FA 85 adds is a bit of wow factor for other pixel-peeping photographic gear heads, but that doesn't really add anything to the power of the image. In fact, it actually detracts from its quality for most viewers, since they are getting a pixel-perfect rendering of a flat, lifeless image.

This is illustrative of what I find to be the problem with both the new 50 and 85. The images they produce are marvels of clarity and sharpness, but they are almost totally bereft of character. This is a criticism that doesn't just apply to the new Pentax lenses. It applies to almost everything being released by all the big makers now. Lenses that produce images that are perfect sharp corner to corner, with impeccable MTF charts and virtually no PF, distortion, or CA, but are also completely boring. An accomplished photographer who is a master of their craft can use these characteristics to their advantage, but for 98% of the users who buy these lenses, the perfect rendering is going to do nothing but reveal other deficiencies in their photographs.

In my opinion, a Nikkor-P 10.5cm or a Takumar 85mm 1.9 will give you far more interesting ("better") portraits than anything I've seen out of the 85, even for casual shooters. And let's face it, for the most part, nearly all of the most beloved and sought-after Pentax lenses have always been character lenses first and foremost.

And yes, they most definitely do have their own drawbacks, but for most, they are going to gives a much better ROI than throwing money at the latest and greatest. Does that make the new lenses "too much" lens for these shooters? No, they can spend their money on whatever they want, and they might eventually grow into the lens. But as always, it's work that will improve your photos the most, not gear.

MrBarnOwl said:

MrBarnOwl said:

I think most of Richard's observations on the 50 apply to the 85 - the middle picture with the red berries seems to be the same thing I find with the 85 - sometimes the lens lets you make a picture from almost nothing.

Click to expand...

As someone who has shot with plenty of both "Pro" and "Casual" lenses per the OP's definition, I've gotta disagree. The berry picture is an almost completely ho-hum image (not meant as an insult to Richard- after all, it is merely a test image), that as a "picture" is almost worthless. The only thing the D-FA 85 adds is a bit of wow factor for other pixel-peeping photographic gear heads, but that doesn't really add anything to the power of the image. In fact, it actually detracts from its quality for most viewers, since they are getting a pixel-perfect rendering of a flat, lifeless image.

Click to expand...

A friend of mine would start a reply to that

"Whilst I totally respect your right to hold that opinion..."

I've shared a couple more on the foliage thread there https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64719438 to illustrate my point. Just a few leaves but I think the pictures have something to them and are not 'almost worthless' or only for "pixel-peeping photographic gear heads" or "flat"/ "lifeless" and I posted a lot more here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64138116

As I said in a recent thread about choosing an 85mm the DFA* does impose less personality on the image than some other lenses. But I wouldn't conflate that with "sterile" or "boring". Some people want to get a modern body and use Russian lenses form the 1970s, or old Takumars or whatever to get an effect (much as some want to put a soft focus filter on every portrait, or can't take a sky without a polarizer or apply to the same processing tweak to every thing...) each to their own.

MrBarnOwl said:

This is illustrative of what I find to be the problem with both the new 50 and 85. The images they produce are marvels of clarity and sharpness, but they are almost totally bereft of character. This is a criticism that doesn't just apply to the new Pentax lenses. It applies to almost everything being released by all the big makers now. Lenses that produce images that are perfect sharp corner to corner, with impeccable MTF charts and virtually no PF, distortion, or CA, but are also completely boring. An accomplished photographer who is a master of their craft can use these characteristics to their advantage, but for 98% of the users who buy these lenses, the perfect rendering is going to do nothing but reveal other deficiencies in their photographs.

Click to expand...

Questions of what to shoot, where to shoot it from, how to use light, timing, what is included in the frame but isn't the subject, and how everything in the frame is composed - generally "content" doesn't change with lens qualities. A badly lit picture shot with a great lens remains badly lit, but greater sharpness doesn't emphasize other faults. On the other hand if a lens that is a bit mushy towards the corners wide open might deter you from some compositions.

MrBarnOwl said:

In my opinion, a Nikkor-P 10.5cm or a Takumar 85mm 1.9 will give you far more interesting ("better") portraits than anything I've seen out of the 85, even for casual shooters. And let's face it, for the most part, nearly all of the most beloved and sought-after Pentax lenses have always been character lenses first and foremost.

Click to expand...

Opinions differ about whether which characteristics make subjectively "better" results. What I like about 77 ltd is different from what I like in the DFA* 85. For example night shots with the 77 create beautiful stars, would I get upset if someone asked "Why have you put a starburst filter on ?"... maybe. I wouldn't have the 77 any other way, but I wouldn't call the 85 worse for not being a copy of it. It's like asking if I like strawberries or asparagus. I like both, in the right situation (don't serve everything with Strawberry coulis!) and totally understand those who don't - but I won't have any truck with people who tell me what I should / shouldn't like.

There are vintage lenses which some people love for their character which is what makes them sought-after. The same is true of the limited series which do not necessarily top the bench tests.

Many photographers will believe that one of their lenses adds that bit of magic to what they do. In my case it's the DFA* in yours it might be Takumar. It's just how each of us feels, and it would be a dull old world if we all felt the same way about everything.

MrBarnOwl said:

And yes, [classic lenses] most definitely do have their own drawbacks, but for most, they are going to gives a much better ROI than throwing money at the latest and greatest. Does that make the new lenses "too much" lens for these shooters? No, they can spend their money on whatever they want, and they might eventually grow into the lens. But as always, it's work that will improve your photos the most, not gear.

Click to expand...

And on that we totally agree.

MrBarnOwl said:

MrBarnOwl said:

I think most of Richard's observations on the 50 apply to the 85 - the middle picture with the red berries seems to be the same thing I find with the 85 - sometimes the lens lets you make a picture from almost nothing.

Click to expand...

As someone who has shot with plenty of both "Pro" and "Casual" lenses per the OP's definition, I've gotta disagree. The berry picture is an almost completely ho-hum image (not meant as an insult to Richard- after all, it is merely a test image), that as a "picture" is almost worthless. The only thing the D-FA 85 adds is a bit of wow factor for other pixel-peeping photographic gear heads, but that doesn't really add anything to the power of the image. In fact, it actually detracts from its quality for most viewers, since they are getting a pixel-perfect rendering of a flat, lifeless image.

This is illustrative of what I find to be the problem with both the new 50 and 85. The images they produce are marvels of clarity and sharpness, but they are almost totally bereft of character. This is a criticism that doesn't just apply to the new Pentax lenses. It applies to almost everything being released by all the big makers now. Lenses that produce images that are perfect sharp corner to corner, with impeccable MTF charts and virtually no PF, distortion, or CA, but are also completely boring. An accomplished photographer who is a master of their craft can use these characteristics to their advantage, but for 98% of the users who buy these lenses, the perfect rendering is going to do nothing but reveal other deficiencies in their photographs.

In my opinion, a Nikkor-P 10.5cm or a Takumar 85mm 1.9 will give you far more interesting ("better") portraits than anything I've seen out of the 85, even for casual shooters. And let's face it, for the most part, nearly all of the most beloved and sought-after Pentax lenses have always been character lenses first and foremost.

And yes, they most definitely do have their own drawbacks, but for most, they are going to gives a much better ROI than throwing money at the latest and greatest. Does that make the new lenses "too much" lens for these shooters? No, they can spend their money on whatever they want, and they might eventually grow into the lens. But as always, it's work that will improve your photos the most, not gear.

Click to expand...

I agree that modern super sharp and hyper corrected lenses aren't the best choice for portraiture. Older classic lenses can produce photos much more flattering to the model and are easier on the photographer's wallet.

Yup, I'm a Filthy Casual (I like that term), and while I admire these new lenses I'm going to stick with the FA43 and FA77. But to those who buy them and love them, kudus

MrBarnOwl said:

In my opinion, a Nikkor-P 10.5cm or a Takumar 85mm 1.9 will give you far more interesting ("better") portraits than anything I've seen out of the 85, even for casual shooters. And let's face it, for the most part, nearly all of the most beloved and sought-after Pentax lenses have always been character lenses first and foremost.

And yes, they most definitely do have their own drawbacks, but for most, they are going to gives a much better ROI than throwing money at the latest and greatest. Does that make the new lenses "too much" lens for these shooters? No, they can spend their money on whatever they want, and they might eventually grow into the lens. But as always, it's work that will improve your photos the most, not gear.

Click to expand...

Having read your post I felt inspired to spring out my takumar 85 1.9 on the KP and was very happy with the result with aperture fully open. At 15 years old and the oldest member of the household I think he is entitled to a few moments of contemplation.

I have this lens and when I decided to buy it I was knowing it is heavy but it has excellent quality and superior to my fa 50mm and fa 43ltd .

I like the warm colors of film lenses but this dfa* 50mm is from different league. Digital 50mm f1.4 lenses are heavy no exceptions.

This is my go to lens for family portrait and all around lens. You can’t go wrong with it if you’re focusing to the right subject.

MrBarnOwl said:

MrBarnOwl said:

I think most of Richard's observations on the 50 apply to the 85 - the middle picture with the red berries seems to be the same thing I find with the 85 - sometimes the lens lets you make a picture from almost nothing.

Click to expand...

As someone who has shot with plenty of both "Pro" and "Casual" lenses per the OP's definition, I've gotta disagree. The berry picture is an almost completely ho-hum image (not meant as an insult to Richard- after all, it is merely a test image), that as a "picture" is almost worthless. The only thing the D-FA 85 adds is a bit of wow factor for other pixel-peeping photographic gear heads, but that doesn't really add anything to the power of the image. In fact, it actually detracts from its quality for most viewers, since they are getting a pixel-perfect rendering of a flat, lifeless image.

This is illustrative of what I find to be the problem with both the new 50 and 85. The images they produce are marvels of clarity and sharpness, but they are almost totally bereft of character. This is a criticism that doesn't just apply to the new Pentax lenses. It applies to almost everything being released by all the big makers now. Lenses that produce images that are perfect sharp corner to corner, with impeccable MTF charts and virtually no PF, distortion, or CA, but are also completely boring. An accomplished photographer who is a master of their craft can use these characteristics to their advantage, but for 98% of the users who buy these lenses, the perfect rendering is going to do nothing but reveal other deficiencies in their photographs.

In my opinion, a Nikkor-P 10.5cm or a Takumar 85mm 1.9 will give you far more interesting ("better") portraits than anything I've seen out of the 85, even for casual shooters. And let's face it, for the most part, nearly all of the most beloved and sought-after Pentax lenses have always been character lenses first and foremost.

Click to expand...

In a way, I hate to be another one who disagrees with you. I prefer to be original. But let the record show that I will happily disagree even when doing so is unpopular, and I would have disagreed with you in this particular instance if nobody else had.

But the real intention of this post is simple, and a challenge:

Shoot the same portrait with the D FA* 50 on APS-C, and tell me if you still think hold the same opinions w.r.t. pixel-peeping, gear heads and other such trigger words. ;-)

This is because picking on the 85 as a proxy for the 50 is unfair to this review (yes, it was James O'Neill who brought that up, but you expanded on it). If you want to talk about portraits, with the 50 on APS-C at least you almost get a classic portrait focal length.

I agree with what you're saying about the "lifeless" rendering the DFA* 85. Looking at comparison photos shot with it and the A* 85 1.4, I clearly prefer the A*.

The DFA 50, however, is another matter: I've seen wide-open full-length portraits of people shot with it that have a very 3D, medium-format look that I would pay money for. I don't think the 85 can do that quite the same way simply due to the focal length and how it compresses the ground beneath the subject's feet more. The FA43 can't do it, either, it doesn't have sufficient maximum aperture, it's difficult to focus that precisely at f1.9, and the performance (contrast) at that aperture isn't close to what the new 50 delivers. You need to stop the 43 down to f/2.4 to get to a similar image quality, and at that aperture, focal length, and focal distance, the medium-format illusion is completely gone, everything is in focus.

The cost and weight of the DFA 50 only makes sense to me if you are going to shoot it wide open at medium-long focal distances. Otherwise, the arguments you bring about getting more character from other glass do apply. The DFA has plenty of character IMO, you may just not be looking for it in the right place! And it may be irrelevant to you if that's not your style of photography.

Matt

Breakfastographer 2 said:

But the real intention of this post is simple, and a challenge:

Shoot the same portrait with the D FA* 50 on APS-C, and tell me if you still think hold the same opinions w.r.t. pixel-peeping, gear heads and other such trigger words. ;-)

This is because picking on the 85 as a proxy for the 50 is unfair to this review (yes, it was James O'Neill who brought that up, but you expanded on it). If you want to talk about portraits, with the 50 on APS-C at least you almost get a classic portrait focal length.

Click to expand...

My bad. I see the two new DFA* lenses as siblings and thought it was reasonable to say what one does for Richard, the other does for me, and it should really have stopped there.

In the same way, some people feel this the whole category of lens achieves outstanding metrics but lacks "soul", and would prefer something different.

Yesterday, I was looking at some sample pictures from a vintage lens that has many fans, and my conclusion was it couldn't form a sharp image until closed down 4 or 5 stops, the bokeh was so-so, and the flare was dreadful. My take was that just wasn't much good - if lens with that output were made today no-one would buy it.

It feels like people who say "Modern Formula one cars.... pah... the Lotus 49, there was a real car". Good as it was in its day it wouldn't win a race against anything newer and if it crashed it killed the driver (and sometimes people track-side). Objectively things are better and yet some people preferred watching the cars of long ago.

Relatively cheap, vintage lenses don't need the same commitment as a DFA*.
People tolerate(d), work(ed) around or made/make creative use of the various limitations (and I don't just mean the 'hipsters' who mount a Soviet copy of a 1930's German lens on a digital body and process it to look like expired film put through the wrong chemistry, where the print has been left to go mouldy).

Lens designers have a quest for zero distortion, zero aberration, perfect sharpness (infinite resolution), and the conquest of flare. Moves in that direction are called "progress", in a creative endeavour like photography, progress isn't compulsory. And - sorry to go back to 85mm - really the point wasn't "The DFA* didn't move the state of the lens makers art on from the FA*, which wasn't progress from A*", but "Over the whole history of making lenses of 35mm lens mounts, there are a couple more likable...". Ultimately if you like the way one kind of lens renders more than another, that's what you like.

KL Matt said:

I agree with what you're saying about the "lifeless" rendering the DFA* 85. Looking at comparison photos shot with it and the A* 85 1.4, I clearly prefer the A*.
The DFA 50, however, is another matter: I've seen wide-open full-length portraits of people shot with it that have a very 3D, medium-format look that I would pay money for. I don't think the 85 can do that quite the same way simply due to the focal length and how it compresses the ground beneath the subject's feet more. The FA43 can't do it, either, it doesn't have sufficient maximum aperture, it's difficult to focus that precisely at f1.9, and the performance (contrast) at that aperture isn't close to what the new 50 delivers. You need to stop the 43 down to f/2.4 to get to a similar image quality, and at that aperture, focal length, and focal distance, the medium-format illusion is completely gone, everything is in focus.

The cost and weight of the DFA 50 only makes sense to me if you are going to shoot it wide open at medium-long focal distances. Otherwise, the arguments you bring about getting more character from other glass do apply. The DFA has plenty of character IMO, you may just not be looking for it in the right place! And it may be irrelevant to you if that's not your style of photography.

Matt

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the D-FA 50 here. It really renders unlike anything else available in Pentax land at this focal range. It’s lovely for people photos.

James O'Neill said:

Lens designers have a quest for zero distortion, zero aberration, perfect sharpness (infinite resolution), and the conquest of flare.

Click to expand...

Surely, that's the point. I dispute having lens or camera failures called 'personality.' Idiosyncratic 'treatments' are the business of post processing, not the camera's or lens's inability to accurately capture and record the reality in front of it.

--
bob5050
I just hope that everyone who's complained about the K-3iii delay actually buys one. One wonders, otherwise, about the sincerity of their complaints.

bob5050 said:

James O'Neill said:

Lens designers have a quest for zero distortion, zero aberration, perfect sharpness (infinite resolution), and the conquest of flare.

Click to expand...

Surely, that's the point. I dispute having lens or camera failures called 'personality.' Idiosyncratic 'treatments' are the business of post processing, not the camera's or lens's inability to accurately capture and record the reality in front of it.

Click to expand...

That's the side of the I come down on. Mostly. I own a lensbaby 3G and an 85 FA 2.8/Soft (on the point of selling ) . The FA soft - which is evenly un-sharp is less interesting to me than the lensbaby's selective focus, as I get older I'm more interested in questions like bokeh and the how foregrounds and background (or anything else which isn't the main subject) work with the subject. The DFA* lenses do this in a way that I like.

I think with digital we have gone towards seeing limitations as failures rather than personality. In the film era, choice of film came with a set of abilities and limitations and that was part of the creative process - now we want a faithful recording and treatment(s) after the fact. But just like I wouldn't criticize someone for wanting a grainy film (again chemists' goals included finer grain), - again, something we can mimic in post - I can also understand that as lenses get closer to perfection some tastes might find them too clinical. I'm not going to try to convince people who feel that of the DFA* lenses that they are wrong, I can just say "Here's what I do with mine, if you like it, lovely, if not, that's OK."

All this started because I thought one of Richard's showed there is the same "fairy dust" on both the 50 and 85, and someone said they didn't like fairy dust. Richard, I'm so sorry for hijacking your thread.

Not sure what I am arguing about here really. But the photos shown are f5.6 and f4.5 and they are exactly what I would expect from most 50 mm lenses at those f stops. Most kit lenses will perform at f 5.6. I would have loved to seen these photos wide ope

I have the 43 and 77 and they each have a character to them. Although the 43 is one of the sharpest lenses I have.

I also, like someone mentioned will slap on a old $50 Russian lens to the KP and be just fine with the look I get. But I shoot those wide open, just to get the look of the old glass.

Gus

Industar 61







--
"It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them."
~~ Pierre Beaumarchais~~