DA50 and DA40

[dc277]

Hi all

Can anybody tell me if there is a big difference between the DA50 and DA40? I have the DA50 1.4 and its marvellous, but am very tempted to buy the DA40 partly because of its shape, but my concern is that due to its length, is there any difference between the two? I'm probably missing something, so can anybody explain it...thanks!

Dave
--
just a beginner...and having fun

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav72x/
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/DACH22

 

[viking79]

I prefer the DA 40mm limited to the FA 50mm f1.4 because I like the focal length better. However, I wouldn't want to own both of them because they are still fairly close. The reason I prefer the DA is that it is just enough wider to be useful inside.

A better bet since you already have the 50mm would be to get something further away, like a DA 21mm, FA 31mm, DA 35mm Macro, DA 70mm, FA 77mm, or good zoom (DA 50-135mm) or something. It all depends on what you want to shoot.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/

 

[tigrebleu]

First, the FA 50mm F/1.4 is two stops faster... very useful if you often work in low light without flash. Quite soft wide open, you need to stop down to F/2.8 to get sharp images... Excellent portrait lens, all-in-all. Very affordable too.

However, the DA 40mm F/2.8 Limited is way sharper wide open and stopped down and has less CAs as well. Excellent all-around lens for portrait, architecture and street photography. Quite affordable and very small, nice for travelling.

The reason the DA40 is smaller is simple: this lens has a "pancake" design, an optical formula that allows the lens to be very short at the cost of some loss of the peak performance in the center. (The lens will be a bit less sharper in the center than a conventional lens, but will have sharper edges).

However, the DA40 is so sharp in the center that it almost rivals the FA50, even when stopped down.

The only drawback of the DA40 would be its very small size focusing ring, which can become a problem if you wish to focus manually.

Verdict: the DA40 is a sharper and overall better lens, but it will cost you 2 ful stops and a few bucks more.

--
Once you've mastered the technique and the equipment, you can concentrate on
the more important aspects of photography: originality, atmosphere, emotion
and — ultimately — soul.
— Jeff

 

[dc277]

thanks. I appreciate the feedback. It seems to me that, maybe I should think about a lense that has has much more difference as I find both are similar in distance.

many thanks
--
just a beginner...and having fun

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav72x/
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/DACH22

 

[Roland Mabo]

The FA 50 f/1.4 is a semi-plastic construction (inner lens tube of metal, rest of plastic).
The DA 40 f/2.8 is a full metal construction.

Another difference is taht the DA 40 has a QuickShift focus mechanism, this means it can be manually focused even when the camera is set to AF. If you try to do this with the FA 50, you may break the AF mechanism.

Oh, and the DA 40 is cute. The FA 50 is not.

In terms of optical performance, the DA 40 has even sharpness across the board, from corner to corner, even at wide aperture. This is an advantage with the pancake design.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[Jack Simpson]

Hi Dave,

OOC, what lenses, other than the FA 50, do you have? If you don't have
any other lenses, with the 50mm do you find yourself (more often) walking
"towards" your subject or "away" from your subject? your answer should
dictate which way you want to go .... lens wise

cheers,

Jack
--
MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com

It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing

 

[MR The Guy]

The only drawback of the DA40 would be its very small size focusing
ring, which can become a problem if you wish to focus manually.

Use your ring finger while cupping the camera body in your palm.

The DA40 also does not have an aperture ring. I have both and rarely use the FA50. The main problem with the DA40, is that it fits in perfectly with the DA21 and DA70. As soon as you buy one pancake, you'll "NEED" all three.

 

[dc277]

Hi Jack

I have other lenses, but not a prime lense like the FA50 (which I think is brilliant) but with the quality of the pics I get from the FA50, I can get use to the 'specific' distance needed to take the pic, its worth it. I hope to get a 'pancake' lense soon..

thanks
--
just a beginner...and having fun

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav72x/
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/DACH22

 

[viking79]

First, the FA 50mm F/1.4 is two stops faster... very useful if you
often work in low light without flash. Quite soft wide open, you need
to stop down to F/2.8 to get sharp images... Excellent portrait lens,
all-in-all. Very affordable too.

It is true that it is two stops faster, but when you don't shoot below f/2.8 it is somewhat non important. I don't like shooting at less than f/2.8 with any lens unless absolutely necessary, and since the DA 40mm performs about the same at f/2.8 it isn't a big deal. I would prefer the FA 50mm for portraits though.

There is nothing wrong with having both, but a person doesn't really need both. The ideal lens is the FA 43mm as it is a better balance of speed and focal length in my opinion. However, it is as much as both combined.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/

 

[Gazander]

As the owner of
DA40
FA43
FA50

I will say the following.

I really like the size/shape of the DA40. It is an excellent little lens in every way.

Except for f/2.8. F/2.8 sucks, no way around it.

FA43 is a food compromise between size and speed (f/1.9... 1 stop faster) but is very expensive (almost twice as expensive as the 50 or the 40)

Long story short, it depends on what kind of pictures you like to take.

If it makes you more likely to take the camera along than not, (more compact) then def. get the 40

just beware.... f/2.8 means lots of high iso shoting and you can forget about the legendary candlelit shots the FA50 is capable of..

 

[Matthew Miller]

I really like the size/shape of the DA40. It is an excellent little
lens in every way.

Except for f/2.8. F/2.8 sucks, no way around it.

FA43 is a food compromise between size and speed (f/1.9... 1 stop
faster) but is very expensive (almost twice as expensive as the 50 or
the 40)

Long story short, it depends on what kind of pictures you like to take.

In my experience using the two (I have the DA40; a friend has the FA43) the FA43 is much better if you're manual-focusing because the increased max aperture makes it easier to see what's really in focus, the focus ring is larger, and there's way more travel.

Conversely, the DA40 is much faster to auto-focus (even/especially in low light) — enough that I don't think I'd trade. (Even though the FA43 is no question a beautiful lens.)

--
Matthew Miller « http://mattdm.org/ »

 

[Marc Sabatella]

My opinion:

The nice things about the DA40 - amazing IQ, very fast AF, quick shift for when you want the manual override, small size, great focal length for many purposes, "fast" enough for "most" situations - are nice enough that the lens is definitely worth having. Indeed, it is probably my favorite / most used lens.

On the other hand, the downsides - not quite "fast" enough for some situations, often shorter than you want for portraits, awkward to use for full-time MF - mean that I wouldn't want to be without the option of a faster 50 too. For me, that's satisfied nicely by an old MF one (A50/1.7). The DA40 and A50/1.7 together cost only around $300.

I use the 40 far more than 50, and that's not mostly because of the lack of AF - it's mostly the focal length. I suspect if I had the FA50, I'd still use the DA40 more. But if I could only have one, I might "settle" for the FA43 (settle in that I'd be paying more than I'd like, and I'd miss quick shift a lot ).

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

 

[kip leong]

Thanks to all of you for the great info, as I was pondering this same decision myself. I think I'm going for the pancake, but who knows I might end up with both at some point!

 

[Jack Simpson]

Hi Jack

Hi Dave,

I have other lenses, but not a prime lense like the FA50 (which I
think is brilliant) but with the quality of the pics I get from the
FA50, I can get use to the 'specific' distance needed to take the
pic, its worth it. I hope to get a 'pancake' lense soon..

I would recommend either the DA 21/3.2 or the DA 70/2.4 both, of
which, are cracking lenses.

cheers,

Jack

thanks
--
just a beginner...and having fun

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav72x/
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/DACH22

--
MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com

It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing