FA 50 1.4 vs DA 50 1.8

Bernie3 wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I have a good copy of the FA 50/1.4 and will keep it.

Bernie

If you decide to keep it, do not look into Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX

I have both FA 50/1.4 and DA*55/1.4. Although some reviews suggest no big difference between the two, I much prefer the 55, it has something special maybe in better micro contrast.
--
Regards,
Soheil
------------------------------
It's the singer not the song.

soheil wrote:

Bernie3 wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I have a good copy of the FA 50/1.4 and will keep it.

Bernie

If you decide to keep it, do not look into Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX

I have both FA 50/1.4 and DA*55/1.4. Although some reviews suggest no big difference between the two, I much prefer the 55, it has something special maybe in better micro contrast.
--
Regards,
Soheil
------------------------------
It's the singer not the song.

Given the era and the complexity of construction I wouldn't expect otherwise, sans parler du prix!

I know this is an old thread, but I will comment on this.

I have a DA 50/1.8 which I bought new years ago, as well as an FA50/1.4 which I bought used last week.

I tested both on my K-1 II. Both lenses fill the entire sensor, though I have to force FF mode with the DA50.

The DA 50 autofocuses faster and more reliably than the FA 50.

The FA50 is absolutely no good wide open at 1.4, at least on my copy. But it becomes great when stopped down to f2.0 .

When comparing both lenses at f1.8, the image from the FA50 is bit sharper than the one from the DA50, but it's not a night-and day difference.

I would say that in the majority of situations, the DA50 is the better choice, as you don't have to spend extra time to manually stop it down, and it autofocuses better. If you have a high ISO camera like a K-P, K-1 or K-1 II, letting the camera just bump the ISO slightly higher will probably work just as well.

I'm actually torn on as I thought I would sell my DA50 after acquiring the FA50, but the FA50 isn't superior to it in every respect. I will probably end up keeping both ...

madbrain wrote:

I know this is an old thread, but I will comment on this.

I have a DA 50/1.8 which I bought new years ago, as well as an FA50/1.4 which I bought used last week.

I tested both on my K-1 II. Both lenses fill the entire sensor, though I have to force FF mode with the DA50.

The DA 50 autofocuses faster and more reliably than the FA 50.

The FA50 is absolutely no good wide open at 1.4, at least on my copy. But it becomes great when stopped down to f2.0 .

When comparing both lenses at f1.8, the image from the FA50 is bit sharper than the one from the DA50, but it's not a night-and day difference.

I would say that in the majority of situations, the DA50 is the better choice, as you don't have to spend extra time to manually stop it down, and it autofocuses better. If you have a high ISO camera like a K-P, K-1 or K-1 II, letting the camera just bump the ISO slightly higher will probably work just as well.

I'm actually torn on as I thought I would sell my DA50 after acquiring the FA50, but the FA50 isn't superior to it in every respect. I will probably end up keeping both ...

Madbrain,

Hmm, in a recent thread (on the K1) when I was trying to get some idea of what the soon to be released DFA 50 f/1.4 had that my FA 50 f/1.4 didn't have -- for hiking purposes, I came away with the idea that I would have no reason for buying the DFA 50.  The discussion expanded to include the F 50 1.4, FA 50 f/1.7, and the DFA 50 f/2.8.  One person mentioned the DA*55 f/1.4, saying it was excellent at full frame.  I tried it and agreed.  In fact I have all of these lenses and tried them all during the discussion.  No one mentioned the DA 50 f/1.8, if I recall correctly.  Thus, I was surprised to read through this old thread and see the DA 50 f/1.8 given so much respect.   No one quite gave up their FA 50 f/1.4 for one, but they were thinking about it and almost did.

I bought a KP recently; so perhaps I should revisit the DA 50 f/1.8.

Lawrence