Despite the somewhat unnecessary adulation, given that this is such a great lens on its own account, finally a practical review based on extended use that does it full justice. (Also a welcome change from DPR-style verdicts to the effect of "Yeah, pretty nice fifty - but, boy, is it heavy, and it does purple-fringe as soon as you point it at metal".) Particularly appreciate the generous collection of sample images showing off the qualities of this exceptional piece of glass. Well done, David.
I just purchased the 50 mm F1 .4. It is a beautiful lend. It’s heavy at 2 pounds something boy it is well worth it. I took some pictures with it this morning and they came out gorgeous
Thank you for review. I was looking to buy this lens since I`ve got K-1 II this summer. But there is two major issues for me. First is our local pricing. On B&H it costs around 1200$? but our local Ricoh shop sells it around $1700. Even if it isn`t much for pro, it is way too much for hobbiest, especially in our country. Second is its gigantic size. Well, for modern days glass it is normal, but I`ve gor used to size of old DA/FA primes, 2 or 3 of which fits easily in single jackets pocket. But its image quality really shines. Old FA 50 1.4 is not so sharp and looses contrast easily when bright light is around the frame, eventhough I use original lens hood. So maybe, someday, I`ll get one. P.S.: BTW you've mentioned that it is backwards compatible with KAF3, but it is not. Since KAF4 lenses doesn`t have mechanical aperture lever it won`t work on camera bodies without appropriate firmware.
I cannot confirm more with this video, because I own myself the lens You are here talking about! I use it mainly for my portraits and it works on my K1 and it stands attached there for the 70% of the times! I love it!
I so wish there was a Pentax DA lens built with this mentality. A fast, well-corrected normal FOV. I'm loving my k3iii mono but I can't find 'the lens' for it. I like working with ff equivalent 38-50. Any ideas?
@DavidHancock The 31 1.8 is most appealing in terms of focal length on APSC. It looks promising but certainly not in the same design category as the fa* 50 you review here. It looks like the only new no-compromise DA glass is the 16-50. Alas, I've come to love Pentax for what it is over the years vs. focusing on what it isn't. Maybe I'll give that 31 a spin. I could reach for my full frame Lumix but the joy factor is so small compared to going back to optical vf and this very special sensor. Thanks for your input!
It looks more like a variant of retrofocus design than an Ultron. The Gaussian group in the middle (12:25) serves to increase focal length and improve corner sharpness. Such Distagon variants （Retrofocus main group at the front, gaussian group in the middle and correction group at the rear) are common among recent higher-end normal lens designs including Otus 55/1.4 and Sony 50/1.2 GM. A good lens for its age, the star 50 is best kept on PENTAX bodies as it doesn't do itself any favor by being adapted onto today's mirrorless.
That's an interesting take and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. So here was my reasoning to suggest Ultron: The lens should not need a retrofocus design as the focal length exceeds the register distance. A retrofocus in that setting would be perplexing. Also double-gauss and retrofocus designs are completely different with double-gauss having positive cells on both sides of the aperture and retrofocus having a negative cell at the front of the lens. So they come from entirely different branches of the design type family tree. In fact, here's a good D-G family tree graphic that shows the design iterations from the earliest symmetrical lenses: www.fujix-forum.com/media/fast-normal-photographic-lens-historic-line-up-stangrit.13420/full But as I look at this video again a couple of years on with, I hope, some added knowledge in the subject, this kind of looks more like a Sonnar-type than an Ultron to me today. Ultimately, it would be nice if lens makers identified their overall design type with their lenses, like Zeiss tends to do. That would be a service to the photographic community and there's no benefit to photographers when lens makers aren't open on that type of information.
Thanks for a great review. My only complaint with the lens is its weight. Its not big enough or heavy enough. Im old and grey but miss my gpmg. I carried an 80cc chain saw as a lumberjack after the army. Im very disappointed only 910 grams. I will have to add rocks to my camera bag. 😉
Thank you, David, for your detailed review! I agree without any hesitation. The 50 mm lens category is often regarded as a little boring and so many Pentax users were looking for the D FA* 85 mm first. But after having used both of them regularely: The D FA* 50 mm is a totally unique lens. - By the way: Illustration of reviews with selective taken photos doesn't work all the time so well. But your photographs are a pleasure! Congrats! - Finally: Pentax' efforts on coating are strong and successful. For front element protection I use UV filters (Zeiss) anyway. Do you that gives too much quality away?
Thank you Klaus! For filters, a high-end filter like a Zeiss or B+W ought to minimally affect images. If you use a plastic one off eBay, then oh yes, significant effects.
Hi David, I’ve been interested in this lens replacing my older FA 50mm 1.4 for quite some time, however the chromatic aberration just keeps me from making the purchase. I’ve seen some fantastic images captured with this lens, but I’ve also seen many with some really bad LOCA and I am still not sure if the cost justifies the value.
Ultimately, it's your call if the cost can be justified. On the CA, it clears up when stopped down even slightly and is a non-issue outside of very-high-contrast settings such as the sun reflecting on water. I don't recall having to edit out that much CA with this lens except in limited situations.
Obviously, super sharp images....incredible. Thank you for another great review. Based on your review the 50mm SDM is the perfect 50mm lens period. However, would you buy this lens if you already owned the new Pentax 50mm 1.4 Classic lens? Does this lens make other 50mm lenses obsolete? thank you.
Thank you! I haven't tried the other new ones so I don't know yet. I think this one still costs about as much as both of those, so it's a hard proposition given the added size and weight. One major benefit of this one is that the AF is very good, but it is also limited to being used on the KAF4 cameras, whereas the rereleased lenses are much more widely compatible across the K mount lineup.
Thank you, I found one in mint condition just under $600, but I am not sure about the large size and weight of the lens. Is tempting though. @@DavidHancock
Thanks for putting this together, really interesting review. I always wanted this lens, but it was too expensive for me at the time. Just a point on anomalous partial dispersion glass. Achromatic doublets (two lenses that correct for chromatic aberration by bringing together two wavelengths of light at a common focus) require that the lenses have different dispersion properties e.g., that the way that the refractive index varies with wavelength is not the same for both lenses. Most glasses have a linear relationship between partial dispersion (the rate of change of dispersion) and dispersion (Abbe number), lenses with anomalous partial dispersion do not sit on this linear trend. They are required for making apochromatic lenses (achromatic lenses that bring three colours of light into focus at the same point not just two). The more anomalously dispersive the lenses are the less strongly curved the surfaces need to be. Very slightly anomalously dispsersive glasses require very strongly curved lenses that typically add more aberrations to the rest of the lens. Lenses might also use APD glasses to correct for other forms of chromatic aberration, transverse CA, spherochomatism (the change in spherical aberration with wavelength) etc.
Thank you! That's a lot of interesting lens engineering info that I didn't know. I'm always glad when people who know more about the actual physics or physical properties of the subjects of my videos still get a lot out of them.
Hi Dave,Did you ever heard of "Monster Adapter LA-KE1" that can convert Pentax lens on Sony Emount body? Do you think it's worth to do this conversion if say , the DFA 50mm has a better performance than Sony 50mm GM1.4 ?
I have one. It's awful. It doesn't work at all with the KAF4 lenses, like this one and the new 21mm Limited, it often does not close the aperture before taking photos with Irix (and we can assume but extension other) KAF3 lenses. It doesn't provide accurate aperture data with KAF3 and KAF4 lenses (indicating f/1.1 as wide-open on every lens I tried and sending that back to the camera, which messes up the camera's exposure settings by a LOT,) and using it with any modern K lens is a lot of settings dial-in trial and error and, mostly, hoping that they aperture closes of the lens isn't being used wide open. If the adapter reported accurate aperture data to the camera, it would be a lot easier to use in manual mode. As it is, even in manual mode it's almost impossible to use modern lenses with it and also get proper exposures. On older lenses like the 77mm Limited, it would properly engage aperture and the AF, the former of which stops down slowly before h the photo and causes significant last, and the later of which is very slow and won't return focus confirmation and, often, which won't focus accurately at all. So with older lenses, it's only useful for manual focus. At that point, it's worth spending $20 instead of $350 for a basic adapter and just using that. Even better, spend $30 and get a nice macro adapter and add some close-focus boost to your lenses. The Monster was the worst camera gear purchase that I've ever made -- period. Complete waste of money. The one thing I needed it for -- to let me use modern lenses on cameras with 4K video so I could add that to these reviews, it can't do.
Is this a review about the lens or a Colorado tourism video? . I own this super heavy lens for the second time. I sold it before because it's only design flaw the weight! But after reviewing photos I took two years ago I just had to get it back it's just a beautiful lens. And it's SO RUGGEDLY BUILT! And I am considering the DFA* 85mm and can't wait for them for a 24mm version!
Thank you and I have never done a technical test on this lens (I added that section to this series after I made this video) but the performance on this indicates that it's pretty close to perfect. I do own this lens but haven't used it in a while since my K-1 is on the fritz following a tumble down some rocks.
I wonder why modern 50mm are this huge. I own SMC Pentax (k) 55/1.8 and it could probably fit inside the housing of this thing...I get the af motors need space but even the elements are way bigger with the same lightness
To correct optical flaws and deliver the required performance. Frankly, they don't have to be, but a smaller lens with fewer elements won't correct as many flaws.
Despite the somewhat unnecessary adulation, given that this is such a great lens on its own account, finally a practical review based on extended use that does it full justice. (Also a welcome change from DPR-style verdicts to the effect of "Yeah, pretty nice fifty - but, boy, is it heavy, and it does purple-fringe as soon as you point it at metal".) Particularly appreciate the generous collection of sample images showing off the qualities of this exceptional piece of glass. Well done, David.
Thank you, Marc!
Nice review - thank you very much for covering everything in great detail!
Thank you!
I just purchased the 50 mm F1 .4. It is a beautiful lend. It’s heavy at 2 pounds something boy it is well worth it. I took some pictures with it this morning and they came out gorgeous
Nice! Yeah, this lens is amazing.
Thank you for review. I was looking to buy this lens since I`ve got K-1 II this summer. But there is two major issues for me. First is our local pricing. On B&H it costs around 1200$? but our local Ricoh shop sells it around $1700. Even if it isn`t much for pro, it is way too much for hobbiest, especially in our country. Second is its gigantic size. Well, for modern days glass it is normal, but I`ve gor used to size of old DA/FA primes, 2 or 3 of which fits easily in single jackets pocket.
But its image quality really shines. Old FA 50 1.4 is not so sharp and looses contrast easily when bright light is around the frame, eventhough I use original lens hood.
So maybe, someday, I`ll get one.
P.S.: BTW you've mentioned that it is backwards compatible with KAF3, but it is not. Since KAF4 lenses doesn`t have mechanical aperture lever it won`t work on camera bodies without appropriate firmware.
Oh dang it. Thank you for catching that. I thought that KAF3 could accept lenses without a physical aperture linkage.
I cannot confirm more with this video, because I own myself the lens You are here talking about! I use it mainly for my portraits and it works on my K1 and it stands attached there for the 70% of the times! I love it!
Thank you, Francesco! Your work shows what this lens can do in good hands, too.
I so wish there was a Pentax DA lens built with this mentality. A fast, well-corrected normal FOV. I'm loving my k3iii mono but I can't find 'the lens' for it. I like working with ff equivalent 38-50. Any ideas?
I have a few ides:
ua-cam.com/video/ENNLnwPs0k8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/WwOUe5R-V2I/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/vDpDIfCQ5E0/v-deo.html
@DavidHancock The 31 1.8 is most appealing in terms of focal length on APSC. It looks promising but certainly not in the same design category as the fa* 50 you review here. It looks like the only new no-compromise DA glass is the 16-50. Alas, I've come to love Pentax for what it is over the years vs. focusing on what it isn't. Maybe I'll give that 31 a spin. I could reach for my full frame Lumix but the joy factor is so small compared to going back to optical vf and this very special sensor. Thanks for your input!
It looks more like a variant of retrofocus design than an Ultron. The Gaussian group in the middle (12:25) serves to increase focal length and improve corner sharpness. Such Distagon variants （Retrofocus main group at the front, gaussian group in the middle and correction group at the rear) are common among recent higher-end normal lens designs including Otus 55/1.4 and Sony 50/1.2 GM. A good lens for its age, the star 50 is best kept on PENTAX bodies as it doesn't do itself any favor by being adapted onto today's mirrorless.
That's an interesting take and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. So here was my reasoning to suggest Ultron: The lens should not need a retrofocus design as the focal length exceeds the register distance. A retrofocus in that setting would be perplexing. Also double-gauss and retrofocus designs are completely different with double-gauss having positive cells on both sides of the aperture and retrofocus having a negative cell at the front of the lens. So they come from entirely different branches of the design type family tree. In fact, here's a good D-G family tree graphic that shows the design iterations from the earliest symmetrical lenses: www.fujix-forum.com/media/fast-normal-photographic-lens-historic-line-up-stangrit.13420/full
But as I look at this video again a couple of years on with, I hope, some added knowledge in the subject, this kind of looks more like a Sonnar-type than an Ultron to me today.
Ultimately, it would be nice if lens makers identified their overall design type with their lenses, like Zeiss tends to do. That would be a service to the photographic community and there's no benefit to photographers when lens makers aren't open on that type of information.
if it wasn't for the lens title above, i'd think i was looking at the medium format shots..
Thank you for the review.
Thank you!
Thanks for a great review.
My only complaint with the lens is its weight. Its not big enough or heavy enough. Im old and grey but miss my gpmg. I carried an 80cc chain saw as a lumberjack after the army. Im very disappointed only 910 grams. I will have to add rocks to my camera bag. 😉
:D
Thank you, David, for your detailed review! I agree without any hesitation. The 50 mm lens category is often regarded as a little boring and so many Pentax users were looking for the D FA* 85 mm first. But after having used both of them regularely: The D FA* 50 mm is a totally unique lens. - By the way: Illustration of reviews with selective taken photos doesn't work all the time so well. But your photographs are a pleasure! Congrats! - Finally: Pentax' efforts on coating are strong and successful. For front element protection I use UV filters (Zeiss) anyway. Do you that gives too much quality away?
Thank you Klaus!
For filters, a high-end filter like a Zeiss or B+W ought to minimally affect images. If you use a plastic one off eBay, then oh yes, significant effects.
Hi, do you mean you prefer the 50 over the 85? Or is it "more unique" than the 85?
Hi David, I’ve been interested in this lens replacing my older FA 50mm 1.4 for quite some time, however the chromatic aberration just keeps me from making the purchase. I’ve seen some fantastic images captured with this lens, but I’ve also seen many with some really bad LOCA and I am still not sure if the cost justifies the value.
Ultimately, it's your call if the cost can be justified. On the CA, it clears up when stopped down even slightly and is a non-issue outside of very-high-contrast settings such as the sun reflecting on water. I don't recall having to edit out that much CA with this lens except in limited situations.
Obviously, super sharp images....incredible. Thank you for another great review. Based on your review the 50mm SDM is the perfect 50mm lens period. However, would you buy this lens if you already owned the new Pentax 50mm 1.4 Classic lens? Does this lens make other 50mm lenses obsolete? thank you.
Thank you! I haven't tried the other new ones so I don't know yet. I think this one still costs about as much as both of those, so it's a hard proposition given the added size and weight. One major benefit of this one is that the AF is very good, but it is also limited to being used on the KAF4 cameras, whereas the rereleased lenses are much more widely compatible across the K mount lineup.
Thank you, I found one in mint condition just under $600, but I am not sure about the large size and weight of the lens. Is tempting though. @@DavidHancock
Is this lens a resurrected Super Takumar 50 mm f1.4 (8 Element) version?
Nope.
Thanks for putting this together, really interesting review. I always wanted this lens, but it was too expensive for me at the time. Just a point on anomalous partial dispersion glass. Achromatic doublets (two lenses that correct for chromatic aberration by bringing together two wavelengths of light at a common focus) require that the lenses have different dispersion properties e.g., that the way that the refractive index varies with wavelength is not the same for both lenses. Most glasses have a linear relationship between partial dispersion (the rate of change of dispersion) and dispersion (Abbe number), lenses with anomalous partial dispersion do not sit on this linear trend. They are required for making apochromatic lenses (achromatic lenses that bring three colours of light into focus at the same point not just two).
The more anomalously dispersive the lenses are the less strongly curved the surfaces need to be. Very slightly anomalously dispsersive glasses require very strongly curved lenses that typically add more aberrations to the rest of the lens.
Lenses might also use APD glasses to correct for other forms of chromatic aberration, transverse CA, spherochomatism (the change in spherical aberration with wavelength) etc.
Thank you! That's a lot of interesting lens engineering info that I didn't know. I'm always glad when people who know more about the actual physics or physical properties of the subjects of my videos still get a lot out of them.
Thanks for the review, superb lens.
Thank you!
Hi Dave,Did you ever heard of "Monster Adapter LA-KE1" that can convert Pentax lens on Sony Emount body?
Do you think it's worth to do this conversion if say , the DFA 50mm has a better performance than Sony 50mm GM1.4 ?
I have one. It's awful. It doesn't work at all with the KAF4 lenses, like this one and the new 21mm Limited, it often does not close the aperture before taking photos with Irix (and we can assume but extension other) KAF3 lenses. It doesn't provide accurate aperture data with KAF3 and KAF4 lenses (indicating f/1.1 as wide-open on every lens I tried and sending that back to the camera, which messes up the camera's exposure settings by a LOT,) and using it with any modern K lens is a lot of settings dial-in trial and error and, mostly, hoping that they aperture closes of the lens isn't being used wide open. If the adapter reported accurate aperture data to the camera, it would be a lot easier to use in manual mode. As it is, even in manual mode it's almost impossible to use modern lenses with it and also get proper exposures.
On older lenses like the 77mm Limited, it would properly engage aperture and the AF, the former of which stops down slowly before h the photo and causes significant last, and the later of which is very slow and won't return focus confirmation and, often, which won't focus accurately at all. So with older lenses, it's only useful for manual focus. At that point, it's worth spending $20 instead of $350 for a basic adapter and just using that. Even better, spend $30 and get a nice macro adapter and add some close-focus boost to your lenses.
The Monster was the worst camera gear purchase that I've ever made -- period. Complete waste of money. The one thing I needed it for -- to let me use modern lenses on cameras with 4K video so I could add that to these reviews, it can't do.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for detailed information. It's a shame that monster adapter didn't work.
Is this a review about the lens or a Colorado tourism video? . I own this super heavy lens for the second time. I sold it before because it's only design flaw the weight! But after reviewing photos I took two years ago I just had to get it back it's just a beautiful lens. And it's SO RUGGEDLY BUILT! And I am considering the DFA* 85mm and can't wait for them for a 24mm version!
Well, I do live in Colorado so many of my photos are taken here. 😀 The 85 also looks incredible.
Nice, review. Do you still own this lens. Does this truly have no coma or astigmatism. I am interested in buying it for astrophotography.
Thank you and I have never done a technical test on this lens (I added that section to this series after I made this video) but the performance on this indicates that it's pretty close to perfect. I do own this lens but haven't used it in a while since my K-1 is on the fritz following a tumble down some rocks.
I enjoy these Pentax reviews even though I have no interest in Pentax system because of your style of review.
:D
I wonder why modern 50mm are this huge. I own SMC Pentax (k) 55/1.8 and it could probably fit inside the housing of this thing...I get the af motors need space but even the elements are way bigger with the same lightness
To correct optical flaws and deliver the required performance. Frankly, they don't have to be, but a smaller lens with fewer elements won't correct as many flaws.
@@DavidHancock I was suspecting that, thank you for the answer :)
Come on David… DA = crop sensor, k-3, etc. & FA = full frame, K-1, k-1 II, and film cameras.
Thank you.
must be a really good lens 😅
It's incredible.
FA seems to mean it's the full frame lens
But FA dates back to the 90s or early 2000s. That said, a few Internet resources concur with you, so I am inclined to as well.
Great channel, please change the music !
Thank you.