New Pentax Lens: 50mm f/1.8

[miserere_mei]

<p>As expected, Pentax has announced the new lens they had pre-announced a few months ago:</p>

<p>http://photorumors.com/2012/05/21/pentax-introduces-smc-da-50mm-f1-8-lens</p>

<p>Price is $250 in the US. Considering I purchased the FA 50mm f/1.4 for $200 a few years ago, it seems expensive, but that's the direction lens prices are taking. I look forward to a size and image comparison with the FA 50 and brick wall shots on a film camera to know if it's FF compatible or not. The official blurb says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...image coverage is optimized for PENTAX K-mount ILC cameras...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know why they use the plural, because there is only <em>one</em> ILC camera from Pentax: The K-01.</p>

<p>Oh, and Jeremy, congratulations on your upcoming new lens :-)</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Hmmm... Now that I reread the press release, I see it says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...which is designed exclusively for use with the company’s K-mount interchangeable-lens (ILC) digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does this mean it will only work with the K-01 and not with all the other DSLRs? If so...it's a bold move by Pentax.</p>

<p>You may want to substitute your own favourite epithet for "bold".</p>

[laur1]

<p>I think they just want to refer to both K-01 and DSLRs when they say K mount ILC. Nothing sinister.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Pentax has always managed to give us a good to excellent 50mm. That lens alone won't sway <em>me nor myself.</em><br>

They'll have to do better (more) than that.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:<br>

I think they just want to refer to both K-01 and DSLRs when they say K mount ILC. Nothing sinister.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu, ILC = Interchangeable Lens Compact, which is generally understood to mean "mirroless" too. Pentax only has one ILC, and it's the K-01, and they've already said they'd be designing lenses for it that would not be compatible with K-mount DSLRs (like the newst 40mm f/2.8 superpancake), so I'm not being overly paranoid here (I don't think).</p>

[phule]

<p>[[and they've already said they'd be designing lenses for it that would not be compatible with K-mount DSLRs (like the newst 40mm f/2.8 superpancake)]]</p>

<p>Since when is the 40mm XS lens not compatible with Pentax DSLRs? </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I hope it's for the K-01 (and successors) only. I can't see how yet another fast (ish) 50 makes any sense otherwise. </p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu, ILC = Interchangeable Lens Compact</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I read ILC as Interchangeable Lens Camera. Wikipedia agrees too:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILC">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILC</a><br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILC">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILC</a></p>

 

[r.t. dowling]

<p>The 40/2.8 XS works perfectly well with DSLRs. Pentax even bundled it with the most recent incarnation of the K-5 Limited Edition.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/Pentax-K-5-Silver-Marc-Newson-40mm-F2.8-XS</p>

<p>Anyway, looks like a nice lens, but it's a shame that they've <em>still</em> got nothing between 21 and 31.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>I'm with R.T. At the risk of being burned at the stake, exactly what is the obsession Pentax has with 50mm lenses for APSc cameras? 1998 called to say what a great idea a new 50mm lens is.</p>

<p>I have the DA40. Great lens. But I would trade it today for a lens in the 20 to 30-ish range of equal quality. Because Pentax will not address this issue, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 has become my defacto walk around lens and the Sigma 10-20 when I need to go wider than 28. </p>

<p>.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>I'm hoping that the new 50mm f1.8 is ILC only. When I heard the announcement today I just had to wonder why? I mean my F 50mm f1.7 is faster, it is not as fast as the 50mm f1.4 and has nothing to offer really above these older model lenses. Give me a fast DA 40mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 and I'd be looking to grab it. So far the news that is getting over-shadowed to me is the better faster AF system. And can I please get a better updated flash system and a high sync speed? Pretty please... I am sure it will take Pentax Ricoh a minute to get new product developed and into the pipeline... But so far... an ILC camera that I don't want and a lens that I don't need or want and a thinner version of the already thin 40mm. SMH. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I'm not going to lie, I don't get it either.</p>

<p>Usually, unlike a lot of people, I try to figure out some positive aspect to a move. But with the FA 50mm, the FA 43mm, the DA*55 and the 40mm DAs, I have not idea why we need this lens.<br>

<br /><br />Worse, if you are making a lens line specifically for the K-01 (and it's successors) than I am with all the grumblers on why didn't they just build ground up lens system for all the benefits of such. </p>

<p>Honestly, while I find the 43mm a useful lens, I can't use it as a normal lens on my cameras. It's just too long, as a matter of fact, I stopped using the 40mm 2.8 XS because, while it's a nice sharp lens, and insanely compact, it is just too long as my normal lens.</p>

<p>Also, just because it's designed specifically for ILC doesn't mean it won't work with SLR. Best I can tell the lens mount/contacts is the same, my guess is they mean it's compact to make up for the thickness of the K-01. </p>

<p>One final note, I've always said that no matter how tiny the camera is, the lens size is a deciding factor. Pentax might have figured out a way to make the K-01 relatively compact. It's thick, but the combined lens and body thickness might actually be thinner than other ILCs. Don't quote me on that, but certainly feel free to determine if there is any validity to it. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>For the price, I feel like they ought to have made this a WR lens. I'm sorry, $250 is too high for a 50/1.8, especially one with a plastic mount. You can get a Nikon 50/1.8 with a metal mount and an aperture ring for $125, and it's a damn nice lens.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>I agree with the above wise posters. Pentax is willing to price themselves out of the competition with yet another generic lens. Incomprehensible.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Should probably have made it 55mm. For the price, should have been WR and offered quick-shift -- Canon & Nikon offer ridiculously cheap 50/1.8, even sony's new 50 is only $170.</p>

<p>Nikon stockpiled all those 50/1.8's back in 1992 when energy and labor's healthcare was much cheaper and few cared if they polluted the environment when doing so. ;-)</p>

<p>I expect Pentax might mean ILC as Interchangeable-Lens-Camera, or that it's just a slip. It's really hard to imagine this lens not being compatible with their DSLRs. Maybe they consider each available color a different camera. :-) At least they were clever enough to exclude the wide variety of Q-mount cameras (black and white).</p>

<p>For those who say "it doesn't make sense to offer another 50" -- it makes a little more sense if you consider that the FA50/1.4 is either discontinued or priced at least $100 more, and the other alternatives (like Jemal's F50/1.7) have been discontinued a long time ago and would be more expensive to make today. </p>

<p>Like the DA35/2.4, this lens will probably be a good performer but be overpriced a bit -- and <strong>both appear to be lenses Pentax could make in their sleep instead of new designs more suitable for their APS-C world</strong>. Pretty ballsy for Pentax to pass development costs (apparently) onto the customer when they made a new design solely to make it cheaper to produce.</p>

 

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>If they positioned it as ILC only, that might make sense if they are positioning themselves to take firm aim at that market (which they clearly are). The message I would have liked is "this isn't for you k-5 owners...we have something else for you". Instead, we got a half message. This might be for you, get excited because this is likely the worse 50mm available. Hell, push the 55mm * lens and tell me something special is on the way. If I combine this with Ned Brunell's (sorry about the spelling) message that current Pentax owners will be happy when the rebates come out for lenses, then the only thing I can think is that Pentax doesn't want the core owners to buy any Pentax lenses in the short term since they are aiming squarely at expanding the customer base with lower end and ILC cameras first. I mean how do you produce the beast like medium format camera and its little brother the K-5 and not bang out at least one must have lens to go with each?</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>I expect Pentax might mean ILC as Interchangeable-Lens-Camera, or that it's just a slip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Why are there still doubts on this point? It seems obvious to me from the announcement, wording, and images of the product.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Seemed obvious to me too. I'm surprised anyone even asked the question, I suspect Mis was just calling Pentax out on their sloppiness but some of the other responses indicated some confusion.</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Thanks Mis! I know Pentax had <em>me</em> in mind when they were designing this lens!<br>

I believe this lens is a fantastic idea. It has a unique job in the Pentax lineup: It's fast enough and cheap enough to be a part of my lens arsenal. If it's sister lens, the DA35/2.4, is any indication of performance it will also be sharp enough as well. It's an "enough" lens. Add the fact that the aperture blades are rounded and it's a sleeper.<br>

Obviously, the easiest comparison is to the F50/1.7 and the FA50/1.7 which both appear to be fantastic lenses, but neither of them are in production and their prices are often $250 <em>used</em> if you can find one that hasn't been trashed. They're rare. The FA50/1.4 appears to be a bit sloppy wide-open and the F50/1.7 appears to out perform it at similar apertures. (obviously these statements are non-empirical since I own none of the 3. I just see what you guys post.)<br>

The other obvious comparison is the DA*55/1.4 which has a different job than the new DA50. It's WR, a bit faster, and has an obvious upgrade in craftsmanship. Other than focal length and aperture similarities, these two lenses have almost nothing in common.<br>

The DA35 was $225 when it first came out and after a few months the price dropped. I imagine this new DA50 will do the same. In any case, this lens is on my BUY list, even at $250. (I predict $200 by this time next year.)<br>

Oh, before I forget, I interpreted "K-Mount ILC" as anything I can mount to the K10 and frankly that's what I care about. I didn't read into the transcendental qualities of the K-01 MILC or anything when I read it for myself. When I buy this gem, which I might be the only one of you who will, I'll let you know how it goes!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<p>I see the FA 50mm f/1.4 is selling for $250-275 on the used market. I would <em>seriously</em> recommend you buy it before you spend a similar amount of money on the new DA 50. The FA 50 is much better wide open than people generally report because "people" tend to shoot it without a hood (cos it never sold with one) and it's been shown that a hood greatly increases its performance at wider apertures. I've used this lens for 5 years and found that at f/2 it produces beautiful pictures with a perfect DoF for half- and quarter-body portraits. It's also well constructed and will probably last you longer than the DA 50. And if ever Pentax produces a FF camera (which they will, eventually) and you upgrade to it (which you will, eventually), you'll have a great lens already available to you...because it <em>will last that long</em>.</p>

<p>This is advice, friend to friend, of the serious kind, and with no jesting. And I'm conveying it to you publicly, because I truly believe in it.</p>

<p>Pentax should not be charging a dollar over $150 for the new DA 50, and at that price I might just tell you to buy whatever you want, but at similar prices (even if the FA 50 is used) I just cannot recommend the DA 50.</p>

[laur1]

<p>There are advantages to a new lens - it will probably be sharper and have better controlled CA as well as improved coatings, compared to the older FA. The FA 50/1.4 has some strong LoCA, which I think is a larger issue than sharpness, where I think it performs ok. OTOH, the new lens will probably not be as friendly for manual focusing as the FA (which was excellent for an AF lens) and it will lack the aperture ring (which would make it easy to use on other cameras). There is a place for both of them.</p>

 

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Mis, you definitely have a valid point: I haven't put the FA through the ringer and I might just have to do that, but only based on your recommendation. You and Javier know what photos I like to produce, so I value your opinions. (Well, <em>your</em> opinion since Javier doesn't roam these parts anymore...)</p>

<p>After trying out the DFA100WR last week I definitely discovered that it's not going to be my next lens: I would use it less than 25% of the time. Andrew was right in the fact that it's way too long for indoors so a 50mm and the 70mm are on my Rent List now. I still stand by my own advice: Try before you buy. Renting is way cheaper than a lens you bought and might hate later. :-)</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Jeremiah:<br>

You'll love the 70mm. I would rent the 77mm too if you can find it before making a decision as well as the 55*. I find the 70mm is a bit long if you want full length shots in a tight space, I usually get head and shoulders or head and mid torso, unless I'm outdoors. </p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Jemal, Agreed. As far as the 55,70,77 it wouldn't exactly be for anything but 3/4, 1/2, and headshots unless I'm outdoors. My DA35/2.4 does my full length shots reasonably well, as well was 3/4 shots. I need a touch of overlap with my lens-usage and the 100mm didn't have any with the 35mm. The 50mm seams like a nice mid-range, but I have the M-50 and I rarely use it and I've been trying to figure out why. It's not the handling... it's something else...</p>