Andre wrote: I'd like to know if some PDMLers have been able to compare both but then I should begin a new link with that question.
Collected comments (just 1, actually) on the 50/2.8 PKA, which has a max. magnification of 1:2: O.U. Peterson: �All metal. Optical quality if fine but not superior to Nikon and Canon macros I have used. The focus is not as smooth as Nikon and Canon macros. Used prices are very high: $300 to $350 mint. Collected comments on the 50/2.8 F: Rated 4.9 out of 5.0 in Olle Bjernulf�s comprehensive web listing of lenses. "I have found each of these to be superb: F 50/2.8 Macro (also, the A 50/2.8 is very slightly less sharp, and only goes to 2:1, but I prefer it to the F 50/2.8 anyhow." Collected comments on the 50/2.8 FA: Takes Pentax lens hood RH-RA52. Takes lens case S80-120. Writes Phil: �I use this lens a lot. I find the lens to be very sharp although I hardly ever use it wide open. From f/4 to f/22 all my prints up t 16x20 have been very sharp, using Fuji 100 and 400 film. I wish they had made the focusing ring a little wider, more like the FA 100/2.8 macro. It�s hard to grip the narrow focus ring. This is the best lens I�ve used for macro copy work, like documents, stamps, pictures, and most other flat items. I suppose it would make a fine normal 50mm lens also, though my work has all been up close.� According to Yoshihita�s website tests, this lens is unbelievably sharp compared to Pentax�s nonmacros: 87 lines at f/2.8 and f/4, 98 at f/5.6, 110 at f/8 through f/16, 98 at f/22, 69 at f/32. Corners: 78 at f/2.8 and f/4, 87 at 5.6, 110 at f/8 and f/11, 98 at f/16, 78 at f/22, 55 at f/32. But with 800 film rated at 2500, sharpness may not matter. Yoshihiko Takinami writes: �this macro is excellent not only for macro work but also for normal use. Better than Sigma EX because the SMC coating is better. Yoshi: �In my experience, FA50/2.8 macro seems the *sharpest* with great resolving power and contrast. But I prefer FA43/1.9 or FA50/1.4 to shoot with.� �My top two sharpest primes (from a subjective rather than objective measurement) are the FA50/2.8 macro and my K35/3.5. My A50/1.4 is a pretty close third.� --David Collett Oxford, U TV (Tom): "I used to use it as my normal lens until I got the 43, and I use that because of the size, speed, focal length and color rendition. The 3d thing is cool too. Now I use the 50 for close-ups, and portraits of small things like babies and cats. I'll probably start doing some copy photography soon, and it would be the obvious choice. The FA 50mm macro is very sharp. I haven't rigorously tested it under various conditions, but it's seen a fair bit of film in the 2 years I've had it and it's definitely sharp. I think the color rendition is a bit flat compared to other Pentax lenses. I wonder if Pentax has a different design philosophy wrt to macro lenses...I suspect a "natural" look is of paramount importance in a lens which may have scientific applications. Maybe 'natural' is a better description then 'flat'. This is just a guess, obviously, I can't make any other explanation for the color rendition. It's well-built, designed in the same manner as the 100/2.8 and 135/.28. "Solid, well built, the main drawback being the clamp switch, which doesn't inspire much confidence. Large for a normal lens, but balances very nicely on a ZX-5n. I can't see any distortion or light falloff. Bokeh is fine. (not sure how else to describe it) This lens is the fastest autofocusing of all the FA's I've used.� William Oneil: :I would give it an 8.5/10 overall. One minor thing I don't like about it is the short working distance, but that is common with all 50mm Macros. I wish they made an FA* version of it with the usual FA* features as well as an F1.4 aperture. They would probably need to include aspherical elements to do it, but so be it. Mostly for macro work. About 20% of my usage is for what you would use an normal 50mm lens for in my line of work. Environmental nature, landscapes, waterfalls, etc. This is the only lens I carry in this focal range most of the time. "How well built is it? For a non-* lens it is very well made. No complaints here. It has a metal barrel and a good sturdy feel. > How is the lens handling (weight, size, etc.)? "It is quite a bit heavier and bigger than the average plastic piece of junk they try to sell as a lens these days (such as the FA 50/1.4 or FA 50/1.7), but I am more than willing to put up with that to get the quality this lens delivers. I would like to have the FA* auto-focus clutch though and a little nicer MF damping Optical qualities: Resoluti [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
