DA 40 vs. DA 16-45 at 40 mm.
The DA 40 is clearly sharper at all apertures up to f5.6. At f8 they are very close. At this aperture the DA 16-45 may be very slightly sharper in the center and the corners, while the DA 40 is a bit sharper at the edges.
And now the day's real bout: DA 40 f2.8 vs. FA 50 f1.7.
Wide open vs. wide open (f2.8 vs. f1.7): The 40 is better in the center, while the 50 is a bit better at the edges and in the corners.
F2.8 vs. f2.8: The 50 is slightly sharper in the center. It is more noticeably better at the edges and in the corners. Of course f2.8 is wide open for the DA but stopped down for the FA.
F4.0 (both): The DA 40 is much better in the center. The FA is better at the edges and in the corners.
F5.6: Both lenses are essentially equal in the center and very close at the edges. The DA may be a bit better at the left edge and in the upper left corner. The FA is a bit better at the right edge. This result may reflect individual lens variation.
F8: The FA 50 is slightly better in the center and in the corners. They are about equal at the edges.
Keep in mind that this observations are at actual pixels. In most reasonable enlargements you would be hard put to see a difference in sharpness between the DA 40 and the FA 50 f1.7.
My initial reaction to the announcement of the DA 40 was that it was a gimmick lens. Well, I was wrong. This is a fine, serious optic that holds its own against one of the best. I got it to have a compact travel kit for times when I don't have room for the DA 16-45 or my whole lens kit. But it would also earn its place in any bag of primes. And it appears that it will be useable at f2.8 to boot.
Another owner of the DA 40 has shown that you can put an extension tube on it and get very fine macro results.
As always, my tests are done for my own edification. I post them in case anyone else has similar criteria for evaluating lenses.
Joe
