Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 29, 2007, 3:09 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

OK REAL GOOD CHOICES....

from Photographyreview.....

."I use this lens now for available light photography during the wedding ceremonies, and when I want to travel light. Among all these lenses, this is one of the very best I own. At f1.4 it is a little soft."

A bit soft might be fine for a wedding photog, even preferable..... the A 1.4 is TACK sharp (if you can MF).... all depends what you want.
(and even more so you don't need the added 1/2 F stop , also cheaper and deeper DOF particularly the 1.7 is maybe the best of the bunch that I don't think is even offered AF any more... nor a f/1.2 the $$$$ or f/2 the real bargain)

1 a capsul review, with no substance or analysis

2 the afore mentioned softness issue (and most though threadbare analytic still lacking.)

3 all just random one line opiniom (again no analysise)..... like mine about the FA 50mm not GOSPEL but just that.. and by the way I wil go into DETAIL if you want me to as to what I like about the A's.... again that 1st or 3rd link never does, and second just point out the foibles.

And non existant 4..... from bere..... not one reference.... because all have been how mediocre it really is other than the AF.

Not worth a darn over statement maybe I'll (appologetically for being overboard) admit.... but again this thread is about vintage lenses.... but if not absolute need of AF in the 50mm range (laziness or just can't do it) I'll take an A for much less and IMHO better quality any day.

(Also FAR less weight and bulk in the bag.... though as I mentioned earlier for the more glass no big dif between f/2 and 1.7.... the 1.4 probably near twice the weight as the need for glass when you get under 1.7 gets that way.... and why 1.2's are obscenly expensive.... twice as much again glass bulk again for another 1/2 stop.


Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2007, 12:40 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Hayward,

Never mind. :|
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 1:09 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
OK REAL GOOD CHOICES....

from Photographyreview.....

."I use this lens now for available light photography during the wedding ceremonies, and when I want to travel light. Among all these lenses, this is one of the very best I own. At f1.4 it is a little soft."

A bit soft might be fine for a wedding photog, even preferable..... the A 1.4 is TACK sharp (if you can MF).... all depends what you want.
(and even more so you don't need the added 1/2 F stop , also cheaper and deeper DOF particularly the 1.7 is maybe the best of the bunch that I don't think is even offered AF any more... nor a f/1.2 the $$$$ or f/2 the real bargain)

1 a capsul review, with no substance or analysis

2 the afore mentioned softness issue (and most though threadbare analytic still lacking.)

3 all just random one line opiniom (again no analysise)..... like mine about the FA 50mm not GOSPEL but just that.. and by the way I wil go into DETAIL if you want me to as to what I like about the A's.... again that 1st or 3rd link never does, and second just point out the foibles.

And non existant 4..... from bere..... not one reference.... because all have been how mediocre it really is other than the AF.

Not worth a darn over statement maybe I'll (appologetically for being overboard) admit.... but again this thread is about vintage lenses.... but if not absolute need of AF in the 50mm range (laziness or just can't do it) I'll take an A for much less and IMHO better quality any day.

(Also FAR less weight and bulk in the bag.... though as I mentioned earlier for the more glass no big dif between f/2 and 1.7.... the 1.4 probably near twice the weight as the need for glass when you get under 1.7 gets that way.... and why 1.2's are obscenly expensive.... twice as much again glass bulk again for another 1/2 stop.

Hi Hayward,

Interesting that you can be so dismissive of user reports, but offer nothing to back up your statement that the FA 50 isn't worth a darn. . .especially compared to your beloved 50 f2, which from all accounts is rated as a run of the mill standard FL lens.

How about some objective tests. . .

Photodo -- the old version, has the FA50/1.4 listed with an average MTF 50 of 4.2. The F 50/1.4 came in at 4.6, and the F50/1.7 at 4.4. If you're not aware of the scale, anything above a 3.5 is superior, and above a 4 is superb (my interpretation of the numerical ratings) . Some have said that the A50/1.4 is the sharpest of the bunch, but only by a nitpick margin -- certainly not enough to toss the others aside as mediocre. . .

In comparison, the $260 Nikon 50/1.4 AF D Nikkor tested at 4.2, and the $309 Canon 50/1.4 EF USM tested at 4.4. They are basically in the same performance ballpark, and as a caveat to the ratings, some have said that the avg MTF ratings don't tell the whole story.

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Photozone also tested the FA50/1.4. It rated slightly behind the Canon and the Nikon wide open, but the FA smoked both of them at f4 and f5.6. . . hardly mediocre performance-- especially for a lens that is selling for about $100 less (with rebate). The headline for their test was "An oldie but goodie" . . . hardly the prelude to a mediocre test report. Keep in mind that this used to be mainly a C/N site, and only recently began testing Pentax, even though it maintained a significant user ratings database for K mount lenses.

Check the MTF charts:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_14/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_14/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_14/index.htm

The existence of many ebay auctions means nothing -- this also happened two years ago, when they were on short supply -- some people were buying any and all that became available and put them up for auction starting at @ $300. It's a testament to the lens that they were snapped up as quickly as they appeared. The same strategy is not working this time because of increased availablilty of the lens.

You argue that this thread is about vintage lenses, but you were the one who brought up the FA 50/1.4 with your silly statement about it being not worth a darn. Trying to redirect the argument is pretty weak, IMO. . .

Admitting to an "overstatement" really doesn't do it. . . "Gross overstatement" or "outright misrepresentation" might suffice (just :-)). The 50/1.4s from the M series on share the same optical design IIRC. There have been coating improvements only. Rating one version significantly over another is pointless, especially if you don't have any personal experience with the lens in question.

Build quality differences? -- Most long time Pentax users will say that the A series lenses were significantly lower than their M42, M, and K series predecessors. Why not at least mention that? Anyway, there aren't any AF lenses that I've ever seen that match the "feel" and precision of a great MF lens (with the possible exception of the Pentax Limiteds). Don't get me wrong -- I like A series lenses, but they were not the pinnacle of the lensmakers art. This is largely a matter of personal taste/judgement anyway.

. . . and the weight thing is ridiculous, a couple of ounces never broke anyone's back. I'd say that the speed/performance difference would be worth it to the great majority of photographers.

I know from past experience that you won't own up to your significant misrepresentation of a great lens, so I don't expect a reasonable response, but maybe you're capable of a surprise. If you can back up your statement with some real data -- then be my guest. . . I'd be curious to see it. . .

I just wanted to set the record straight about the FA50/1.4. . . coming from an actual FA50/1.4 owner and regular user. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 2:51 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

I have a couple of the absolute finest lenses Pentax have ever produced, the A* 85 mm 1.4 and the A*200 mm f2.8. They were very expensive and worth every penny. When I bought the FA 50 mm 1.4 I was overwhelmed by the fact that it was as good as the A* lenses, and adding autofocus above that. It's definitely got the best price/performance quota of all my lenses. This judgement is not based on reviews or prejudice, only on hands-on experience.

That's what I normally restrict myself to - only have an opinion if I have actually used the gear. I think it's a good idea to let others give their advice when I wouldn't know what I would be talking about.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2007, 12:50 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I have been prowling ebay for the last year for lenses. I have always been too busy at work or traveling to actually bid and win. I was reading this thread, flipped over to ebay and saw a f2.0 50mm M with a K mount which was clean - sat here for the next 30 minutes watching it, bid on it and picked it up for $9.50 plus the outrageous shipping sum of $4.99. Actually it was originally going for $2.24, but got expensive towards the end...

Now I can keep my M42 f1.8 55mm on my old Spotmatic II

Now I have to hear my wife say - You paid how much for an old used lens - and you want ME to mail a money order for YOU.
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2007, 9:49 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi,

An 85mm is a very desirable lens. More so than any of the 50mm versions. I can't afford either so I use what I have to the best of my ability and the lens.

I don't see the need for all this discussion about a 50mm lens. It was the standard for film, But not for me. Way to limiting. If I need to use my 50mm I drag out my SLR and shoot primes. But this is me. What is good for me won't be good for others.

Rudy
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:49 PM.