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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 30, 2007, 6:38 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

OK great 800 pound gorrilla BULLY EXPLAIN to me what is the point of a FAST lens but to be fast.... I can easily shoot the KIT lens at f/8 and above. for a WHOLE lot less... heck it even does pretty darn good at 3.5 wide open.

And you have me AND OTHERS Teliiing you how much the OLD A's and M's are good but JUST for the convenience of AF are KING?.....

So be it you KNOW ALL after all don't you??? No ones but your opinion means diddly...EHHH?

Maybe if true FA/DA still just a HALF stop up from that (MORE LIKE once kit F/2)

F/22 is generally the optical PITS.... but any cheap a$$ lens can pull that off,
Again what the point of a fast lens if it really ISN'T????

You want that slow to be your criteria?? Of acceptable?

Oh f/1.4 what's that? My f/8 is pretty along with a relatively slow KIT lens... BUT AGAIN MY A 50/1.4. WILL blow away YOUR FA 1.4.... Having owned BOTH I can safely say that.... THANK G for once affordable old glass.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2007, 3:51 PM   #12
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Hayward, if you think Kjell is someone that says old glass is inferior, you couldn't be more wrong.

You're talking to someone who owns, and uses some of the finest lenses the "A" range you love so much has in store.


Also, for crying out loud, stay on topic for once. The topic was started as a direct comparison between Kjell's 50mm F 1.7 and FA 1.4, backed up by sample pics.

Stop turning every thread that even mention the words "50 mm" into a constant repeat of the whole "my A-lenses are awesome and everyone's against me"-game.

Yes, the A 50mm lenses are great. Stop preaching to the converted. You're worse than some religious fanatics...

Get over it man. jeez.

Tom

By the way, didn't you say a few topics back that the FA 1.4 wasn't worth a darn? And now you have one?
You're what we call in dutch: "vol van stront". Use babelfish to translate it.
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2007, 4:26 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
The topic was started as a direct comparison between Kjell's 50mm F 1.7 and FA 1.4, backed up by sample pics.

Tom
Tom,
Cannot agree with you more. Backing up with pict is important instead of empty talk.

Recent photos (in late May) of my F50mm1.7. It is difficult to do comparison without my FA50mm1.4 around. At this level likely the difference will just be personal taste.

I will wait for Kjell's input when he has a chance.



































Daniel, Toronto
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2007, 11:36 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Kjell,

Here's a quick and dirty test of my FA50/1.4 vs my F50 1.7. First time I've ever shot them side by side, but my first impression from just shooting the two had been that the F50/1.7 was a hair sharper than the FA50/1.4, both wide open. This might have been because this is what I'd heard, but I'm usually pretty immune to that kind of stuff and let my eyes tell the story.

Here's the shot -- I had to increase the Ev a little on the f1.4 shot in PP because these were done with the AF540 FGZ, and it always underexposes f1.4 compared to just about any other aperture. These were handheld from about 2 ft, all crops taken from the middle of the images, and I tried to hold pretty parallel to the subject. I'm not a very scientific lens tester. . .



My conclusion, the FA 50/1.4 is almost too close to call compared with the F50/1.7 both lenses wide open, but the F50/1.7 does get it, with a touch better contrast to boot. There is a significant difference in sharpness and contrast when the FA50 is stopped down, even a half stop. My first impression of the two lenses was that I could pretty much use them interchangeably, and that's what I've been doing, with the difference being that since the F50 was half the cost, it's the one that gets stuck in my pocket when I'm not going to carry a bag of stuff. I might re-evaluate that seeing this, but probably not. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 9:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

snostorm wrote:
Quote:
Hi Kjell,





Scott
Scott

You beat Kjell for doing another test. One thing that I can say for sure is that the DoF at F1.4 is really paper thin - literally and physically.
Looks like the lower left is already slightly off focus (compared with upper left). In real life situation, it is not unusal that you can have the half of a nose in focus and half off. O man. That is thin.
It is important that we back up with pict about whatever quality of a lens possesses. Likewise a lens of $x more expensive or x stop faster may not mean much if nothing is backed up.

Daniel, Toronto
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 11:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Kjell - Your 1.4 definitely holds an edge over your 1.7. It doesn't surprise me at all that Scott's examples are different, with the 1.7 slightly better wide open than his 1.4. It's been my (granted limited) experience that there's differences between individual lenses. For instance, I get good results from my K-mount Takumar 135, while Roy's made a nice paperweight. I can't find anything obviously wrong with my DA 50-200, but mine just isn't as good as everyone else's.

You've just proved that it's always importanttotake each lens as an individual, and yours might not be as good as someone else's.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2007, 6:42 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Yeah and might be my case too....

But my FA 50 1.4 just isn't measuring up to my old A 1.4 or for that matter the 1.7 or f/2 before.... they all do better.

OK maybe I got a clunker.... but the 50 FA's even by general reviews and user comment , don't seem to be living up to the past glass they supercede at least not on a CONSISTANT basis.... but for the convenience of AF. And I just COINCIDENTALLY picke up a RANDOM sample of USED A 50's 2, 1.7 and 1.4 ALL of which are better????

Just MHO of what I have physically and web observed.

PS and I note most here are BRIGHT light examples.... not quite the point of a fast lens.... and where I note it most Low Light.... even at 1.7 or 2 of the FA 1.4 vs wide open on any of the A's a ways off, even if FA MF'd.

Maybe they will come out with $$$ ED's that can cut the old gass.... as far as I've seen herd they aren't now.... again especially the low light they are supposedly designed for.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2007, 2:43 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

As requested, Daniel. BTW, didn't you get any shots of the hunchback at Notre Dame?:-)

As you can see the two 50's are pretty equal in sharpness at 2.8, even if I still hold the FA1.4as a tad better. Interesting is also the difference in colour rendition.

I did a few other observations as well. For every lens/setting (I tried several as I thought this printed matter method seemed better than my first set up) I did an AF focusing (with the lenses that are AF), a manual with the focusing aid and one where I only trusted my eye and ignored the focus confirmation. The naked eye won in nearly every situation, the AF was better only for the 1.4 aperture with the FA 50. My A*85 is severely frontfocused if using the focus confirmation!

I also tried a Chinon MC 50 mm 1.7 against the F 1.7, it came out about as well as the Pentax. Should that be expected?

Edit: these are 100% crops of course, shot at ~2 metres

Kjell

Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2007, 5:05 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Just thought I might post the full frame fyi. This is the FA50 1.4 @ 2.8

Kjell
Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2007, 5:36 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Quote:
As requested, Daniel. BTW, didn't you get any shots of the hunchback at Notre Dame?:-)

As you can see the two 50's are pretty equal in sharpness at 2.8, even if I still hold the FA1.4*as a tad better. Interesting is also the difference in colour rendition.



I also tried a Chinon MC 50 mm 1.7 against the F 1.7, it came out about as well as the Pentax. Should that be expected?

Edit: these are 100% crops of course, shot at ~2 metres

Kjell
Kjell

Hey thanks for your effort/input on comparing the two.
I did not even shoot the inside of Notre Dame (Paris) . I only got the exterior from the cruise ship - a must for most 1st time tourist. I did not even bother to post all my F50mm1.7 of that stretch of impressive architectural structures after posting 20 of them.
Your comparison is a lot more enlightening than simple blanket statement/assertion as to which is better or worse. Your sample seems to indiciate that FA version is slgihtly sharper at F2.8 (even the full-frame one). Again you can tell better from your original . At this level of fine difference, the sharpness may not be that great an issue at all. The FA full frame one is impressive in showing its low light resolution.

Quote:

I did a few other observations as well. For every lens/setting (I tried several as I thought this printed matter method seemed better than my first set up) I did an AF focusing (with the lenses that are AF), a manual with the focusing aid and one where I only trusted my eye and ignored the focus confirmation. The naked eye won in nearly every situation, the AF was better only for the 1.4 aperture with the FA 50. My A*85 is severely frontfocused if using the focus confirmation!
That is an A* lens anyway and you are expected to use manual focus .

Daniel
danielchtong 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 12:13 PM.