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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 28, 2007, 5:44 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

After Tom's advice to keep the 50 mm F1.7 i got in my rainbow bucket i did this comparison between the FA 1.4 and the F 1.7.

Tripod, 2 sec delay. All shots at 1/180 sec, ISO 200. Of course no PP except conversion from RAW to jpg in RSP and cropping, cutting and pasting in PSE3. 100% crops. Lastly downsizing (not pixels but quality with the "save for the web"-option) to get under 244 kb for posting.

Maybe my F1.7 is a lemon, but it couldn't compete with the FA 1.4 lens. In fact it's not very good at all at largest aperture. At smaller apertures they were pretty equal, though.

Everyone invited to do the same type of comparisons. I'd like to see if there's something wrong with my F lens.

Kjell

Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 28, 2007, 6:31 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi Kjell,

I don't think you 1.7 is a lemon. All lenses don't work perfectly wide open. You 1.7 is probably sharp at the next stop higher.

Your 1.4 is not perfectly sharp wide open, But it is closer then the 1.7. You just have to work around its limitations.....

Rudy
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2007, 7:45 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Well to take it a step farther and new glass vs old as well

Have yet to do a controlled side by side test.... but shooting wide open a lot due to low light and need for shutter speed without high ISO.... how I most use the 50mmm... wide open.

So far I think my old A 50 1.4 does noticeably better wide open than my newly acquired FA 50/1.4 though the AF is nice and with 1.4 input is remarkably fast and acurate in very low light.... but the images do seem slightly lacking.... I'd say subjectively the 1.4 FA wide open is about like my old (once kit) f/2 A 50mm wide open. And the FA 1.4 seems to have some minor edge CA wide open I never noticed on my A 1.4

Not that any of the bunch are BAD. They are all quite sharp. But thinking of some recent questions asking this, (Should I keep, etc) definately old glass by no means = inferior... to new.

When I have some free time I'll have to do some side by side tests.

Next time I'll have to take both the A and FA 1.4's with me and do side by side wild low light shooting too.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2007, 8:47 AM   #4
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

bluwing wrote:
Quote:
Hi Kjell,

I don't think you 1.7 is a lemon. All lenses don't work perfectly wide open. You 1.7 is probably sharp at the next stop higher.

Your 1.4 is not perfectly sharp wide open, But it is closer then the 1.7. You just have to work around its limitations.....

Rudy
I don't know...that result from the 1.7 is not what one would expect from a pentax prime...

I don't have the F 1.7, but the older A version, and it does not show any softness like that wide open.

your FA seems like a keeper though

Tom
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2007, 10:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Yup and as noted my fidings as well... if you can deal with MF.... the A's are wonderful and still relative bargains. The AF is real nice in certain situations, but yeah the old glass at same FL/f is actually somewhat/noticeably (not RADICALLY) better.

I'd have a hard time saying my A 1.7 was worse than my 1.4.... but for speed remarkably close in IQ.... the "old Kit" A f/2 is quite nice too. The FA 1.4 I am noticing things they both better.... maybe even the A f/2 (once standard kit lens)

And someone will probably chew me on this but if I had to simplistically phrase it.... cheap ZOOMS have made GREAT strides in the last decade or two.... primes on the other hand ( but the BIG $$$ LIMITED's), seem to be actually going down hill.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2007, 11:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Gazander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
So far I think my old A 50 1.4 does noticeably better wide open than my newly acquired FA 50/1.4 though the AF is nice and with 1.4 input is remarkably fast and acurate in very low light.... but the images do seem slightly lacking....

And the FA 1.4 seems to have some minor edge CA wide open I never noticed on my A 1.4
Agreed 100%

I went from an M42-Takumar 50/1.4 to the FA50. Autofocus is indispensable in low light. However, the M42 produced.... nicer?? images than the FA. Something about every m42-50 shot really wowed me and i don't get that with the FA50 as much.

Maybe subjective, maybe i'm getting used to good image quality, but the M42 definitely had its charms. (better-than-limited-lens construction, great focus feel and aperture ring feel....etc)
Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2007, 4:51 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,888
Default

bilybianca wrote:
Quote:
After Tom's advice to keep the 50 mm F1.7 i got in my rainbow bucket i did this comparison between the FA 1.4 and the F 1.7.

Tripod, 2 sec delay. All shots at 1/180 sec, ISO 200. Of course no PP except conversion from RAW to jpg in RSP and cropping, cutting and pasting in PSE3. 100% crops. Lastly downsizing (not pixels but quality with the "save for the web"-option) to get under 244 kb for posting.

Maybe my F1.7 is a lemon, but it couldn't compete with the FA 1.4 lens. In fact it's not very good at all at largest aperture. At smaller apertures they were pretty equal, though.

Everyone invited to do the same type of comparisons. I'd like to see if there's something wrong with my F lens.

Kjell
Kjell,

Thanks for the comparison shots. Any possibility that you can do F2.8 which is more relevant in most circumstances.

Daniel

danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2007, 7:02 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

danielchtong wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for the comparison shots. Any possibility that you can do F2.8 which is more relevant in most circumstances.
I'll do that in a few days, maybe later today. (Very dull overcast weather, hope for it to brighten up a bit.) I did shots at 8, 16 and 22, and there the two lenses were pretty equal and of course a lot sharper than wide open.

Kjell


bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2007, 2:09 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Then again what is the point of that????

The most cheap a$$ lens can usually do well at f/8 and above....

The POINT of a FAST lens is to be fast and GOOD.... again whee the currect FA'a are sort of lacking, and the A's (maybe even M's) but for MF really signifiganlt surpass.

Guess like Canon/Nikon wanting you to buy over and over again lens IS.... Petax is saying you are no longer going to get decent glass unless you buy LIMITED or *

The rest is less than what kit lenses were.(A and M were in there day).... kinda sad given the other directions Pentax has been going in.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2007, 5:13 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
Then again what is the point of that????

The most cheap a$$ lens can usually do well at f/8 and above....

The POINT of a FAST lens is to be fast and GOOD.... again whee the currect FA'a are sort of lacking, and the A's (maybe even M's) but for MF really signifiganlt surpass.

Guess like Canon/Nikon wanting you to buy over and over again lens IS.... Petax is saying you are no longer going to get decent glass unless you buy LIMITED or *

The rest is less than what kit lenses were.(A and M were in there day).... kinda sad given the other directions Pentax has been going in.
Hayward, I think your view on this subject is well known by now. Why don't you just lean back and wait, to see if there is something for you to learn, before you start asking about the point of this or that? Your aggressive attitude is very disturbing.

Kjell
bilybianca 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 6:21 AM.