Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-23-2011, 06:04 AM   #16
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
Original Poster
Thanks for the comments. I wish I had had a little more time to take some more shots and nail the focus a little better on a few of the shots. Does anyone else have any other suggestions for what might the test shots more effective? I certainly plan to try to find a few minutes today to take another series of shots... my time was cut short as my son's nap didn't last quite as long as I anticipated. Speaking of, here's a candid shot of him from a few months ago, taken with the A50/1.2 wide open. It seems I can only nail the focus when he's completely still and engrossed in a video on the computer



01-23-2011, 06:18 AM   #17
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
great shot Dan,

I have to say that even using OME53 + Nikon K3 split screen with mircroprism collar on K10D's pentaprism VF I struggle to focus f1.2 in anything but bright conditions, if light goes dim, it's hit and miss... I need a lot of training And this shot really doesn't help me in "not wanting" the A50....
01-23-2011, 01:49 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
I'm in agreement that the lens that comes close to the bokeh rendering of the 50/1.2 is the 50/1.4. the only thing that I can nitpick about the lens is the possible disturbing blur that can oocur on a few areas of the image. practically the only thing that obviously gave away the 50/1.4 is the white OOF blur rendering of the front part of the truck which is located above the rear end of the toy car or to be more precise; is located exactly at the center of the image. if one would compared both images for the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4, the 50/1.2 doesn't show that out of focus blur white/hazy blur but rather a smooth smaller color blurs of the OOF truck, not necessarily overshadowed by whites. in fairness, the 50/1.4 renders this portion the best compared to the other lenses.

what I'm interested in, is a comparison between the FA31 and 50/1.2. I would think that these two would probably be close since both seems to be somewhat related in a way.

if the FA31 displays the same bokeh quality as that of the 50/1.2, I might say that the FA31 is the new 50/1.2. compromise would be in speed and FOV versus sharpness and AF.
01-23-2011, 02:32 PM   #19
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
great shot Dan,

I have to say that even using OME53 + Nikon K3 split screen with mircroprism collar on K10D's pentaprism VF I struggle to focus f1.2 in anything but bright conditions, if light goes dim, it's hit and miss... I need a lot of training And this shot really doesn't help me in "not wanting" the A50....
Thanks

I actually just picked up a O-ME53 recently and so far I think I like it. I'm not sure how much it will help if I continue to use the stock screen, but I know the next step is to buying a different focusing screen if I want to do more MF.

01-23-2011, 02:35 PM   #20
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
what I'm interested in, is a comparison between the FA31 and 50/1.2. I would think that these two would probably be close since both seems to be somewhat related in a way.

if the FA31 displays the same bokeh quality as that of the 50/1.2, I might say that the FA31 is the new 50/1.2. compromise would be in speed and FOV versus sharpness and AF.
It's funny, I almost added the 31 to the mix as I had it out anyway (I used it to take the "group shot" of the other 7 lenses. I can include it in the next round of shots.
01-23-2011, 02:57 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,331
Nice run down of these lenses. I have to say, that I feel like they all render OOF areas pretty well, except the 50 f1.7 isn't so great. Can't really tell much about sharpness at this size and that isn't the point of the test anyway.

The thing about the 50 f1.2 is that while it renders great, the fact that it is a manual focus lens makes it less than useful for a lot of the kind of shooting I do. I have the DA 55 and it has a nice focus ring and should manual focus fine, but I am not a good manual focuser. Invariably I miss, even when stopped down to f2.8. Anyway, I guess I'll always be an auto focuser...
01-23-2011, 03:07 PM   #22
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Nice run down of these lenses. I have to say, that I feel like they all render OOF areas pretty well, except the 50 f1.7 isn't so great. Can't really tell much about sharpness at this size and that isn't the point of the test anyway.

The thing about the 50 f1.2 is that while it renders great, the fact that it is a manual focus lens makes it less than useful for a lot of the kind of shooting I do. I have the DA 55 and it has a nice focus ring and should manual focus fine, but I am not a good manual focuser. Invariably I miss, even when stopped down to f2.8. Anyway, I guess I'll always be an auto focuser...
I was originally going to include some 100% crops, but given that I wasn't comfortable that I properly focused each shot, I thought that might be misleading. But as you said, that wasn't the point of the shots and being slightly off with the focus shouldn't have had a profund inpact on the OOF areas.

I agree about the A50/1.2 being excellent optically, but difficult to use (for me anyway). It fine for static shots where you can take your time and retake the shot if you missed the focus. But I have far less success with MF when trying to take shots of my kids unless they're glue to the TV/computer as in the above shot.

That's actually what prompted me to try the DA*55; I figured I could replace both the FA50/1.7 and A50/1.2 with the DA*55. You can see how well that plan worked out... damn you LBA!
01-23-2011, 03:17 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
It's funny, I almost added the 31 to the mix as I had it out anyway (I used it to take the "group shot" of the other 7 lenses. I can include it in the next round of shots.
thanks, that would be great. actually, if only my budget permits, I'm considering trading my FA35 and FA50/1.7 combo in place of the FA31. I already made up my mind before that the FA43 would not cut out for what I would need it for. honestly, FOV was my primary concern. the FA31 would make add some versatility to what I can use it for (landscape, portraits and general walk-around lens). I'm not sure how distortion would affect the images though, especially with faces.

01-23-2011, 03:23 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I was originally going to include some 100% crops, but given that I wasn't comfortable that I properly focused each shot, I thought that might be misleading. But as you said, that wasn't the point of the shots and being slightly off with the focus shouldn't have had a profund inpact on the OOF areas.

I agree about the A50/1.2 being excellent optically, but difficult to use (for me anyway). It fine for static shots where you can take your time and retake the shot if you missed the focus. But I have far less success with MF when trying to take shots of my kids unless they're glue to the TV/computer as in the above shot.

That's actually what prompted me to try the DA*55; I figured I could replace both the FA50/1.7 and A50/1.2 with the DA*55. You can see how well that plan worked out... damn you LBA!
for something non-stationary, your best bet would be to use the 50/1.2 lens at f1.4 to f2. I could nail focus easy at f1.4.and a shot from f1.6 to f2 is a walk in the park. so all is not lost here. at similar openings with the 50/1.7 and 50/1.2, the f1.2 renders better, especially with the blurs. did I mention how the 50/1.2 gets after a stop or 2?
01-23-2011, 10:08 PM   #25
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
thanks, that would be great. actually, if only my budget permits, I'm considering trading my FA35 and FA50/1.7 combo in place of the FA31. I already made up my mind before that the FA43 would not cut out for what I would need it for. honestly, FOV was my primary concern. the FA31 would make add some versatility to what I can use it for (landscape, portraits and general walk-around lens). I'm not sure how distortion would affect the images though, especially with faces.
I kind of felt the same way about the 43. I held out buying it until after I got the 31 and 77. Then I finally bought the 43, but found that I seldom chose it over the 31. It's true that if you're not careful perspective distortion (using the 31) can do funny things with faces. Every once in a while I'll take a face shot with it that just looks a bit "off". But overall it's a very versatile lens and my most used prime.
01-24-2011, 01:26 AM   #26
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I kind of felt the same way about the 43. I held out buying it until after I got the 31 and 77. Then I finally bought the 43, but found that I seldom chose it over the 31. It's true that if you're not careful perspective distortion (using the 31) can do funny things with faces. Every once in a while I'll take a face shot with it that just looks a bit "off". But overall it's a very versatile lens and my most used prime.
That's exactly where 43 excels. If you want great, sharp normal(ish) lens and feel 50 is tad long, yet you don't want to run the risk of perspective distortion, reach for your 43! You'll be rewarded for sure...
01-24-2011, 01:27 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,435
Wow, nice comparision.

A50/1.2 naturally have better bokeh but not necessarily the best output - IMO subject did not standout as in case of FA85/FA77 or even 43 - may be just the personal preference.
01-24-2011, 01:29 AM   #28
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
PS: add me to the waiting list for 31 vs 50/1.2. I might be conducting my own shootout but only on Thursday because of work...
01-24-2011, 01:32 AM   #29
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
Wow, nice comparision.

A50/1.2 naturally have better bokeh but not necessarily the best output - IMO subject did not standout as in case of FA85/FA77 or even 43 - may be just the personal preference.
FA ltds are well known for the "pop" effect or so called 3D rendering. 50/1.2 doesn't achieve this wide open out of camera but you'd be surprised what little PPing cand do with f1.2 images
01-24-2011, 01:34 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I kind of felt the same way about the 43. I held out buying it until after I got the 31 and 77. Then I finally bought the 43, but found that I seldom chose it over the 31. It's true that if you're not careful perspective distortion (using the 31) can do funny things with faces. Every once in a while I'll take a face shot with it that just looks a bit "off". But overall it's a very versatile lens and my most used prime.
the FA43 isn't that bad at all to tell you the truth. it does seem to display the characteristics of both the FA35/2 and FA50/1.7. sharpness and just a bit of harshness with the blurs. I would think that it's the fusion of both lenses if I were to say it. again, the only deal-breaker for me there is FOV.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a50/1.2, da*55/1.4, fa43/1.9, fa50/1.7, k-mount, k50/1.4, oof, pentax lens, regions, shots, slr lens, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K50/1.2 + FA77 or A50/1.2 + FA100/2.8 axl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 02-20-2011 02:57 PM
My FA43 and FA77 has rather strange serial numbers ogl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-09-2010 01:15 PM
Need help to identify lens cap for FA77/FA43 Ltd. HermanLee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-11-2009 11:01 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10 + DA12-24 + DA35 + K50/1.2 + FA77 + Sigma 70-200/2.8 + AF-540 alexeyga Sold Items 13 09-03-2009 07:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top