[rparmar]

I came to this from the later thread, so sorry for being so late to the party. Interesting shots that show how many good lenses we have to choose from!

The FA43 seems the sharpest to me and the 50/1.2 about as usable wide open as I remember before I sold my excellent copy. Which is to say, for me I needed to stop down a bit to get the IQ I was after, at which point the lens could not justify its extra bulk over the FA Limiteds.

Others will of course have different priorities.

[dgaies]

I came to this from the later thread, so sorry for being so late to the party. Interesting shots that show how many good lenses we have to choose from!

The FA43 seems the sharpest to me and the 50/1.2 about as usable wide open as I remember before I sold my excellent copy. Which is to say, for me I needed to stop down a bit to get the IQ I was after, at which point the lens could not justify its extra bulk over the FA Limiteds.

Others will of course have different priorities.

Better late than never

The 50/1.2 can be challenging to use at f/1.2, even in a controlled test setup like this. I retook some shots with both the 50/1.2 and 31/1.8 to try and better compare their sharpness. Here's a link. It's still a matter of personal preference whether the 50/1.2 is "sharp enough" wide open or not, but it's certainly quite usable IMO. Also, there is a bit less contrast in the 50/1.2 shots vs the 31/1.8 shots, which may also contribute to the feeling that it's not as sharp. Then again, going up against the 31/1.8 is a tough proposition for just about any lens

[rparmar]

I was wrong to emphasise sharpness since it was more the diminished contrast and halo effects that bothered me. However, these exact same characteristics are considered (by other shooters) a boon for their creative possibility...and I completely understand!

In any case, despite preferring the rendering of other lenses, the 50/1.2 was incredible from f/2 and would not have been sold except for financial reasons.

[dgaies]

As a side note, I accessorized my A50/1.2 yesterday when I happen to run into an original Pentax hood in the bargain bin at a local camera store. I had been trying to find one of these for a while and probably would have paid a bit more than the $3 I ended up spending

[Clinton]

what's the model/part number on that hood?

[dgaies]

what's the model/part number on that hood?

I think the model number is PH-R52, although it's not marked anywhere on the hood itself. I just got lucky and found it in a big bin of used hoods, cases, straps, filters, etc, but there was no box nor a tag on it.

[rparmar]

I had been trying to find one of these for a while and probably would have paid a bit more than the $3 I ended up spending

Nice one!

[gofour3]

what's the model/part number on that hood?

No part numbers were marked on the K Series hoods, see my guide for more info:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/84876-guide-pentax-k...ens-hoods.html

Phil.

PS I have a spare, PM me if you are interested.

[Frogfish]

Excellent test. Rep given.

However if we are going to compare bokeh then shouldn't all the lenses be tested at the same f-stop (say f2.8 ?) otherwise faster lenses would seem to have an obvious advantage.

[dgaies]

Excellent test. Rep given.

However if we are going to compare bokeh then shouldn't all the lenses be tested at the same f-stop (say f2.8 ?) otherwise faster lenses would seem to have an obvious advantage.

I think that would be an interesting comparison as well (testing at the same aperture). At the time, however, the friend of mine who asked me to perform this test was most interested in maximizing the OOF area for each lens and was therefore interested in seeing everything wide open and less concerned about how they performed at a common aperture. I can look back and see if I took common aperture shots; it's likely I did at the time and just never posted them