[and]

And a tip to the OP, if you are using natural light, get some kind of WB tool, the second image you posted clearly has a strong color cast. if you use flash as the dominating lightsource then its a bit easier because you can use the daylight or flash WB setting and get closer to the real colors. but I find all my large aperture lenses give horrible WB results indoors, especially wide open for some reason.

[lordson]

thanks for the input guys

and yeah my WB was set to cloudy or somethign like that and i was in a shopping centre

[hinman]

I had returned the 1st copy for pictures being too soft. And when I got my 2nd copy, I abandon the testing after few tests as I already found it to be my favorite for both indoor shots and night time photography without the use of flash. It is the most difficult lens in my gear list. And I am someone who has tight budget and the FA 50 f/1.4 is my most expensive lens. I paid about $185 after rebate.

thoughts on FA 50 f/1.4
Thoughts on Pentax FA 50 f/1.4 - Hin's Tech Corner

my gear list
Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner

Some samples below, I don't do that well in portrait as I am still learning. Disclaimer: I am amateur and this is my 8th month into dslr, all are hand-held indoor shots as i didn't have flash and tripod at the time of the pictures.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


#11 focused the wrong hand


#12


And I don't think I have another lens in my gear that can reproduce those shots without the use of tripod and flash.

Thanks,
Hin

[lordson]

neither your links nor your pictures are working

[ycl]

I have a Sigma 18-200mm DC 3.5-5.6 atm and use 50mm focal length for alot of protaraits i do

i'm just wondering how much better a 50mm 1.4 would really be?

the images i take are aready really good and sharp and have plenty of detail i my opinoion

...

whats the difference really? apart form the faster aperture steting which really isnt' all that useful anywya, because f5 is enough, but i guess it would help in low light situations i guess

heres a sample pictures from my 18-200 and i think its perfect. how much better can it possibly get?



cheers fellas

Here's my 2 cents on this. Take it for what it's worth.

First, if you really think that your Sigma is already producing images that are "perfect", that's great. The principal goal in our photography should be to create images that please ourselves. And if you already have equipment that you believe is capable of that, stop shopping and continuing shooting!

That having been said, however, I believe that getting the FA50 as a second lens (after the obligatory kit lens or another consumer-grade equivalent) is the right way to go. Because you should immediately notice after using it at, say, f/3.5 or so, that, yes, it IS better -- a LOT better -- than the kit lens at equivalent focal lengths / apertures -- in sharpeness, color, and overall rendition. And you should then being able to judge what your camera (and you) are capable of doing when equipped with an excellent lens, and then you'll be able to determine whether this additional excellence is worth it to you (despite the extra cost and (perhaps) lack of 'convenience' given lack of zoom ability).

Some people may recognize the additional degree of 'excellence', but choose to disregard it for cost or convenience or other reasons. Others won't. It all depends on the individual photographer's eye, preferences (regarding which qualities to accept in a lens / tool, and which to do without), and subject matter. But the key is that you can't really make this judgment for yourself until you've seen the difference with your own eyes.

(Also, on re-reading your post, I think that you are dismissing too quickly the additional advantages of a wide aperture lens, in terms of the additional kind of images you can create / capture. It's not just about low-light ability).

[Jimsi777]

The look of these picturess do not appear to be stopped down too low, maybe 4, 7 and 11 ... , What F/stop or exposure settings were the pictures taken with?....thanks

[hinman]

The look of these picturess do not appear to be stopped down too low, maybe 4, 7 and 11 ... , What F/stop or exposure settings were the pictures taken with?....thanks

The photoset lives in flickr:
DJ101 - a photoset on Flickr

and you can click to select a particular picture, the exif lives in the "Taken by Pentax K100D more properties" link. Most of the shots are done in the range of f/1.6 to f/2.8. I did not stop down on purpose as I see reasonable results at preview -- bad practices with narrow DOF problems. FA 50 f/1.4 is the best lens I have for color and contrast, but it is the easiest for me to make mistakes as narrow DOF is sensitive to motions. And the prview even in 12x don't reveal problems. My biggest mistake in the DJ live session is on the use of auto-iso 200-800 settings. I was not careful and I end up with most shots in iso800. If I have to redo the series, I would set most at iso400 and bring in a tripod and request the store for a short period to use the tripod on few important shots. I am not professional but I see the good looking DJ and he allows me to take a series of photos live for him and I happen to have my FA 50 f/1.4 around

#4
1/30 sec, f/1.6, 50mm, iso 800, 0 Ev


#7
1/30 sec, f/1.6, 50mm, iso 800, 0 Ev


#11
1/30 sec, f/1.4, 50mm, iso 800, 0 ev


The rest are most done in between f/1.6 to f/2.8

#13
My boy danced to his tune and the DJ is checking him out
1/15 sec, f/2.8, 50mm, iso 800, 0 ev


#14 (my biggest gripe and mistake in the series, it would have been a good closeup portrait for the DJ on that live session, a tripod is needed for signature shot with movement)
1/30 sec, f/1.6, 50mm, iso 800, 0 ev


#15
I love salvaging bad shot to b&w to save bad picture from going to trash, some member comment on their liking on this shot
1/30 sec, f/2.0, 50mm, iso 400, 0 ev


#16
I like this salvaged shot in b&w
1/40 sec, f/2.8, 50mm, iso 800, 0 ev


Thanks,
Hin

[Jimsi777]

Thanks for the exif data, I am new as well owing a Pentax manual 1.7 (I think manual 1.7 is one of the best lenses..lol) lens...love those manual lenses...

Maybe get a monopod for carrying around, much easier to set up...Call it your walking cain...:=))

[hinman]

More samples that I really like the lens for its color and contrast that are better than my zoom as in DA 18-55 and DA 50-200. My FA 50 f/1.4 beats both the combos in terms of color, contrast, speed and bokeh. It is more difficult to use and I have more user errors with it. All are hand held shots without flash

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


More on my thoughts and testing links on FA 50 f/1.4
Thoughts on Pentax FA 50 f/1.4 - Hin's Tech Corner

Thanks,
Hin

[lordson]

holy crapola

those pictures look way better than the hundreds of pictures i took on holiday in queensland

just the color the crispness

or maybe i just take really crappy photos

well the general consensus is that it is an excelletn lens. and looking ag the 77 adn 44 , it is also extremely cheap in the world of dSLR lenses.

i have a 4 million dollar bag too, really good bag

but the handle at the top stretches too much, stupid thing, and i thought the material was supposed to be top notched. its like an arch at the top of my bag now. stupid handle. good bag though

hinman, i think you're oversusing low apetures just for the sake of it and having blur. alot of your images have way to small DOF and it aint that great

[Mike Cash]

hinman, i think you're oversusing low apetures just for the sake of it and having blur. alot of your images have way to small DOF and it aint that great

Difference of opinion is what makes for horse races.

The point you should come away with is that the creative control is there with the low apertures. It is up to the individual photographer to make use of it or not, as he sees fit. So long as we're not on commission, the only person who has to like a photo is the guy who took it.

[barendvl]

I have recently acquired a Revuenon 55mm F1.2 lens (K-mount) (minty) for portraiture.

Here's a picture of the lens (shot by Tobias Költzsch):


I must say that this lens is very sharp (i've read an old test from a magazine where it's compared to a nikkor 55mm 1.4 and they are very equal, the revuenon is just a tad less sharp).

The CA's on a modern DSLR are not as much as you would expect from an 'older' lens, since it is multicoated. There's less CA then with my Pentax M 50mm F2.0 lens.

One of the downsides to the lens is that if you shoot outdoors with the aperture at 1.2, every bit of sky tends to be blown out, i.e. it's very easy to put too much light in this thing. Then again, shooting at 1.2 outdoors.

Personally, I do like the bokeh the lens gives me. Ofcourse, this is down to personal taste.

Some example shots I made with it at F2.0:

[hinman]

Another thing to think about when shooting portraits at f/1.4: the depth of field can be TOO narrow if you are fairly close to the subject. I have lots of photos where the eyes are in focus and the nose is out of focus. Sometimes that can work well, but sometimes not so much. Here is one that was taken with an FA 50/1.4 at f/2.8, and you can see how narrow the depth of field is already:

Finn,

I love the b&w in this one. I like the DOF in this one. I don't mind the narrow DOF picture as I find it a beneficial challenge for better picture in obscuring the background while retaining focus on the subject of interest. Sharpness is not the only thing for a good picture. And I love seeing your little boy in this great b&w photo.

Thanks,
Hin

[hinman]

I have recently acquired a Revuenon 55mm F1.2 lens (K-mount) (minty) for portraiture.

Here's a picture of the lens (shot by Tobias Költzsch):
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~tobiko/Bilder/Revuenon/Revuenon.jpg

I must say that this lens is very sharp (i've read an old test from a magazine where it's compared to a nikkor 55mm 1.4 and they are very equal, the revuenon is just a tad less sharp).

The CA's on a modern DSLR are not as much as you would expect from an 'older' lens, since it is multicoated. There's less CA then with my Pentax M 50mm F2.0 lens.

One of the downsides to the lens is that if you shoot outdoors with the aperture at 1.2, every bit of sky tends to be blown out, i.e. it's very easy to put too much light in this thing. Then again, shooting at 1.2 outdoors.

Personally, I do like the bokeh the lens gives me. Ofcourse, this is down to personal taste.

Some example shots I made with it at F2.0:
http://www.hetverborgenpad.nl/pictures/revue/pic.jpg

I especially love the bokeh and the post in the 2nd picture. I can see them in wedding dress. A very lovely couple who look alike and they both have the charming smiles. Great capture and demo of picture quality and bokeh of your prime 55 mm f/1.2. Can I ask how much you pay for the lens?

Thanks,
Hin

[barendvl]

I especially love the bokeh and the post in the 2nd picture. I can see them in wedding dress. A very lovely couple who look alike and they both have the charming smiles. Great capture and demo of picture quality and bokeh of your prime 55 mm f/1.2. Can I ask how much you pay for the lens?

Thanks,
Hin

Thanks for your kind comments The photoshoot in question was something I enjoyed doing, the manual focus took some more time then my AF lens but it just felt right. And the couple did not mind me focussing for a second or 2 either, so this was not a problem.

I payed 60 Euro's including shipping on an online (ebay like) marketplace. It was minty when i got it and it is still. It's probably the best lens I will buy in my life that is non-AF. When I bought it I compared it with what ebay offered in the same range, and some of these are still on ebay: "Revuenon Tomioka 55mm F1.2" lenses. These come in the m42 mount, which is a minor "problem". Big problem: they cost around 700 dollars :-/