Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2011, 11:24 PM   #16

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,418
QuoteOriginally posted by yyyzzz Quote
Two lenses have very different purposes. Macro lens tend to provide flat field if that is what you are looking for. Flat field is critical for taking pictures of documents. If not taking macro photos or recording documents, a regular 50mm is what you should be looking for.
Why? Is there something wrong with a flat field for non-macro or non-copy images?

06-30-2011, 01:57 AM   #17
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
Why? Is there something wrong with a flat field for non-macro or non-copy images?
Not at all, usually. I use 80mm+ enlarger lenses on bellows for non-macro shooting because of their edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness. But macro lenses *require* such quality. Producing it costs more. Non-macro lenses can be optimized for other qualities, such as dimensionality and rendering, that may not be tolerated in flat-copy work. And a macro lens used for portraits can reveal every flawed detail. This is not always appreciated.

Then too, some macro lenses are built to best work close only; images of distant shots may not be as pleasing, optically. Especially troublesome is focus throw -- my Super Takumar 50/1.4 takes 1/4 turn to go from 1m to infinity, while my Macro Takumar 50/4 (1:1) only has about 1/20 turn for that. So fine focusing of subjects beyond 1m can be very difficult.

Flattening a lens' field can be helpful for non-macro shooting. My favorite example is the terrible A35-80 lens. Reverse it, an you get a SHARP lens that can focus down to ~5cm at 35mm, and out to infinity at 75-80mm. But I'm not sure that I'd want to use it for portraits, not of people that I might have to relate to later. Portraits of cats and flowers and sculptures etc are fine, they won't complain that all their warts show.
06-30-2011, 05:49 AM   #18
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
I'm very happy with the 50/2.8 for the uses for which it was intended. I'd rather have a faster, shorter-throw 50 for general use. I don't own the FA50/1.4, but the noisy, slow, grinding focus of the macro model has me reaching for one of my manual focus 50s.

  • 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!
fa50/1.4, fa50/2.8, k-mount, macro, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D and Lens (Tokina AT-X 28-70/2.8, FA50/1.7, Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, M*300/4 + dgaies Sold Items 10 02-06-2011 09:52 AM
For Sale - Sold: Prime sale: FA50 f/1.4, FA 43 f/1.9 limited (black), Sigma 70mm macro (Worldw ll_coffee_lP Sold Items 7 09-09-2010 05:38 PM
Old computer motherboard (FA50 does macro) impact Post Your Photos! 4 08-04-2009 12:30 PM
LBA: FA50/2.8 Macro maxwell1295 Post Your Photos! 6 04-17-2009 08:21 AM
More macro fun with FA50 jsundin Post Your Photos! 7 03-22-2007 03:53 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 PM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]