FA50/1.4 vs FA50/2.8 Macro

bhairavp · 06-25-2011, 08:39 PM

So I have an FA50/1.4, along with an M50/1.4 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4 Also have a Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 M42 macro. Is it worth swapping the FA50 with an FA50/2.8 Macro lens?
Thanks.
Mostly for casual portraits and low-light shooting.

gp1806 · 06-25-2011, 10:09 PM

Not for casual portraits and low-light shooting. I don't know why you would want to buy another 50mm macro, unless you need the auto functions.

Pentaxor · 06-25-2011, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by bhairavp

So I have an FA50/1.4, along with an M50/1.4 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4 Also have a Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 M42 macro. Is it worth swapping the FA50 with an FA50/2.8 Macro lens?
Thanks.
Mostly for casual portraits and low-light shooting.

for me, Yes it is worth swapping. you can always use the Super-Tak if you need f1.4.

RioRico · 06-26-2011, 06:28 AM

I'd give up the M and ST rather than the FA, it's just more agile. Note: I have the ST and FA, also the MacTak50/4 (1:1). I haven't used the FA50 macro, but if its focus throw is anything like the MacTak, you'll have difficulty with manual focus at portrait range. That won't matter if you'll only use it on AF -- but for low-light and "casual portraits", why give up the extra TWO F-STOPS and AF of the FA50/1.4? AF isn't much use at macro range anyway. No, I think you should keep the FA50/1.4.

yusuf · 06-26-2011, 09:28 AM

No unless you need a MACRO. If you are behind sharpness, FA/1.4 is already very sharp at 2.8

**pentaxman** · 06-26-2011, 10:22 AM

I think the question is - how much existing light photography do you do indoors? I find that I much prefer flash photography indoors. If you use bounce flash effectively, it gives a pretty natural lighting look. I rarely use my FA50 using existing light, so I rarely use F-stops less than 5.6 - in fact I usually prefer to use my Sigma 18-50 zoom indoors. Hmmm - I think I should consider selling my FA50.

Tom

paperbag846 · 06-26-2011, 11:16 AM

I would suggest that there's little need to swap unless you are interested in doing macro work.

FA 50 1.4 likely focuses faster. Sharpness differences would be largely irrelevant.

bhairavp · 06-26-2011, 09:12 PM

^Thanks all. I don't think I need another macro lens - it was more a case of LBA, and that Vivitar 55 is a sharp,sharp lens, + 1:1 macro.
Sticking with teh FA50.

civiletti · 06-27-2011, 06:10 PM

I use manual focus lenses mostly. I use the A50/1.4 if I need the light or want extremely shallow depth of field, and the A50/2.8 otherwise. It is my sharpest lens.

bdery · 06-27-2011, 07:32 PM

The FA50 macro is kinda slow to focus, and it's two stops slower than the f1,4. It is an AMAZING lens, mind you, but for macro... for the rest, the f1,4 is likely just as good.

rvannatta · 06-27-2011, 10:27 PM

I have an F series 50mm macro and the FA 1.4. My FA 1.14 is frankly shelfware. I don't think I've taken a photo with it since I got a digital camera in 2003, but I must confess, I do mostly macro stuff.

civiletti · 06-28-2011, 10:28 PM

The A50/2.8 is sharper at 2.8 than the A50/1.4, itself a pretty high IQ lens, is at 2.8.

yyyzzz · 06-29-2011, 12:52 AM

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.

Pentaxor · 06-29-2011, 10:27 AM

I think another reason to consider is that one lens is rarely sold in the market while the other one is commonly sold.

RioRico · 06-29-2011, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I think another reason to consider is that one lens is rarely sold in the market while the other one is commonly sold.

You mean you see the 50/1.4 more than the 50 mac? Maybe that's because Pentax *made* a zillion more of the former. I see lots more Helios-44's than Helios-40's on the bay too. Funny 'bout that. Oh yeah, if you want a great affordable 50mm macro lens, get an Industar-50/3.5, a set of cheap M42 macro tubes, and a cheap wide-flanged M42-PK adapter. Those might cost all of US$40. Or less, in Europe.

06-25-2011, 08:39 PM	#1
bhairavp Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 399	FA50/1.4 vs FA50/2.8 Macro So I have an FA50/1.4, along with an M50/1.4 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4 Also have a Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 M42 macro. Is it worth swapping the FA50 with an FA50/2.8 Macro lens? Thanks. Mostly for casual portraits and low-light shooting.

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

06-25-2011, 10:09 PM	#2
gp1806 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago suburbs Photos: Albums Posts: 848	Not for casual portraits and low-light shooting. I don't know why you would want to buy another 50mm macro, unless you need the auto functions.

06-25-2011, 11:15 PM	#3
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by bhairavp So I have an FA50/1.4, along with an M50/1.4 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4 Also have a Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 M42 macro. Is it worth swapping the FA50 with an FA50/2.8 Macro lens? Thanks. Mostly for casual portraits and low-light shooting. for me, Yes it is worth swapping. you can always use the Super-Tak if you need f1.4.

06-26-2011, 06:28 AM	#4
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'd give up the M and ST rather than the FA, it's just more agile. Note: I have the ST and FA, also the MacTak50/4 (1:1). I haven't used the FA50 macro, but if its focus throw is anything like the MacTak, you'll have difficulty with manual focus at portrait range. That won't matter if you'll only use it on AF -- but for low-light and "casual portraits", why give up the extra TWO F-STOPS and AF of the FA50/1.4? AF isn't much use at macro range anyway. No, I think you should keep the FA50/1.4.

06-26-2011, 09:28 AM	#5
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	No unless you need a MACRO. If you are behind sharpness, FA/1.4 is already very sharp at 2.8

06-26-2011, 10:22 AM	#6
pentaxman Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	I think the question is - how much existing light photography do you do indoors? I find that I much prefer flash photography indoors. If you use bounce flash effectively, it gives a pretty natural lighting look. I rarely use my FA50 using existing light, so I rarely use F-stops less than 5.6 - in fact I usually prefer to use my Sigma 18-50 zoom indoors. Hmmm - I think I should consider selling my FA50. Tom

06-26-2011, 11:16 AM	#7
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I would suggest that there's little need to swap unless you are interested in doing macro work. FA 50 1.4 likely focuses faster. Sharpness differences would be largely irrelevant.

06-26-2011, 09:12 PM	#8
bhairavp Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 399 Original Poster	^Thanks all. I don't think I need another macro lens - it was more a case of LBA, and that Vivitar 55 is a sharp,sharp lens, + 1:1 macro. Sticking with teh FA50.

06-27-2011, 06:10 PM	#9
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	I use manual focus lenses mostly. I use the A50/1.4 if I need the light or want extremely shallow depth of field, and the A50/2.8 otherwise. It is my sharpest lens.

06-27-2011, 07:32 PM	#10
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	The FA50 macro is kinda slow to focus, and it's two stops slower than the f1,4. It is an AMAZING lens, mind you, but for macro... for the rest, the f1,4 is likely just as good.

06-27-2011, 10:27 PM	#11
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	I have an F series 50mm macro and the FA 1.4. My FA 1.14 is frankly shelfware. I don't think I've taken a photo with it since I got a digital camera in 2003, but I must confess, I do mostly macro stuff.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2011, 10:28 PM	#12
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	The A50/2.8 is sharper at 2.8 than the A50/1.4, itself a pretty high IQ lens, is at 2.8.

06-29-2011, 12:52 AM	#13
yyyzzz Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery Posts: 509	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.

06-29-2011, 10:27 AM	#14
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I think another reason to consider is that one lens is rarely sold in the market while the other one is commonly sold.

06-29-2011, 11:23 AM	#15
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Pentaxor I think another reason to consider is that one lens is rarely sold in the market while the other one is commonly sold. You mean you see the 50/1.4 more than the 50 mac? Maybe that's because Pentax made a zillion more of the former. I see lots more Helios-44's than Helios-40's on the bay too. Funny 'bout that. Oh yeah, if you want a great affordable 50mm macro lens, get an Industar-50/3.5, a set of cheap M42 macro tubes, and a cheap wide-flanged M42-PK adapter. Those might cost all of US$40. Or less, in Europe.