[paperbag846]

DO you find it easier to manually focus the A 50, John? Great shots.

[JohnBee]

DO you find it easier to manually focus the A 50, John? Great shots.

With the K20D I found the 50/1.4 to be quite challenging in low light. Then I installed a split screen which helped alot. But in very low light... I'd have to revert to LV since the viefinder just wasn't sufficient.

However on the K-5', with the higher res LV and magnification, the A 50/1.4 is a real joy to use. And though it does take a little more time to focus, in the end, the images are far more accurate in terms of focus.

The only thing(imo) that the K-5 needs to make it a MF beast is a touch and hold magnification feature. ie. press and hold fx button to magnify, release to return. Which would make LV fine focusing incredibly powerful imo.

PS. thanks for the compliment on the shots btw

[Rondec]

That's an opinion that I do not find supported by the facts in front of me. The 50/1.4 suffers from the trend these days not to use a hood. The 50/1.7 design has a much more recessed front element and it gets away better without a hood than does the 1.4 design. When you put a hood on the 1.4 things get different fast.

On a broader note, I really tire of so many offering opinions here as of they were handed to them on the 3rd table when they visited the Mount with Moses. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but saying things as if they were facts doesn't make them so.

I owned the FA 50 f1.4 for several years. It is true that I didn't use it with a lens hood, but it just had poor contrast and resolution wide open. I am a pixel peeper/aggressive cropper and I like my lenses to be sharp down to the pixel level. The FA 50 f1.4 didn't really get there till f2.4.

Now, that is my copy that I am speaking about, not everyone's copy. It is possible I had a bad copy, but since I found it sharpened up when stopped down, I didn't try any other copies.

Edit: I must say, that I am not shooting shows or performances from a distance. If I were, it is possible that I would use my one f1.4 lens at f1.4 more often.

[Pentaxor]

With the K20D I found the 50/1.4 to be quite challenging in low light. Then I installed a split screen which helped alot. But in very low light... I'd have to revert to LV since the viefinder just wasn't sufficient.

However on the K-5', with the higher res LV and magnification, the A 50/1.4 is a real joy to use. And though it does take a little more time to focus, in the end, the images are far more accurate in terms of focus.

The only thing(imo) that the K-5 needs to make it a MF beast is a touch and hold magnification feature. ie. press and hold fx button to magnify, release to return. Which would make LV fine focusing incredibly powerful imo.

PS. thanks for the compliment on the shots btw

LV is indeed very useful. my only qualm is that Pentax would improve the realtime viewing especially when magnified (worst at max magnification). the lag time is just terrible in all honesty.

[paperbag846]

It is true that I didn't use it with a lens hood, but it just had poor contrast and resolution wide open.

It had poor contrast and resolution wide open because you did not use a lens hood.

The FA 50 does not beat every lens out there, but it can hold its own alongside the FA ltds in my experience when it comes to contrast. It falls short when it comes to *micro* contrast + critical sharpness at f2.

But these FA ltds are really crazy sharp at f2, and the FA 50 is very respectable (up there with pretty much anything else, including the DA ltds). The lack of contrast, 9 times out of 10, I would wager, is due to flare, caused by the lack of hood. Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.

[RioRico]

Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.

Don't be crude, use a hoood.
At low expense, hood your lense.
Don't be an ass, shield your glass.

Hay, this is fun!

[paperbag846]

Don't be an ass, shield your glass.

Act benevolent, protect your element.

[Marc Sabatella]

I use the widest aperture that gives me shutter speeds of at least 1/100, starting from ISO 800.

And what I' saying is, most people wouldn't place such unreasonably high demands on their equipment. Most people wpuld be fine shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 and using shutter speeds well under half that.

Saying f/1.4 is needed for low light photography because it's the only way to get 1/100" at ISO 800 is like saying a Porsche is needed for commuting because it's the only way to get 0-60MPH in 2 seconds or less.

this was shot recently and exposure is f/1.4 1/100 ISO 1600:

Nice shot, but a good example of something that could have been done at f/2.4 and 1/30", and if for reason you really wanted 1/60", ISO 3200 woild have gotten you there.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Saying f/1.4 is needed for low light photography because it's the only way to get 1/100" at ISO 800 is like saying a Porsche is needed for commuting because it's the only way to get 0-60MPH in 2 seconds or less.

Except low light photography is the equivalent of drag racing, not of commuting. Light is the essence of photography, so low light shooting is inherently about pushing the boundaries.

Nice shot, but a good example of something that could have been done at f/2.4 and 1/30", and if for reason you really wanted 1/60", ISO 3200 woild have gotten you there.

It's an example of light condition, not of subject. Just use your imagination to put a kid in the place of those toys and think of what settings you would use to capture the kid - do you really think 1/30 would cut it? Or that you would capture much detail at ISO 3200? You may get lucky and nail a shot worth keeping, but then you're talking about crap shooting, not about reasonably predictable results.

[twitch]

I use to think 2.8 was fine as well until I bought an FA ltd. I now spend most of my time shooting f1.8 to f2.8 indoors. Who would have thunk it. I don't buy the "too thin DOF" argument either. Maybe 1.4 is very thin if you're using a long lens and shooting up really close, but just take a step back, or if you're using a wider lens like the FA31, then even f/1.8 has a reasonable amount of DOF.

I just crunched the numbers through the DOF calculator, and a FA31 wide open at just 2 meters has 29cm DOF. That is plenty to play with and adequate for many situations (OK not group portraits but you know what I mean ).

[Pentaxor]

I use to think 2.8 was fine as well until I bought an FA ltd. I now spend most of my time shooting f1.8 to f2.8 indoors. Who would have thunk it. I don't buy the "too thin DOF" argument either. Maybe 1.4 is very thin if you're using a long lens and shooting up really close, but just take a step back, or if you're using a wider lens like the FA31, then even f/1.8 has a reasonable amount of DOF.

I just crunched the numbers through the DOF calculator, and a FA31 wide open at just 2 meters has 29cm DOF. That is plenty to play with and adequate for many situations (OK not group portraits but you know what I mean ).

I would believe that most of the people that complain about the DOF shallowness of fast lenses have no knowledge of the photography history and use of fast lenses. fast lenses are well adored or sought after because of their shallow effect and light gathering capability. and I don't see old photographers complaining about DOF control other than improving their skill. actually it is kinda embarrassing that some people nowadays make this an issue inspite of the fact that they are using an APS-C sensor camera(which meant more DOF) and memory card, but still can't find a way how to use a lens effectively. although, maybe their post-processing skill on manipulating DOF is much better, but then again, that is a skill on manipulating an image digitally rather than photographic skill.

[Docrwm]

I would believe that most of the people that complain about the DOF shallowness of fast lenses have no knowledge of the photography history and use of fast lenses. fast lenses are well adored or sought after because of their shallow effect and light gathering capability. and I don't see old photographers complaining about DOF control other than improving their skill. actually it is kinda embarrassing that some people nowadays make this an issue inspite of the fact that they are using an APS-C sensor camera(which meant more DOF) and memory card, but still can't find a way how to use a lens effectively. although, maybe their post-processing skill on manipulating DOF is much better, but then again, that is a skill on manipulating an image digitally rather than photographic skill.

+1 - thanks for saying it so clearly. Hopefully you put this in a new light for some!

RioRico offered this reference on another thread - I think it is relevant here:
http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2009/03/50mm-f14-lens-photographys-magic-bullet

[RioRico]

I would believe that most of the people that complain about the DOF shallowness of fast lenses have no knowledge of the photography history and use of fast lenses. fast lenses are well adored or sought after because of their shallow effect and light gathering capability.

Complaint are made about thin DOF, wide-open softness, lousy bokeh, etc. But speed sells. Faster lenses (usually) sell for more than slower lenses. A prime (heh heh) example here is, look at eBay COMPLETED SALES: the SuperTak 55/1.8 sells for a good price while the 55/2 DOESN"T sell for a low price, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME OPTICS!

I'll digress slightly: We see much bitching-moaning-whining about how lousy the DA18-55 is. Pentax (and others) make much money selling 'upgrades' to newbs who are convinced that it's a trash lens. Then they list the DA18-55 on eBay -- and it's snapped-up forthwith. (That's how I got mine, cheap!) SOMEBODY out there knows bargains.

The open market isn't always right. But sales prices often reflect demand. When something sells cheap, it's a bargain. When it sells for much more, there's strong demand. This should be indicative: Wide apertures are valuable to enough people who willingly pay a premium.

RioRico offered this reference on another thread - I think it is relevant here:
The 50mm f/1.4 lens: Photography's Magic Bullet | Popular Photography

Thanks for citing that. It's a couple years old but still quite true.

[Pentaxor]

I'll digress slightly: We see much bitching-moaning-whining about how lousy the DA18-55 is. Pentax (and others) make much money selling 'upgrades' to newbs who are convinced that it's a trash lens. Then they list the DA18-55 on eBay -- and it's snapped-up forthwith. (That's how I got mine, cheap!) SOMEBODY out there knows bargains.

I'm sure there are valid reasons about that zoom gets complained about and it has been tackled numerous times in other threads. but as a summary, personally, the lens just didn't perform the way I expected and wanted it to be.

[Kerrowdown]

Interesting thread this one, lots of discussion about merits of glass speed.

For me faster glass also means a brighter viewfinder image, which is a must for me and my manual glass and even then I'm using optibrite Katzeyes all the time.

It's just nice to be able to see what I'm looking at and hopefully focusing on.