Pentax FA 1.4 vs Pentax F 1.7

reivax · 07-30-2011, 10:10 AM

Hoping someone can help me out. I know this is one of those questions that really comes down to personal preference and specific situations, but I need an "in general" answer.

Which of these two lenses do you prefer?

I know they're both supposed to take great pics, but do the advantages of the FA 1.4 outweigh the F 1.7? Are they different mechanically? Does the .3 difference make a huge difference in quality? When price is taken in to consideration (less than 100 bucks from what I've found) which would you grab?

If you didn't already have a 50 mm prime, which would you purchase, and why?

Thanks.

**manishved** · 07-30-2011, 10:13 AM

How often do you plan on shooting at 1.4? Besides, the 1.4 is softer from 1.7 thru about 2.2 when compared to the 1.7. I would save the $100 and get the 1.7. If budget is not an issue, the best bet is the FA 43

reivax · 07-30-2011, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by manishved

How often do you plan on shooting at 1.4? Besides, the 1.4 is softer from 1.7 thru about 2.2 when compared to the 1.7. I would save the $100 and get the 1.7. If budget is not an issue, the best bet is the FA 43

Yeah, I think budget would probably be an issue. The FA 43 is way out of my price range.

To be honest, this would be my first prime and my first 1.4 or 1.7 lens. I don't really live in an area where I would be able to test out the lenses either (no real photography shops). I've done enough reading where I know that 1.7 could give me more sharp photos than 1.4, but that's really the extent of my experience.

I hope I don't come off sounding too ignorant, but I guess a good question for me to ask would be, when would I need 1.4? At night, would I miss that .3?

dgaies · 07-30-2011, 10:22 AM

There are literally dozens of threads which discuss this exact topic. Here's a link to one of the more recent ones.

You're not going to find a consensus opinion on the debate, so it really will come down to your priorities and personal preferences. I personally prefer the 1.7 because it is sharper up to about f/2.8 (from which point they are effectively the same). While it's true using a hood with the 50/1.4 will help close the gap at and below f/2.8, the fact remains that the 1.7 is sharper. There are obviously other attributes to consider; the 1.4 is faster, most feel it has a smoother bokeh, some prefer the color rendering, etc. And of course, there is cost. To be fair you should probably compare a used 1.7 to a used 1.4 ($200-2$25 vs $250-$275), and that puts the price difference closer to $50.

dgaies · 07-30-2011, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by reivax

I hope I don't come off sounding too ignorant, but I guess a good question for me to ask would be, when would I need 1.4? At night, would I miss that .3?

Well, f/1.4 will give you a little more DOF control (which is to say it will allow you to go a little thinner on the depth of fiend compared to the f/1.7). It will also give you 50% more light, which can make a difference at night or in low light shooting. But again, it's hard to say whether or not you "need" it and whether or not it's worth the extra $50 to you.

reivax · 07-30-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

There are literally dozens of threads which discuss this exact topic. Here's a link to one of the more recent ones.

You're not going to find a consensus opinion on the debate, so it really will come down to your priorities and personal preferences. I personally prefer the 1.7 because it is sharper up to about f/2.8 (from which point they are effectively the same). While it's true using a hood with the 50/1.4 will help close the gap at and below f/2.8, the fact remains that the 1.7 is sharper. There are obviously other attributes to consider; the 1.4 is faster, most feel it has a smoother bokeh, some prefer the color rendering, etc. And of course, there is cost. To be fair you should probably compare a used 1.7 to a used 1.4 ($200-2$25 vs $250-$275), and that puts the price difference closer to $50.

Yeah, I'm only looking at used. Thanks. Great info.

reivax · 07-30-2011, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

Well, f/1.4 will give you a little more DOF control (which is to say it will allow you to go a little thinner on the depth of fiend compared to the f/1.7). It will also give you 50% more light, which can make a difference at night or in low light shooting. But again, it's hard to say whether or not you "need" it and whether or not it's worth the extra $50 to you.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, there really is no consensus. Still a lot of great things to consider.

RioRico · 07-30-2011, 11:43 AM

And I'll say again: IMHO the FA50/1.4 is indispensable. It does what no other lens in the vicinity can. It's my gotta-get-the-shot lens. It is not for shooting razor-sharp images wide-open (although within its thin DOF it's damn sharp); rather, it's for grabbing light, for shooting action or in dimness or for 'artistic' control. If you want a budget Sharp Fifty, you can still get a Super Takumar 55/2 or even f/1.8 for under US$25 on eBay. (That's true; I just checked Completed Listings for Takumar 55mm.) If you want an affordable Fast Fifty, fast not just in aperture but in agility, the FA50/1.4 just can't be beat. I see it selling for around US$250, and worth every cent.

**Ahab** · 07-30-2011, 02:38 PM

I certainly agree with RioRico. Most museums do not allow flash and another place it shines is in those intimate places where a quick shot makes the day.

dgaies · 07-30-2011, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Ahab

I certainly agree with RioRico. Most museums do not allow flash and another place it shines is in those intimate places where a quick shot makes the day.

I don't disagree with that either. However, in many cases I'd rather shoot in the museum with the 50/1.7 wide open at f/1.7 and either bump the ISO up half a stop or reduce the shutter speed by half a stop as compared to shooting the 50/1.4 wide open at f/1.4. Again, it's just a personal preference and certainly I'm not trying to disparage the FA50/1.4 as I think it's an excellent lens as well.

**mattt** · 07-30-2011, 02:44 PM

I'm with Rio - FA50F1.4 worth every penny of $250. Never shot the 1.7

hoanpham · 07-30-2011, 03:43 PM

The DOF is thin at f1.4 and the FA50f1.4 is generally hard to use it well, but it is a must have for low light and artistic reasons

phantom · 07-30-2011, 04:42 PM

FA50F1.4 definitely a must have.

paperbag846 · 07-31-2011, 07:01 PM

50 1.4:

1) Smoother out of focus areas.
2) That extra 1/2 stop when you need it. (50% more light!)
3) (FA) has a nicer manual focusing ring than the (F) 1.7 does.
4) The price difference is not very significant.
5) I find the warmer 1.4 works better with skin tones, and I usually use this as my portrait lens. In other words, I like the colours better.

In my experience, though, the 1.7 has a slight edge for low-light scene photography because it has less CA in general, so it appears sharper between f1.7 - f2.5. Good for shooting small gigs, night shots. However, since the 1.4 can do this as well (and the CA does not bother me) I tend to prefer the more flexible 1.4 to the sharper but colder 1.7.

northcoastgreg · 07-31-2011, 08:10 PM

My vote would be 50/1.4. The complaints about the 1.4 being less sharp wide open strike me as a tad overblown. To the extent that it's true, it's insignificant. And I'm not even sure it is in fact true. Every resolution test I've seen involving versions of the 1.4 and 1.7 don't support that view.

07-30-2011, 10:10 AM	#1
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826	Pentax FA 1.4 vs Pentax F 1.7 Hoping someone can help me out. I know this is one of those questions that really comes down to personal preference and specific situations, but I need an "in general" answer. Which of these two lenses do you prefer? I know they're both supposed to take great pics, but do the advantages of the FA 1.4 outweigh the F 1.7? Are they different mechanically? Does the .3 difference make a huge difference in quality? When price is taken in to consideration (less than 100 bucks from what I've found) which would you grab? If you didn't already have a 50 mm prime, which would you purchase, and why? Thanks.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Film cameras - Pentax P5, Pentax SF1n, Pentax MZ-5 + grip (US/CAN)	dugrant153	Sold Items	4	06-03-2011 05:47 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA12-24mm f4, Pentax FA50mm /1.4, Pentax DA18-55mm kit lens (Worldwide)	geauxpez	Sold Items	16	03-10-2011 09:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-x White, Pentax DA-L 18-55, Crumpler Clone, Pentax MX (Worldwide)	hinman	Sold Items	6	10-19-2010 02:10 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 16-45mm/4, Pentax F 28mm/2.8, Pentax, DA 70mm/2.4 Limited (Worldwide	dgaies	Sold Items	5	04-08-2010 06:16 AM

07-30-2011, 10:13 AM	#2
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	How often do you plan on shooting at 1.4? Besides, the 1.4 is softer from 1.7 thru about 2.2 when compared to the 1.7. I would save the $100 and get the 1.7. If budget is not an issue, the best bet is the FA 43

07-30-2011, 10:22 AM	#3
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826 Original Poster	Originally posted by manishved How often do you plan on shooting at 1.4? Besides, the 1.4 is softer from 1.7 thru about 2.2 when compared to the 1.7. I would save the $100 and get the 1.7. If budget is not an issue, the best bet is the FA 43 Yeah, I think budget would probably be an issue. The FA 43 is way out of my price range. To be honest, this would be my first prime and my first 1.4 or 1.7 lens. I don't really live in an area where I would be able to test out the lenses either (no real photography shops). I've done enough reading where I know that 1.7 could give me more sharp photos than 1.4, but that's really the extent of my experience. I hope I don't come off sounding too ignorant, but I guess a good question for me to ask would be, when would I need 1.4? At night, would I miss that .3?

07-30-2011, 10:22 AM	#4
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	There are literally dozens of threads which discuss this exact topic. Here's a link to one of the more recent ones. You're not going to find a consensus opinion on the debate, so it really will come down to your priorities and personal preferences. I personally prefer the 1.7 because it is sharper up to about f/2.8 (from which point they are effectively the same). While it's true using a hood with the 50/1.4 will help close the gap at and below f/2.8, the fact remains that the 1.7 is sharper. There are obviously other attributes to consider; the 1.4 is faster, most feel it has a smoother bokeh, some prefer the color rendering, etc. And of course, there is cost. To be fair you should probably compare a used 1.7 to a used 1.4 ($200-2$25 vs $250-$275), and that puts the price difference closer to $50.

07-30-2011, 10:24 AM	#5
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by reivax I hope I don't come off sounding too ignorant, but I guess a good question for me to ask would be, when would I need 1.4? At night, would I miss that .3? Well, f/1.4 will give you a little more DOF control (which is to say it will allow you to go a little thinner on the depth of fiend compared to the f/1.7). It will also give you 50% more light, which can make a difference at night or in low light shooting. But again, it's hard to say whether or not you "need" it and whether or not it's worth the extra $50 to you.

07-30-2011, 10:25 AM	#6
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies There are literally dozens of threads which discuss this exact topic. Here's a link to one of the more recent ones. You're not going to find a consensus opinion on the debate, so it really will come down to your priorities and personal preferences. I personally prefer the 1.7 because it is sharper up to about f/2.8 (from which point they are effectively the same). While it's true using a hood with the 50/1.4 will help close the gap at and below f/2.8, the fact remains that the 1.7 is sharper. There are obviously other attributes to consider; the 1.4 is faster, most feel it has a smoother bokeh, some prefer the color rendering, etc. And of course, there is cost. To be fair you should probably compare a used 1.7 to a used 1.4 ($200-2$25 vs $250-$275), and that puts the price difference closer to $50. Yeah, I'm only looking at used. Thanks. Great info.

07-30-2011, 10:27 AM	#7
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies Well, f/1.4 will give you a little more DOF control (which is to say it will allow you to go a little thinner on the depth of fiend compared to the f/1.7). It will also give you 50% more light, which can make a difference at night or in low light shooting. But again, it's hard to say whether or not you "need" it and whether or not it's worth the extra $50 to you. Yeah, you're absolutely right, there really is no consensus. Still a lot of great things to consider.

07-30-2011, 11:43 AM	#8
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	And I'll say again: IMHO the FA50/1.4 is indispensable. It does what no other lens in the vicinity can. It's my gotta-get-the-shot lens. It is not for shooting razor-sharp images wide-open (although within its thin DOF it's damn sharp); rather, it's for grabbing light, for shooting action or in dimness or for 'artistic' control. If you want a budget Sharp Fifty, you can still get a Super Takumar 55/2 or even f/1.8 for under US$25 on eBay. (That's true; I just checked Completed Listings for Takumar 55mm.) If you want an affordable Fast Fifty, fast not just in aperture but in agility, the FA50/1.4 just can't be beat. I see it selling for around US$250, and worth every cent.

07-30-2011, 02:38 PM	#9
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	I certainly agree with RioRico. Most museums do not allow flash and another place it shines is in those intimate places where a quick shot makes the day.

07-30-2011, 02:42 PM	#10
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Ahab I certainly agree with RioRico. Most museums do not allow flash and another place it shines is in those intimate places where a quick shot makes the day. I don't disagree with that either. However, in many cases I'd rather shoot in the museum with the 50/1.7 wide open at f/1.7 and either bump the ISO up half a stop or reduce the shutter speed by half a stop as compared to shooting the 50/1.4 wide open at f/1.4. Again, it's just a personal preference and certainly I'm not trying to disparage the FA50/1.4 as I think it's an excellent lens as well.

07-30-2011, 02:44 PM	#11
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	I'm with Rio - FA50F1.4 worth every penny of $250. Never shot the 1.7

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2011, 03:43 PM	#12
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	The DOF is thin at f1.4 and the FA50f1.4 is generally hard to use it well, but it is a must have for low light and artistic reasons

07-30-2011, 04:42 PM	#13
phantom New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 2	FA50F1.4 definitely a must have.

07-31-2011, 07:01 PM	#14
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	50 1.4: 1) Smoother out of focus areas. 2) That extra 1/2 stop when you need it. (50% more light!) 3) (FA) has a nicer manual focusing ring than the (F) 1.7 does. 4) The price difference is not very significant. 5) I find the warmer 1.4 works better with skin tones, and I usually use this as my portrait lens. In other words, I like the colours better. In my experience, though, the 1.7 has a slight edge for low-light scene photography because it has less CA in general, so it appears sharper between f1.7 - f2.5. Good for shooting small gigs, night shots. However, since the 1.4 can do this as well (and the CA does not bother me) I tend to prefer the more flexible 1.4 to the sharper but colder 1.7.

07-31-2011, 08:10 PM	#15
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	My vote would be 50/1.4. The complaints about the 1.4 being less sharp wide open strike me as a tad overblown. To the extent that it's true, it's insignificant. And I'm not even sure it is in fact true. Every resolution test I've seen involving versions of the 1.4 and 1.7 don't support that view.