[Class A]

... there's other stuff going on here too though, like in the white petals

The shot nicely demonstrates the FA 50/1.4's bokeh CA. I hasn't bothering me in practice (but then I don't shoot a lot this wide).

And look at that crazy bokeh! As I said, it should be possible to use that to one's advantage.

100% crop. The detail isn't bad for f/1.4, but you really notice the loss of contrast.

Yep, one must not be disappointed with the loss of contrast. It may depend a bit on the lighting conditions. Someone once created a thread which was supposed to demonstrate that all the FA 50/1.4 needed was a proper hood to achieve great sharpness at f/1.4. I wasn't convinced but a hood certainly can help a little, depending on the circumstances.

True
Peter, this was the only one I could find online taken at f/1.4.

Very nice shot. It also demonstrates that f/1.4 -- with all implied weaknesses -- can be entirely usable in the right conditions and in the right hands.

I hope that, despite all of my critical remarks, it shines through that I'm a big fan of the FA 50/1.4. At US $199 brand new a few years ago, it was an absolute no-brainer. FWIW, Mike Johnston also thinks very highly of the FA 50/1.4:

"For pure picture quality, taking bokeh into account, my considered opinion is that the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is the best fast fifty (and I say that having carefully tested damn near everything out there). "

That statement was made before some of the more modern fast fifties became available, but is still very strong endorsement, AFAIC.

[Danny Delcambre]

True

Peter, this was the only one I could find online taken at f/1.4. I can check at home tonight for the full-sized version so you can see a 100% crop.

K-7 + FA50/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/60s, iso1600

Are you sure on f1.4 this picture? Interesting. I will try it next week.

[miltona580]

Here's a shot at f/1.4

[dgaies]

Are you sure on f1.4 this picture? Interesting. I will try it next week.

It was definitely taken at f/1.4

[axl]

thanks guys, I have to say that the f1.4 on this looks much better then I thought. The DA* is not all that much better IMO...

[RickyFromVegas]

I agree that it's not too bad at 1.4, but I still don't use it that low. 2.2 is usually as low as I go.
Recently acquired Rokinon 85mm, however, is sharp as a tack at 1.4 compared to FA50mm, granted the focus is accurate since it is manual focus.

[Blue]

These aren't crops but here is a handheld shot under an old sodium vapor street light during the blue hour. The 1st one is on the K20d & FA 50 at f1.4. The second one is with the K200d and A 50/1.2 at f1.2. Both handheld. The FA shot was taken about 15 minutes earlier than the A shot and are also on a different sensor.

[miltona580]

This lens is very sharp, in my experience. You just have to realize the plane of focus at f/1.4 can be quite small. In my picture above, it didn't turn out as well as I had hoped because the plane of focus ended up being about an inch wide. I misjudged it, and didn't get the picture I wanted.

[JHD]

This lens is very sharp, in my experience. You just have to realize the plane of focus at f/1.4 can be quite small.

DOF depends not only on the aperture, but proximity to the subject as well. Wide open near or far the FA50 was way too soft for my liking.

[yuareblessed]

DOF depends not only on the aperture, but proximity to the subject as well. Wide open near or far the FA50 was way too soft for my liking.

Yup, what you say is true.

I have a 50mm f1.4 too. It's soft at f1.4 and purple fringing is quite bad at f1.4 especially in bright light. But once stopped down to f1.8, the IQ improve drastically.

And yeah, the AF is really quick especially with k5

[TOUGEFC]

How accurate is its AF though?
And how does it perform it low light shots?

[crewl1]

AF on the K-5 is accurate and very fast, similar to my DA 40 which is supposed to have very fast AF.
The FA 50 1.4 is a gem for low light work.

[creampuff]

I have in the past been able to test six copies of the FA 50mm f/1.4 in a local shop. I was buying two copies that day and I definitely detected small subtle differences between all the lenses, which were all new straight out of the box with different serial number ranges and all were made in Japan. So my conclusion is test, test, test if you can because lenses are made in batches and go thru plenty of hand assembly. I've owned the FA 50mm three times and all varied slightly in terms of PF and sharpness. So I can understand why some say the lens is soft which others say it is sharp. This lens definitely needs a deep lens hood due to the large amount of glass on the front element because the contrast does improve noticeably with a hood on, imo.

[nater]

This lens definitely needs a deep lens hood due to the large amount of glass on the front element because the contrast does improve noticeably with a hood on, imo.

Absolutely! This lens does not come with a hood, and it especially should. Nobody, and I repeat nobody should be shooting this lens at f/1.4 without an appropriate hood. (This is probably the #1 thing that muddies up a lot of these discussions about lens performance wide open, all the people who've taken pictures without a hood, which can destroy contrast, and then people will attribute it to the lens and not the lack of a hood...)

[msatlas]

I wouldn't say that an AF adjustment is necessarily an indication of a larger overall problem. It could very well be fine other than the front/back focus.

Good that you got a hood because the lens really needs one. With a hood you can shoot all day long and get sharp results at f/2 or f/2.2.