Pentax 50mm 1.7 impressive so far - Pixel-peepers welcome!

wolfiegirl · 10-28-2011, 03:58 AM

Congrats on your purchase! You got some great shots there!

The 1.7 is also the first manual lens I ever tried and like you the learning curve at the beginning was steeep, steeep, steeeeep! I was using the lens to try and capture pictures of my puppies and manual focus and the lack of zoom was a hard pill to swallow. Yet the results (the few good ones out of dozens of trashes) were amazing. You'll find it does amazing things in low light. Things that the normal kit lenses could never do on Auto Focus. Least that's how I found it for me!

I now also own the 1.4 but keep gravitating back to the 1.7. And once I got the satisfaction of a 'good shot' with the manual lens, going back to AF feels slightly like cheating

RioRico · 10-28-2011, 10:37 AM

The M50/1.7 is great. For various reasons, it's not the most-used of my 50 Fifties, but it's there when I need it and it's not going away. Pry it from my cold, dead fingers -- but there's no rush, eh?

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-29-2011, 10:21 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Colbyt

Try the "catch in focus" option a few times. If you get close to the range and then turn the focus very slowly after that, you should achieve some excellent results.

Thanks for the suggestion on the "catch in focus" Colbyt. Excellent advise, and I've rep'd you!

After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm.

Again, I have yet to venture beyond f/1.7, but I'm not seeing any reason to do so. The bokeh this lens produces is lovely, and I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast wide open. Here are some of the keepers from the event:

**paulh** · 10-29-2011, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

Thanks for the suggestion on the "catch in focus" Colbyt. Excellent advise, and I've rep'd you!

After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm.

Again, I have yet to venture beyond f/1.7, but I'm not seeing any reason to do so. The bokeh this lens produces is lovely, and I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast wide open. Here are some of the keepers from the event:

What nice portraits - great work! IMO, you just cannot beat the M50/1.7 for bang-for-buck optic quality (for PK-mount). As sharp as it is wide-open, there'll be times when you're outside taking some landscape or around-town shots, that stopping down will give you even better sharpness. Enjoy & look forward to seeing more.

Colbyt · 10-29-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm.

I think you grasped the concept pretty well. Which one is your child? They are all darned cute.

and thanks.

Jonathan Mac · 10-29-2011, 11:57 AM

Some fantastic shots there, I know kids are hard to shoot even with AF. I´m amazed at what you´re getting with CIF, I gave up using it & got an expensive focus screen instead. The hexagon appears to tell me an image is in focus when I can clearly see it´s not, it´s just not precise enough. Maybe it´s due to the improved AF system in the K-x.

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-29-2011, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Colbyt

I think you grasped the concept pretty well. Which one is your child? They are all darned cute.

and thanks.

If you go back and look at the first post in this thread, those are my two girls. But you're right about the kids being all so darned cute. That's why I can't resist taking pictures of them all. I often share prints with the other parents, so they never mind me floating around taking pictures all the time.

Colbyt · 10-29-2011, 02:27 PM

I remember "when" and can still visit those times cause I took a lot of pictures. My youngest is now 33. Treasure the time. They grow up way to fast.

In your case it looks like you are going to need a big stick or ugly gun to clean when the boys come calling in a few short years.

Chex · 10-29-2011, 03:09 PM

I have a Pentax-A 50 f/2 it's small, but my copy is very soft wide open.. I much prefer my Super-Tak 55mm f/2 (I want to get a f1.8). But they all pale in comparison to the FA 43 Ltd.
I think I'd much prefer that nice 50 f1.7 over my f2! Looks good!

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-29-2011, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Colbyt

I remember "when" and can still visit those times cause I took a lot of pictures. My youngest is now 33. Treasure the time. They grow up way to fast.

In your case it looks like you are going to need a big stick or ugly gun to clean when the boys come calling in a few short years.

Thank you for the wise words. Even now, I can already see that they grow up too fast. That is what prompted me to take up photography as a hobby.

And I don't even want to think about boys. I don't know what's scarier...thinking of boys coming around, or thinking of my girls getting behind the wheel in a little more than 10 years.

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-29-2011, 07:12 PM

I can't stop taking pictures with this lens. I love it! I don't know what it is, but the images from this lens just have a certain quality that I find very appealing.

Here are a few more shots from earlier today when my girls were getting ready for a Halloween-themed birthday party. All of the shots are at f/1.7 with no flash.

bass3587 · 10-29-2011, 09:19 PM

Ok I've seen some really great photos taken with this lens and I have been playing with it for a few days now. I wonder if someone could tell me what I am doing wrong. I've attached two shots I took today and they both show a serious blue tint (CA) Hopefully you can read the EXIF data and give me some suggestions. Thanks,.

Jonathan Mac · 10-30-2011, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by bass3587

Ok I've seen some really great photos taken with this lens and I have been playing with it for a few days now. I wonder if someone could tell me what I am doing wrong. I've attached two shots I took today and they both show a serious blue tint (CA) Hopefully you can read the EXIF data and give me some suggestions. Thanks,.

The cause is the white balance, it´s slightly off. In the case of these shots, try "daylight", "cloudy" or "shade" rather than auto. If that still doesn´t work, try setting it manually or (easier) using fine adjustment afterwards in post-processing. The M50 f/1.7 tends to have a very slight amber tint rather than blue, as long as the WB is right, which I like.

I´d say the blue tint in these is quite subtle, in fact I often add a slight blue tint in post-processing for some images (as long as they don´t have any flesh-tone in them, people shouldn´t be blue).

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-30-2011, 02:35 AM

The pictures both look fine to me, and I actually don't see any signs of CA, even around the highlights. On a lesser lens, you could expect CA in the form of color fringing around the edges of the reflection highlights on top of the fire hydrant.

As J Mac pointed out, it appears that your white balance is set slightly too cool. I've owned several DSLRs, and they've all gotten the white balance wrong from time to time, depending on lighting conditions. Sometimes the camera will even choose a different WB level from shot to shot, even when the lighting hasn't changed. My Pentax K-x is probably the best I've had so far in terms of picking the right WB, but it's still far from perfect. This is one of the reasons that I couldn't imagine shooting JPEG. With RAW, you're free to set the WB in processing, but when you shoot JPEG, the WB is baked in and is harder to correct. And in some photos, the wrong WB can make all the difference. This is especially true when taking pictures of people.

One thing I like about my K-x, is if I hit the WB shot after I take a picture, it will pop up the last picture and show the effects of different WB settings. I'm not if other cameras typically do this.

To me, white balance issues aside, both of the pictures you posted look very good from in terms of image quality. I took the picture of the fire hydrant, and attempted to warm it up in Photoshop. I also increased the contrast just a bit. I'm no Photoshop expert, but here's the picture after about 15 seconds of correction:

And for reference, here's the original image you posted:

And here's another version, this time warmed just a tiny bit more, and with the shadows lifted slightly:

bass3587 · 10-30-2011, 07:38 AM

Now for the proverbial "DOH" moment. White Balance that is something I forgot to check before I took the pictures. You know when you get in a rush you always forget something. I'll make sure to adjust it today when I got out in a little while. Thanks everyone.I'll get better after every shot taken.

10-29-2011, 03:09 PM	#24
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	I have a Pentax-A 50 f/2 it's small, but my copy is very soft wide open.. I much prefer my Super-Tak 55mm f/2 (I want to get a f1.8). But they all pale in comparison to the FA 43 Ltd. I think I'd much prefer that nice 50 f1.7 over my f2! Looks good! Last edited by Chex; 10-29-2011 at 06:41 PM.

10-30-2011, 02:35 AM	#29
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685 Original Poster	The pictures both look fine to me, and I actually don't see any signs of CA, even around the highlights. On a lesser lens, you could expect CA in the form of color fringing around the edges of the reflection highlights on top of the fire hydrant. As J Mac pointed out, it appears that your white balance is set slightly too cool. I've owned several DSLRs, and they've all gotten the white balance wrong from time to time, depending on lighting conditions. Sometimes the camera will even choose a different WB level from shot to shot, even when the lighting hasn't changed. My Pentax K-x is probably the best I've had so far in terms of picking the right WB, but it's still far from perfect. This is one of the reasons that I couldn't imagine shooting JPEG. With RAW, you're free to set the WB in processing, but when you shoot JPEG, the WB is baked in and is harder to correct. And in some photos, the wrong WB can make all the difference. This is especially true when taking pictures of people. One thing I like about my K-x, is if I hit the WB shot after I take a picture, it will pop up the last picture and show the effects of different WB settings. I'm not if other cameras typically do this. To me, white balance issues aside, both of the pictures you posted look very good from in terms of image quality. I took the picture of the fire hydrant, and attempted to warm it up in Photoshop. I also increased the contrast just a bit. I'm no Photoshop expert, but here's the picture after about 15 seconds of correction: And for reference, here's the original image you posted: And here's another version, this time warmed just a tiny bit more, and with the shadows lifted slightly: Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 10-30-2011 at 02:43 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sharp lens for pixel-peepers??	EliotK	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	45	02-12-2010 12:10 PM
For you pixel peepers...	wildman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-27-2009 10:33 PM
K200D Noise Performance Chart - Pixel Peepers Rejoice!	cputeq	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	06-01-2008 07:04 PM
Wanted! Pixel Peepers - new Sigma 17-70mm	superfuzzy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	01-15-2008 07:39 PM
Hay pixel peepers-Help	regken	Photographic Technique	1	12-02-2007 11:30 AM

10-28-2011, 03:58 AM	#16
wolfiegirl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Mystery Bay, NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,111	Congrats on your purchase! You got some great shots there! The 1.7 is also the first manual lens I ever tried and like you the learning curve at the beginning was steeep, steeep, steeeeep! I was using the lens to try and capture pictures of my puppies and manual focus and the lack of zoom was a hard pill to swallow. Yet the results (the few good ones out of dozens of trashes) were amazing. You'll find it does amazing things in low light. Things that the normal kit lenses could never do on Auto Focus. Least that's how I found it for me! I now also own the 1.4 but keep gravitating back to the 1.7. And once I got the satisfaction of a 'good shot' with the manual lens, going back to AF feels slightly like cheating

10-28-2011, 10:37 AM	#17
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	The M50/1.7 is great. For various reasons, it's not the most-used of my 50 Fifties, but it's there when I need it and it's not going away. Pry it from my cold, dead fingers -- but there's no rush, eh?

10-29-2011, 10:21 AM - 1 Like	#18
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685 Original Poster	Originally posted by Colbyt Try the "catch in focus" option a few times. If you get close to the range and then turn the focus very slowly after that, you should achieve some excellent results. Thanks for the suggestion on the "catch in focus" Colbyt. Excellent advise, and I've rep'd you! After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm. Again, I have yet to venture beyond f/1.7, but I'm not seeing any reason to do so. The bokeh this lens produces is lovely, and I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast wide open. Here are some of the keepers from the event:

10-29-2011, 10:37 AM	#19
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,301	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Thanks for the suggestion on the "catch in focus" Colbyt. Excellent advise, and I've rep'd you! After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm. Again, I have yet to venture beyond f/1.7, but I'm not seeing any reason to do so. The bokeh this lens produces is lovely, and I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast wide open. Here are some of the keepers from the event: What nice portraits - great work! IMO, you just cannot beat the M50/1.7 for bang-for-buck optic quality (for PK-mount). As sharp as it is wide-open, there'll be times when you're outside taking some landscape or around-town shots, that stopping down will give you even better sharpness. Enjoy & look forward to seeing more.

10-29-2011, 10:42 AM	#20
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,417	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy After experimenting with the catch in focus feature for a few minutes the previous night, I decided to take the 50mm with me to my daughters' preschool for their Halloween program yesterday. I was amazed with the percentage of in-focus shots I was getting. I was definitely having fun taking pictures of the kids getting ready, but I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up once the program started, so at that point I switched to my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. After the program when everybody was having refreshments, I went back to the 50mm. I think you grasped the concept pretty well. Which one is your child? They are all darned cute. and thanks.

10-29-2011, 11:57 AM	#21
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,902	Some fantastic shots there, I know kids are hard to shoot even with AF. I´m amazed at what you´re getting with CIF, I gave up using it & got an expensive focus screen instead. The hexagon appears to tell me an image is in focus when I can clearly see it´s not, it´s just not precise enough. Maybe it´s due to the improved AF system in the K-x.

10-29-2011, 01:08 PM	#22
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685 Original Poster	Originally posted by Colbyt I think you grasped the concept pretty well. Which one is your child? They are all darned cute. and thanks. If you go back and look at the first post in this thread, those are my two girls. But you're right about the kids being all so darned cute. That's why I can't resist taking pictures of them all. I often share prints with the other parents, so they never mind me floating around taking pictures all the time.

10-29-2011, 02:27 PM	#23
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,417	I remember "when" and can still visit those times cause I took a lot of pictures. My youngest is now 33. Treasure the time. They grow up way to fast. In your case it looks like you are going to need a big stick or ugly gun to clean when the boys come calling in a few short years.

10-29-2011, 07:09 PM	#25
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685 Original Poster	Originally posted by Colbyt I remember "when" and can still visit those times cause I took a lot of pictures. My youngest is now 33. Treasure the time. They grow up way to fast. In your case it looks like you are going to need a big stick or ugly gun to clean when the boys come calling in a few short years. Thank you for the wise words. Even now, I can already see that they grow up too fast. That is what prompted me to take up photography as a hobby. And I don't even want to think about boys. I don't know what's scarier...thinking of boys coming around, or thinking of my girls getting behind the wheel in a little more than 10 years.

10-29-2011, 07:12 PM	#26
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685 Original Poster	I can't stop taking pictures with this lens. I love it! I don't know what it is, but the images from this lens just have a certain quality that I find very appealing. Here are a few more shots from earlier today when my girls were getting ready for a Halloween-themed birthday party. All of the shots are at f/1.7 with no flash.

10-30-2011, 01:01 AM	#28
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,902	Originally posted by bass3587 Ok I've seen some really great photos taken with this lens and I have been playing with it for a few days now. I wonder if someone could tell me what I am doing wrong. I've attached two shots I took today and they both show a serious blue tint (CA) Hopefully you can read the EXIF data and give me some suggestions. Thanks,. The cause is the white balance, it´s slightly off. In the case of these shots, try "daylight", "cloudy" or "shade" rather than auto. If that still doesn´t work, try setting it manually or (easier) using fine adjustment afterwards in post-processing. The M50 f/1.7 tends to have a very slight amber tint rather than blue, as long as the WB is right, which I like. I´d say the blue tint in these is quite subtle, in fact I often add a slight blue tint in post-processing for some images (as long as they don´t have any flesh-tone in them, people shouldn´t be blue).

10-30-2011, 07:38 AM	#30
bass3587 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 517	Now for the proverbial "DOH" moment. White Balance that is something I forgot to check before I took the pictures. You know when you get in a rush you always forget something. I'll make sure to adjust it today when I got out in a little while. Thanks everyone.I'll get better after every shot taken.