[Docrwm]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

A shorter square or tulip hood provides the same protection as a longer round hood without vignetting -- that's the difference. A hood prevents stray light from reaching the objective. A longer round hood is more likely to vignette the image; square|rectangular and tulip hoods of the same length leave the image corners unimpeded. And a longer hood (of any geometry) lets you aim the lens closer to a light source.

My preference: collapsible rubber hoods, for compactness and convenience. But I'll use whatever is available.

+1 on each point. I might add that in my experience the rubber collapsible hoods are more flexible in use (multiple lengths in one hood) and provide greater drop protection over rigid hoods that transfer the energy directly to the lens itself and can shear off on impact adding shards of plastic to the problems the glass of the lens has to contend with.....

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I use this metallic round hood from ebay seller heavystar. Since the FA50 is a full frame lens and Pentax DSLRs use APS-C sensors, vignetting is not an issue with it. These hoods come in three different sizes, but for focal lengths above 50mm I always pick the "tele" size.

[paperbag846]

My preference is no secret. I used to have a 50 1.7 (and a 55 1.8). I liked the 1.7 the least of the 3.

FWIW, I think the 1.4 looks better at f2.8 than the 1.7 at f2.8.

I was lucky enough to get mine for less than 300. Honestly, you can't find a better general-purpose / portrait lens than the ol' 50 1.4 (manual or autofocus). It's not the same, but it is similar enough to the FA 77 on film in feel and function when you put the 50 on a digital camera. The 77 on film was my favourite combo, but I couldn't afford to keep that lens (wasn't fond of it on digital, too long). The 50 is the way to go. And the 1.7, honestly, as sharp as it is, just has no magic. The 1.4 at least emulates the magic I got out of the 77.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Honestly, you can't find a better general-purpose / portrait lens than the ol' 50 1.4 (manual or autofocus).

Here's a better one: the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4. It is sharper and has less CA - particularly less LoCA wide open. And while it was still in production, it had the same price as the FA after the price hike.

[abacus07]

A shorter square or tulip hood provides the same protection as a longer round hood without vignetting -- that's the difference. A hood prevents stray light from reaching the objective. A longer round hood is more likely to vignette the image; square|rectangular and tulip hoods of the same length leave the image corners unimpeded. And a longer hood (of any geometry) lets you aim the lens closer to a light source.

My preference: collapsible rubber hoods, for compactness and convenience. But I'll use whatever is available.

This is all true except that vignetting really isn't an issue with the crop sensor (WA's exception). I've used the tak 135/150/200 hood on an A50/1.7 w/o vignetting. Most of the time i use a rubber hood for convenience though.

[axl]

Axl....I know you've shot both as I've seen some of the pics you through up on the F lens club. I was hoping you'd chime in. Bottom line.....you're saying go with the 1.4?
I know I'm splitting hairs but at least want to give this some thought.

Yes, I'd recommend 50/1.4 from Pentax (any generation) over 50/1.7 any day. And K55/1.8 (if you don't mind MF) over 50/1.7 too. And K50/1.2 over any other 50 in Pentax history (including 43 and various 55s and even A50/1.2). I think the FA50/1.4 is excellent deal for the money will deliver on all fronts (once AF adjustment of your camera is done) if you want AF replacement for you A50.

Regards

[stevebrot]

I hood all my 50 Fifties whenever I use any -- except those few whose deep front indents function as hoods, like the Meyer Oreston 50/1.8 and CZJ Tessar 50/2.8s and MacroTak 50/4.

I find the main difference between my SuperTak and FA 50/1.4s is tactile, not optical. The M50/1.7 and SuperTak 55/1.8 also feel different, and render different, as do all my Fifties.

I find all my fastest Fifties -- K50/1.2, ST and FA and Yashica ML 50/1.4s, Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 -- are very sharp wide-open, BUT ONLY WITHIN A RAZOR-THIN SUBJECT FIELD. Stop them down to f/2, and they're as sharp or sharper than my various f/1.7-1.8-1.9-2.0 lenses.

Reasons to use the slower glass have more to do with rendering|bokeh|size than sharpness. Reasons to use faster glass include DOF control and grabbing otherwise-impossible shots. We don't use an f/1.2 wide-open for edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness. Not if we're rational.

I love all my Fifties, even the humble Domiplan. The K50/1.2 renders best. The FA50/1.4 is the most flexible, my gotta-get-the-shot lens. My little CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (alum, 12 iris blades) has the niftiest boheh. The big Tomioka 55/1.4 and Helios-44 58/2 give unique renderings.

Each lens is a different brush with which to paint images.

What he said...

As for hood...I always suggest the screw-on metal ones from heavystar on eBay. Reasonable quality, robust, accept a front cap, and value priced.


Steve

(BTW...my top three favs from my crowd of fast 50s, no particular order...Pentax-M 50/1.7 (light and compact with nice rendering and flare control), KMZ Helios 44M 58/2 (center sharp even wide-open...nice bokeh and color), and Auto-Rikenon 50/1.7 (beautiful rendering...undefined quality). My best 50? Pentax-K 55/1.8)

[stevebrot]

The big Tomioka 55/1.4 and Helios-44 58/2 give unique renderings.

Indeed, though I have shot very little with my Rikenon version of the Tomioka 55/1.4. The Helios 44 OTOH, is an incredible lens. About half of my PPG images (back when I was active there) were taken with the Helios.


Steve

[stevebrot]

And while it was still in production, it had the same price as the FA after the price hike.

...and still available new from Steve Gandy at camerquest.com


Steve

[joakimfors]

I like the DA* 55/1.4 more than my K 50/1.2. And both are better than my M 50/1.7. And all of them are better than Canon's 50/1.8 :P

[vsl3-e]

I can only confirm whats been said here before, I have both the F50 f1.7 and the A50 f1.4. I had the F50 f1.7 first and was stunned by its sharpness already wide open. Out of curiosity and because i got a nice deal i got the A50 f1.7 too. After several months, i couldnt decide which one is better, so i kept both I use the F50 f1.7 mostly for portraits on digital and the A50 f1.4 on film as my standard lens. I was first dissapointed with the A50 f1.4 lens, but after getting a hood im really liking it. The F50 f1.7 is sharper untill f2.4, but the colours are much cooler, i guess its because of the different coatings on the F and A series lenses. The bokeh of the f1.4 is definately smoother, not as nervous as of the f1.7.