F50mm/1.7 vs. 43/1.9

heatherslightbox · 02-17-2008, 08:55 PM

I'll be getting the F50/1.7 through a trade and I'm wondering how it's IQ measures up against the 43Ltd. I've seen a few pics with the 50 and it looks like an impressive lens.

As much as I love my 43, if the 50's IQ is about the same or very close to it, I would be tempted to see if I could trade it for a 21 or Tamron 28-75.

Thanks!
Heather

tux08902 · 02-17-2008, 09:42 PM

I'd stick with the FA 43/1.9 Limited and bypass the F 50/1.7 all together. The F 50/1.7 is a little too narrow for normal photography. The FA 43/1.9 Limited is probably just about right.

creampuff · 02-17-2008, 10:10 PM

At maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.7 might have an edge over the 43mm f/1.9 optically. That's about the only advantage the 50mm has because the 43mm gives a very unique image quality the 50mm can't match. In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited.

Gooshin · 02-17-2008, 10:15 PM

i keep alternating between the 43, a 5 dollar 50 lens that i have, and a FA35

honestly.... i cant tell the difference, and i keep doing self tests to try and see a difference

so really, its just a matter of field of view, go with the 43 if you want to 'see' more.

Finn · 02-17-2008, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited.

...with a very narrow focusing ring.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was probably my biggest gripe about the 43. It's an unbelievable lens on a film body, but manually focusing is really tricky with that diminutive focus ring!

creampuff · 02-17-2008, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Finn

...with a very narrow focusing ring.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was probably my biggest gripe about the 43. It's an unbelievable lens on a film body, but manually focusing is really tricky with that diminutive focus ring!

Yes the focusing ring is a tad small on the 43 but for most people who are already using AF on digital, the size of the focusing ring won't be an issue. The other thing I don't particularly like with the F series of lenses are the funky orange lens markings on the side.

tux08902 · 02-17-2008, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

At maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.7 might have an edge over the 43mm f/1.9 optically. That's about the only advantage the 50mm has because the 43mm gives a very unique image quality the 50mm can't match. In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited.

I doubt there is a significant difference between 1.9 and 1.7. People have said that 2.0 and 1.7 aren't all that different in terms of the fifties, that low-light performance between both is outstanding. So, I wouldn't use that as a deciding factor in this trade. I simply wouldn't go for it because the FA 43/1.9 Limited outclasses the F 50/1.7 by far.

Gooshin · 02-17-2008, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by tux08902

I doubt there is a significant difference between 1.9 and 1.7. People have said that 2.0 and 1.7 aren't all that different in terms of the fifties, that low-light performance between both is outstanding. So, I wouldn't use that as a deciding factor in this trade. I simply wouldn't go for it because the FA 43/1.9 Limited outclasses the F 50/1.7 by far.

"outclass" would be a farcry, i think... there is so much to a lens, and all of these are going to be sharp, they are all going to render colour, and they will all have bokeh, nitpicking as some do about "bokeh" quality gets astronomicaly more complex than it should be..

FA43, a Chinon 50mm and an FA35

all cropped to almost identical fields of view, off a tripod, ISO 200, F5.6 for all....

which one is which? ahh? ahh?

Buddha Jones · 02-17-2008, 11:08 PM

Id say 50, 43 then 35.

Kguru · 02-17-2008, 11:15 PM

The ability to render colors well is reflected when lenses need to convey the subtle color shade variations, which is what makes things look 3D (example in the extreme: 2D Mickey Mouse animation vs 3D Toy Story). Photos of large blocks of monotone colors negate this special feature of the lenses.

Gooshin · 02-17-2008, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

Id say 50, 43 then 35.

nope

and what makes you say that?

and · 02-17-2008, 11:29 PM

I had the FA50 f1.4 and FA35 before, now I have the FA43. The FA35 was very good but the 43 seems sharper (though the FA35 is very sharp already) and has nicer rendering. The FA50 I never really fell in love with, especially at wide apertures. Although my FA43 must have been a fluke since it is very sharp wide open, in contrast to several user reports and tests.

Gooshin · 02-17-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Kguru

The ability to render colors well is reflected when lenses need to convey the subtle color shade variations, which is what makes things look 3D (example in the extreme: 2D Mickey Mouse animation vs 3D Toy Story). Photos of large blocks of monotone colors negate this special feature of the lenses.

i'll bite,

and remember people, one of these is a 5 dollar lens... and no peaking at the EXIF, i made them all 900mm focal lengths...

these are all F2.8, 1/25, ISO 200, tripod, mirror lockup.

WendyB · 02-17-2008, 11:43 PM

Defiantly the sequence is the 43, 35 and the last is most certainly is the f50 1.7. I have shot extensively with each lens.

Gooshin · 02-17-2008, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by WendyB

Defiantly the sequence is the 43, 35 and the last is most certainly is the f50 1.7. I have shot extensively with each lens.

actualy the 50 is not the Pentax 50 1.7, its the Chinon 50 f1.9 that i mentioned in another thread.

and Buddah actualy got it right, its 50, 43 then 35

but i have a feeling he snuck a peak at the exifs

02-17-2008, 08:55 PM	#1
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	F50mm/1.7 vs. 43/1.9 I'll be getting the F50/1.7 through a trade and I'm wondering how it's IQ measures up against the 43Ltd. I've seen a few pics with the 50 and it looks like an impressive lens. As much as I love my 43, if the 50's IQ is about the same or very close to it, I would be tempted to see if I could trade it for a 21 or Tamron 28-75. Thanks! Heather

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which to keep....F50mm F1.7, or FA50mm F1.4?	WiseOx	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	09-18-2009 04:12 AM
Pentax smc F50mm f1.7	RussellW	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	05-26-2008 11:27 PM
The rare F50mm f/1.4	coqui	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	05-14-2008 06:09 AM
F50mm f1.4, Best standard lens?	FLEON	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	03-18-2008 01:26 PM

02-17-2008, 09:42 PM	#2
tux08902 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North Brunswick, NJ Posts: 473	I'd stick with the FA 43/1.9 Limited and bypass the F 50/1.7 all together. The F 50/1.7 is a little too narrow for normal photography. The FA 43/1.9 Limited is probably just about right.

02-17-2008, 10:10 PM	#3
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	At maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.7 might have an edge over the 43mm f/1.9 optically. That's about the only advantage the 50mm has because the 43mm gives a very unique image quality the 50mm can't match. In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited.

02-17-2008, 10:15 PM	#4
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	i keep alternating between the 43, a 5 dollar 50 lens that i have, and a FA35 honestly.... i cant tell the difference, and i keep doing self tests to try and see a difference so really, its just a matter of field of view, go with the 43 if you want to 'see' more.

02-17-2008, 10:23 PM	#5
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	Originally posted by creampuff In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited. ...with a very narrow focusing ring. Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was probably my biggest gripe about the 43. It's an unbelievable lens on a film body, but manually focusing is really tricky with that diminutive focus ring!

02-17-2008, 10:29 PM	#6
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by Finn ...with a very narrow focusing ring. Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was probably my biggest gripe about the 43. It's an unbelievable lens on a film body, but manually focusing is really tricky with that diminutive focus ring! Yes the focusing ring is a tad small on the 43 but for most people who are already using AF on digital, the size of the focusing ring won't be an issue. The other thing I don't particularly like with the F series of lenses are the funky orange lens markings on the side.

02-17-2008, 10:33 PM	#7
tux08902 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North Brunswick, NJ Posts: 473	Originally posted by creampuff At maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.7 might have an edge over the 43mm f/1.9 optically. That's about the only advantage the 50mm has because the 43mm gives a very unique image quality the 50mm can't match. In terms of build quality you're comparing a lens with a grey plastic exterior with a very narrow focusing ring versus an all metal work of art of a FA Limited. I doubt there is a significant difference between 1.9 and 1.7. People have said that 2.0 and 1.7 aren't all that different in terms of the fifties, that low-light performance between both is outstanding. So, I wouldn't use that as a deciding factor in this trade. I simply wouldn't go for it because the FA 43/1.9 Limited outclasses the F 50/1.7 by far.

02-17-2008, 10:55 PM	#8
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by tux08902 I doubt there is a significant difference between 1.9 and 1.7. People have said that 2.0 and 1.7 aren't all that different in terms of the fifties, that low-light performance between both is outstanding. So, I wouldn't use that as a deciding factor in this trade. I simply wouldn't go for it because the FA 43/1.9 Limited outclasses the F 50/1.7 by far. "outclass" would be a farcry, i think... there is so much to a lens, and all of these are going to be sharp, they are all going to render colour, and they will all have bokeh, nitpicking as some do about "bokeh" quality gets astronomicaly more complex than it should be.. FA43, a Chinon 50mm and an FA35 all cropped to almost identical fields of view, off a tripod, ISO 200, F5.6 for all.... which one is which? ahh? ahh?

02-17-2008, 11:08 PM	#9
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	Id say 50, 43 then 35.

02-17-2008, 11:15 PM	#10
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	The ability to render colors well is reflected when lenses need to convey the subtle color shade variations, which is what makes things look 3D (example in the extreme: 2D Mickey Mouse animation vs 3D Toy Story). Photos of large blocks of monotone colors negate this special feature of the lenses.

02-17-2008, 11:16 PM	#11
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Buddha Jones Id say 50, 43 then 35. nope and what makes you say that?

02-17-2008, 11:29 PM	#12
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	I had the FA50 f1.4 and FA35 before, now I have the FA43. The FA35 was very good but the 43 seems sharper (though the FA35 is very sharp already) and has nicer rendering. The FA50 I never really fell in love with, especially at wide apertures. Although my FA43 must have been a fluke since it is very sharp wide open, in contrast to several user reports and tests.

02-17-2008, 11:42 PM	#13
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Kguru The ability to render colors well is reflected when lenses need to convey the subtle color shade variations, which is what makes things look 3D (example in the extreme: 2D Mickey Mouse animation vs 3D Toy Story). Photos of large blocks of monotone colors negate this special feature of the lenses. i'll bite, and remember people, one of these is a 5 dollar lens... and no peaking at the EXIF, i made them all 900mm focal lengths... these are all F2.8, 1/25, ISO 200, tripod, mirror lockup.

02-17-2008, 11:43 PM	#14
WendyB Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan Posts: 189	Defiantly the sequence is the 43, 35 and the last is most certainly is the f50 1.7. I have shot extensively with each lens.

02-17-2008, 11:45 PM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by WendyB Defiantly the sequence is the 43, 35 and the last is most certainly is the f50 1.7. I have shot extensively with each lens. actualy the 50 is not the Pentax 50 1.7, its the Chinon 50 f1.9 that i mentioned in another thread. and Buddah actualy got it right, its 50, 43 then 35 but i have a feeling he snuck a peak at the exifs