[rparmar]

Hmmm... having done some math I am now wondering why we are raving about the 43mm and not the 28mm. So I have started a new thread on that subject.

[creampuff]

Hmmm... having done some math I am now wondering why we are raving about the 43mm and not the 28mm. So I have started a new thread on that subject.

Perhaps it is because there aren't any 28mm lenses on the current roadmap and there aren't any 28mm lens one can buy new. Perhaps the forthcoming 30mm might be the answer.

[aegisphan]

The $5 Auto Chinon in this thread is not a bad lens. It's among the sharpest 50 in its era (similar to the Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8). These lenses are already very good. In order to distinguish them, you have to shoot them at wide open or at least have a 100% corner crop. Most decent lenses would do extremely good at center when stop down. So the differences between the good and the very good become minute at this point, especially at such resolution.

As for the value of these old manual lenses, it's just based on luck and/or ignorance of the seller. Just recently, I paid $10 for an immaculate SMC Takumar 55/1.8.

Personally, I've not had the chance to test the 50 F or the 43 LTD. However, if you don't shoot that much at wide open, then either one wouldn't disappoint you. Just sell the one you don't like.

[WendyB]

Perhaps it is because there aren't any 28mm lenses on the current roadmap and there aren't any 28mm lens one can buy new. Perhaps the forthcoming 30mm might be the answer.

I wish I could talk about the 30mm and quite honestly why spend a half a grand on what can be found to work better for quite a bit less? Quite frankly (having used both) if one has shot with a 28mm, besides the narrow focus ring. They're quite a great piece of glass. If I had a choice I would take the 28 hands down but they are not made any more. That does not mean they can not be found.

One thing I also notice about the posters is, are they really taking the time to use the lenses and know how to use them to the proper extent?

Also what bothers me about this thread is the "discounting" of the very qualified 50 f 1:1.7

---

Last edited by WendyB; 02-22-2008 at 12:01 AM.

[heatherslightbox]

I took the day off from work today, so I could play with my K10 and lenses, as well as do some other things. My gear and I went to the Butterfly Rainforest at the University of Florida in Gainesville and had a great time. As for the waterfall shots, I really couldn't tell much difference in them, IQ-wise. On the red flower shots, the difference was more noticable--the shot taken with the 43 was darker than the one taken with the 50.

For the stats:
Waterfall43--f/4, 1/40 sec., ISO 100 (top left)
Waterfall50--f/4, 1/50 sec., ISO 100 (top right)
Red Flower43--f/4, 1/30 sec., ISO 100 (bottom left)
Red Flower50--f/4, 1/20 sec., ISO 100 (bottom right)

The F50/1.7 is not a bad lens at all, but the one major drawback to it is that the AF is LOUD. When you're dealing with butterflies, sudden loud noises aren't a good thing. Since I have the 43, I'm going to be putting the 50 up for sale shortly.

What do you think?

Thanks!
Heather

[creampuff]

hwblanks,
I think you should have maintained the same exposure setting (shoot in manual mode) as it would help with the comparison of colour rendition. One thing is for sure is that the 7 mm difference in focal length is noticeable, as I have discovered myself. The FA 43 is the one I would keep.

WendyB,
I can't make out what you're trying to say. Are you talking about the K 30mm or the forthcoming DA 30mm? If you're making a comparison with the forthcoming DA 30mm (no official launch or price yet) with the discontinued A/F/FA series 28mm then there is nothing to compare.

It does sound a little condescending to say, "One thing I also notice about the posters is, are they really taking the time to use the lenses and know how to use them to the proper extent?"

I am sure there are some of us who have all used our lenses and made our own extensive comparisons. Now which version of the 50 f/1.7 do you mean (M/A/F/FA series)? They do vary a little.

As much as the 50 f/1.7 is a nice lens (I had the A version), I would opt for the FA 43 hands down. Maybe you should make your own comparison between the 50 f/1.7 and the FA 43.

[m8o]

Thank you for that Heather. Great job getting the fames close.

[Gooshin]

cross post:

its no collection but... basicaly my point is this, there is no such thing as a "bad" lens, and if one wants to pay a 300-400% premium for a 10% increase in quality thats their call, but seriously people....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/21361-5-dollar-fun.html#post182277

[Kguru]

basicaly my point is this, there is no such thing as a "bad" lens, and if one wants to pay a 300-400% premium for a 10% increase in quality thats their call

Gooshin, look at the waterfall pics from Heather, the 43 pic is more vibrant. I see more "shine" in the water surface (bottom pond), in the green leaves ... and that's despite the pics have been heavily downsized.

The 43 has 100% premium over a FA50, some of the premium pays for the slightly better iq, most of it goes to the quality build. It's not wasted values.

I have no particular reasons to "defend" the 43, just presenting some aspects you may have overlooked. You are rightly proud of your $5 lens; if I have the opportunity I'd buy two dozens but since I don't, will you sell it to me for $10? There I'm prepared to pay 100% premium for it just like I did for the 43

[WendyB]

hwblanks,
I think you should have maintained the same exposure setting (shoot in manual mode) as it would help with the comparison of colour rendition. One thing is for sure is that the 7 mm difference in focal length is noticeable, as I have discovered myself. The FA 43 is the one I would keep.

WendyB,
I can't make out what you're trying to say. Are you talking about the K 30mm or the forthcoming DA 30mm? If you're making a comparison with the forthcoming DA 30mm (no official launch or price yet) with the discontinued A/F/FA series 28mm then there is nothing to compare.

PM sent

It does sound a little condescending to say, "One thing I also notice about the posters is, are they really taking the time to use the lenses and know how to use them to the proper extent?"

I quite might may be "condescending " but for very good reason. I know this sounds quite abrasive but. Some snap to comment without actually experiencing and using the four letter word called "WORK" with the lenses in discussion.

I am sure there are some of us who have all used our lenses and made our own extensive comparisons. Now which version of the 50 f/1.7 do you mean (M/A/F/FA series)? They do vary a little.

So we are on the same page, this lens, Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm F1.7

If I had a choice between the FA 43 and the F 50 1.7 hands down the F50.



As much as the 50 f/1.7 is a nice lens (I had the A version), I would opt for the FA 43 hands down. Maybe you should make your own comparison between the 50 f/1.7 and the FA 43.

The 43 crops are way too tight for my liking.

And like one other said why pay the "200 to 400%" premium? Just learn the lens and know the capability.

Good photographers know the limits of a lens and expect no more or no less. The others want and need a K-tel Pocket fisherman solution and stop at nothing to pay for it.

[mattdm]

WendyB,
I can't make out what you're trying to say. Are you talking about the K 30mm or the forthcoming DA 30mm? If you're making a comparison with the forthcoming DA 30mm (no official launch or price yet) with the discontinued A/F/FA series 28mm then there is nothing to compare.

Sure sounds like she's implying she's a secret tester of the roadmapped lens. To which I haveta say, because someone's gotta say it: c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-i-t-y g-a-p.

[stevebrot]

For the first set of pictures...

Top = 50mm
Middle = 35mm
Bottom = 43mm

(At least according to the exif on the middle and bottom images)

[falconeye]

why not just go for the FA50 1.4 then, cheapest out of all of them, and the fastest! lol

Ok, back to serious.

There is a scientific measurement out there.

Pentax SMC-F 50mm f/1,7: Score 4.4 out of 5
Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited: Score 3.6 out of 5
Centon brand average: Score 1.4 of 5 (worst brand tested)

Sources:
Pentax SMC-F 50mm f/1,7 MTF data
Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited MTF data
Lens search



I got this SMC-F 50mm f/1,7 lens (or its M counterpart) as kit lens for my MX when I was in school. Embarrasing to learn that today's top Limited lenses aren't even on par. Are today's lenses that bad, really?

EDIT:
Sorry about the Centon quote. I now see that the other lens was Chinon, not Centon...

[creampuff]

Sure sounds like she's implying she's a secret tester of the roadmapped lens. To which I haveta say, because someone's gotta say it: c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-i-t-y g-a-p.

Yeah I got a PM a few days ago stating she's under some NDA with Hoya on some lenses.
Highly implausible...

[Gooshin]

For the first set of pictures...

Top = 50mm
Middle = 35mm
Bottom = 43mm

(At least according to the exif on the middle and bottom images)

you're not supposed to look at the EXIF's silly!

the whole idea is to have you judge the quality.

Ok, back to serious.

There is a scientific measurement out there.

Pentax SMC-F 50mm f/1,7: Score 4.4 out of 5
Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited: Score 3.6 out of 5
Centon brand average: Score 1.4 of 5 (worst brand tested)

Sources:
Pentax SMC-F 50mm f/1,7 MTF data
Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited MTF data
Lens search



I got this SMC-F 50mm f/1,7 lens (or its M counterpart) as kit lens for my MX when I was in school. Embarrasing to learn that today's top Limited lenses aren't even on par. Are today's lenses that bad, really?

EDIT:
Sorry about the Centon quote. I now see that the other lens was Chinon, not Centon...

regardless of what people "write" and what sort of "numbers" they assign, all i am doing is presenting you people with actual images, which is the bottom line.