[aegisphan]

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.

---

Seriously, I have to wonder why the 50 F cost so much more than other variants. The 50 F 1.7 costs around $200ish, more than the FA 50/1.4. Then just few hours ago, the 50 F 1.4 ended at $400. I can get a 50/1.2 K version for less than that. I just don't understand the novelty of this series.

[Peter Zack]

Yeah I don't get it either. There was one that just closed on Ebay SMC Pentax-F 50mm f1.4 Lens ~ Check out SuperSize Pics! - eBay (item 140211311222 end time Mar-05-08 18:54:16 PST)
At just under $340.00. After that odd Marketplace listing recently I did a few hours of searching and happened to be at my local Pentax repair shop yesterday. The owner has been selling and fixing Pentax since before most of us were born. He tells me there's no optical difference between the F and FA version other than there were not many F's sold.

So what's the interest? There were 15 bids on that lens, but I noticed all were relative newbie's to Ebay with lower FB scores. If I'm gonna drop that much on a lens (particularly used), it will be a 50mm f1.2 or a 43mm Ltd.

[roentarre]

With ebays, I usually stay away from noob auctions (Low FB scores). They either do not pay the item in the very end or bidded impulsively with ignorance.

[Asahiflex]

I do not know, but I am a F lover myself (I did not pay that much for the lenses though). They are better built, that's for sure.



Strangely, the F 50/1.4 has a higher Photodo score than the FA 50/1.4 even though it should be the same optically.

What I also have noticed is that the F 28/2.8 sometimes sells for very cheap, around $150. That's ridiculous too for such a nice lens which is much more versatile than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 IMHO.

[frank]

Seriously, I have to wonder why the 50 F cost so much more than other variants. The 50 F 1.7 costs around $200ish, more than the FA 50/1.4. Then just few hours ago, the 50 F 1.4 ended at $400. I can get a 50/1.2 K version for less than that. I just don't understand the novelty of this series.

Just a price hype after seeing the slightly higher MTF score at photodo. I've had all the F/FA 50s, to me, the F and FA ones are virtually the same optically. Personally I like the F/FA 50/1.7 over the 1.4 ones 'cause I use the lens wide open most the time

[frank]

I do not know, but I am a F lover myself (I did not pay that much for the lenses though). They are better built, that's for sure.

Strangely, the F 50/1.4 has a higher Photodo score than the FA 50/1.4 even though it should be the same optically.

What I also have noticed is that the F 28/2.8 sometimes sells for very cheap, around $150. That's ridiculous too for such a nice lens which is much more versatile than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 IMHO.

Nice to see your impressive collection again

The F28/2.8 is reported to be an inferior lens to the FA28/2.8, actually it's considered as one of the worst 28mm lenses made by Pentax, that's why the lower price. But still, it's a great performer.

[Pentaxtic]

pentax F 50mm f1.4 - ÅS¤Ñ©ç½æ--²³æ¡B¦nª±¡B§K¶O¡B¦w¥þ

This one in Taiwan is selling for 10,000NT=300USD.

I really didn't know anything about the high price of the F 50's. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Asahiflex]

Nice to see your impressive collection again

I'll do whatever I can to generate more interest for the F series

The F28/2.8 is reported to be an inferior lens to the FA28/2.8, actually it's considered as one of the worst 28mm lenses made by Pentax, that's why the lower price. But still, it's a great performer.

Indeed, I have made great shots with the F28 this weekend. It may not be Pentax's best 28mm, but it certainly has not let me down. The difference between Pentax's best and worst 28mm may be a hair line thin as far as IQ goes.

[Peter Zack]

I've looked at the PhotoDo results a few times over the yearsand now dismiss what they report. IMO the only difference between them is the weight because the F series have more metal in the bodies. If you look at PhotoDo review of the 43mm (considered by most to be one of the 3-4 best ever Pentax lenses) they rate that lens as the worst of 5 'normal' lenses!

Now look at Photozone's tests (much more consistent and through IMO). Klaus rates the 43mm as the better lens over the FA 50 (but they are damn close). The F version is the same optically it seems and the FA is just the new model that was cosmetically upgraded to match the series at the time.

'Amateur Photographer' magazine (England) did an extensive test a while back with the 43mm similar to Klaus's work. They used a Contax (Ziess) 50/1.4 as their previous reference lens. at that time and maybe still, the 43mm replaced it as the reference lens across all brands. So since Photodo reviewed and tested the 43mm as the worst. Well draw your own conclusions.

[skaktuss]

I sold my F50 1.7 for 260$ about half a year ago. I was simply amazed. I got it from one pentaxforums member who bought it for 100$ from another PF member .

[John Kovarik]

Because of the (hilarious) threads in the Marketplace on the 'vaunted' F50/1.4 - the $500 one,
I was watching the eBay sale of the apparently new A50/1.2 and F501.4. They sold for a little less than $550 and $350 respectively. The 'A' price was about in line with what I'd expect at retail so I think the 'F' may have been also. In any case further proof that price, quality, and value are not necessarily convergent in an open market..........

[jslifoaw]

Nice to see your impressive collection again

The F28/2.8 is reported to be an inferior lens to the FA28/2.8, actually it's considered as one of the worst 28mm lenses made by Pentax, that's why the lower price. But still, it's a great performer.

I've said this many times before (and maybe I'm just being stupid ) but if the F is the same as the A, then I'd take the F any day over the FA, which I had and sold. Really was not impressed. of the M28/3.5, A28/2.8. and FA28/2.8, I kept just the first two.

I want to confirm my findings with a FF DSLR (28 isn't very useful as a normal since the 31 is better) but I'm not gonna cut off any aperture lever just for that

Some of the F zooms are pretty ugly; my 70-210 is great, but not as smooth as FA zooms, plus the focusing ring is thin and lifeless...makes for good AF!

[WendyB]

I've said this many times before (and maybe I'm just being stupid ) but if the F is the same as the A, then I'd take the F any day over the FA, which I had and sold. Really was not impressed. of the M28/3.5, A28/2.8. and FA28/2.8, I kept just the first two.

I want to confirm my findings with a FF DSLR (28 isn't very useful as a normal since the 31 is better) but I'm not gonna cut off any aperture lever just for that

Some of the F zooms are pretty ugly; my 70-210 is great, but not as smooth as FA zooms, plus the focusing ring is thin and lifeless...makes for good AF!

I tend to agree with the "I'd take the F any day over the FA" I would not trade my 70-210 but I beg to differ mine is quite smooth and my spare is also.

As for the SMC 50 FA 1.4 going at those prices. My thoughts are the bidders should start doing some research before bidding or even considering buying. When I see a bidder in one of my auctions going way overboard. I will send them a message that they are doing so and give them the reasons why.
( Please note: I have expressed this before within the forum, and I in no way whatsoever will use any part of this forum to promote my auctions)

As for the SMC f 50 1.7 in a heartbeat I prefer this lens over the FA 50 1.4 and I do think the lens should normally go in the $160.00 to $ 200.00 US range depending on condition.

As for the FA 50 1.4 my thoughts are it should be selling in the $180.00 range used in pristine condition and in the $190.00 to $210.00 range NIB (New in Box).

The SMC f 50 1.7 is becoming in very short supply so the price on this exceptional lens will most likely rise in the near future.


Just my thoughts,