[jatrax]

Ive never used a hood before, so Ill look into it. I did get one with the old SP1000 I just got... are they useable on more then one size lens??

Hoods are sized by the diameter of the attaching threads( or the bayonet mount if used) and by the length. The length must be correct for the focal length of the lens and the crop factor of the sensor (if used). On film you need only worry about the focal length. So a hood with a length designed for a 50mm lens with 49mm threads will work on your lens. But if you try to use a hood designed for say a 100mm lens, then the image will vignette. Look for an old hood that was for any old Pentax 50mm (except the f/1.2) and it will work.

You can also get, quite cheaply, the rubber foldable three part hoods. The are ugly but they work quite well and are very cheap. You might have to experiment to find what length of the rubber hoods works best.

[TER-OR]

I've taken some very nice images with an f:2, and it does make you think about your shots (which may have been more important). Probably it's the least expensive way to get an at least decent quality manual lens to learn with.

[top-quark]

SMC Pentax M 1:2 50MM. Whats it good for??

To make you scroll through hundreds of near identical listings when you stick "Pentax lens" in the eBay search box.

[ProdigalPentaxian]

Like many have stated already, great photographers have created great images using an iPhone. And idiots have WASTED $3000 for a D800, and $1700 for a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 zoom!!! More people liked images from a humble K-01 with 40mm XS than the Nikon taken during the same event!!!

The most $$ I got for an image was for one I used a Rokinon 85mm lens.

The equipment will NEVER make you a better photographer!!!!

Its just a matter of patience, practice and a little luck to creat powerful images.

[s1120]

Ok Im learning thanks!!!!!

OK.. so the one that came with the SP came with a 50mm lens, and a.... sorry dont remember the number.. but its a tele lens of some sort... its pretty deep, so I am thinking its not for the 50mm.. Ill research it more.

Thanks for putting up with the dumb new guy!

[TER-OR]

135mm was the standard tele of its day. Some, again, are pretty nice.

[boriscleto]

There is a legend that every M 50/2 ever made has been sold at least once on eBay...

[52mm]

EDIT: Seems I was kinda slow again. Whatever.

For landscape shots, you should be stopping down to at least f/5.6, preferably f/8. In good light, the basic ISO 200 sensitivity setting (I shoot with highlight correction on, which is recommended) should yield perfectly exposure times of 1/250 s or lower, which is enough to preserve full sharpness even by today's pixel peeping standards. Focus is usually at or near infinity at this point, and assuming the camera isn't way off, focus confirm should easily be sufficiently accurate. (Testing AF accuracy via one of the usual focus test charts once is recommended.)

TL;DR: Landscape should be easy. A 50 makes a light tele on a crop DSLR though (75 mm equivalent), so it's not exactly a wideangle. That also means that you should be able to use a tele lens hood without vignetting. At the very least, the standard "standard lens" job should keep a lot out already.

Closeups are more tricky. At least this lens will focus down to 0.45 m, which is good for a basic 50 (it is not unusual to see a MFD of 0.6 m there), though its performance at this point may be another matter. Often things will be moving around in the wind, and DOF can be ridiculously small at short distances. The former means you want fairly low exposure times, the latter means you want to stop down somewhat - around f/5.6 tends to be a good compromise. You'll probably have to increase sensitivity in many cases in order to match both criteria. Catch-in focus may also be useful. Further reduction of MFD is possible with either a closeup lens (the proven Raynox DCR-150 can be used with a step-up filter ring), an extension tube or a reverse adapter. (The latter two can also be combined for ridiculous extreme macro. You'll probably run into shading problems first though.)

[Sagitta]

I have a battered M and a couple Sears 50/2's. I honestly never really have used them much, but thats only because I had a couple f/1.7's first. I think the big thing about the 50 f/2 is that because it WAS the kit lens, the condition of the ones floating out there on the market can vary incredibly.

You'll have ones where the original owner bought it, promptly shelved it, and its been sitting unused for 30 years, then you have the ones that were driven into the ground from use.

Just because one person gets a lousy copy doesn't mean they all are. The one I have is kind of battered but it takes decent enough shots - except I'll grab the 1.4 or a 1.7 before I grab the 2.0 simply because its nowhere near as versatile as the latter lenses.

[top-quark]

SMC Pentax M 1:2 50MM. Whats it good for??

Absolutely nothing! Say it again...

[Stone G.]

There is a legend that every M 50/2 ever made has been sold at least once on eBay...

I may be a relict, but I am living proof that this legend is only - a legend:

I got my K1000 with the smc Pentax-M 1:2.0 50mm in 1982 and up till 1998, I believe that more than 90% of my slides and negatives have been shot with that pair. I still have both in excellent working conditions and I still use the lens, though mostly nowadays for duplicating my old negatives and slides.

But here is a shot made today with that lens on a K200D:


Image taken with smc Pentax-M 50mm f/2.0 on a K200D. 1/180s, f/5.6, ISO100. Click on thumbnail
to see a larger version 1280 px wide.

The fact that this lens isn't rare and thus, that it is cheap and abundant on the used market doesn't make it poor or even just mediocre. There areother, more spectacular lenses of that era, but this was and is a fine allround workhorse.

[RKKS08]

This lens was my standard lens on a ME Super for nearly 4 years, till I got a SMC-A 1.4/50 together with the Super A.
During that time I did regulary party photoshooting, mostly with flash and F5.6 or F8, prints often up to poster size. No problems.

When I could compare with the SMC-A 1.4/50 on similar settings, at F5.6 and F8 there was not much difference.
The SMC-M 2/50 ist softer at F2, less so at F2.8, which is understandable, as it means the lens is used fully open.

About the legend: I bought the M 2/50 new in December 1981, and I still own it. It hasn't seen eBay (yet). But it may, as I recently got the A 2/50 quite cheap.

[simico]

SMC Pentax M 1:2 50MM. Whats it good for??

It's on my little daughter's MZ-5 used as a toy Before that I used it reversed on my macro lens for higher magnification macro shots of flowers just for fun.

[Na Horuk]

Oh yes, someone mentioned catch in focus. This can be a great help with getting focused images with manual lenses. Just search the forums for CiF, cach in focus, or focus trapping, I'm sure there are some tutorials on it already. Basically, you just turn it on in the menu, hold the shutter button, and turn the focus ring until the subject is in focus.

[tromboads]

The 50mm f2 is but the only lens you would ever need Seriously. So much hate misplaced.

As for a hood. forget about it. Ive never really been able to make the sucker flare.

Wait no I lie. Shooting into the afternoon sun and still. f*rk all really flare

More afternoon sun

That's it. Pointed directly at the daaaam sun! I could have raised my hand and covered it nicely in the last image to get rid of it completely, but I wanted some nice cliche photography

The 50mm f2 is nuts underrated. If WW3 broke out down here, I'd dive for the M50's f2's Light, small, will outlive the cockroaches.

We all get carried away by BOKEH and "light transmission" neither of which hinted by others results in any better images.

What was the initial question again because I've had a wine. Oh.. yes it was a cheap bastard of a lens and its great :P

If it wasn't for this fancy pants "a" lens I got recently, there would be a 50mm M f2 on the face of my K10 right now :P

But it is annoying seeing them thrive on ebay :P