[Reportage]

In my case, i only use it at f/1.4 when i rather deal with picture softness in post rather then the iso noise.

Still on the K20D. Only a matter of time before Pentax will launch a weather seal camera with articulated screen.

[Bcrary3]

In my case, i only use it at f/1.4 when i rather deal with picture softness in post rather then the iso noise.

I don't have my FA lense anymore, but I do have a Ricoh Rikenon P 50mm f/2 (wish I could have found a faster one at the time). But when I use that, I am at f/2 more times than not. Either f/2 or f/5.6-f/6.3

It is goo for portraits, and street photography. I personally hate dealing with ISO noise in post.

[j2photos]

In my case, i only use it at f/1.4 when i rather deal with picture softness in post rather then the iso noise.

Still on the K20D. Only a matter of time before Pentax will launch a weather seal camera with articulated screen.

Honestly I normally try to stay at f2.0 or above on my FA 50. I rarely have the need for the DOF at 1.4.

[Bcrary3]

Honestly I normally try to stay at f2.0 or above on my FA 50. I rarely have the need for the DOF at 1.4.

I like the DOF for doing people, but for street stuff I actually really like staying at f/2 though it is a tad soft sometimes, but that could just be me not focusing perfectly either. It is hard to use an MF lense on the K-5. :S

[Gerbermiester]

I lucked out and got a very sharp copy of the Fa 50 f/1.4
I'd say I shoot with it at 1.4 about 60% of the time.

I still needed to dial the compensation in at -6, but once it's set, it's great. Still not a razor like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (at least in the centre at 1.4) but pretty close.

[Bcrary3]

I lucked out and got a very sharp copy of the Fa 50 f/1.4
I'd say I shoot with it at 1.4 about 60% of the time.

I still needed to dial the compensation in at -6, but once it's set, it's great. Still not a razor like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (at least in the centre at 1.4) but pretty close.

Crank it up to 3.5 or 5.6 and it'll cut you!

Or at least close... I don't think it could beat the Ricoh Rikenon P though... The Rikenon in my opinion is better than Canon 'L' series glass!

[DSims]

Honestly I normally try to stay at f2.0 or above on my FA 50. I rarely have the need for the DOF at 1.4.

I like the DOF for doing people, but for street stuff I actually really like staying at f/2 though it is a tad soft sometimes, but that could just be me not focusing perfectly either. It is hard to use an MF lense on the K-5. :S

I had the F version. Same story. Should be stopped down at least to f/2.2 (although actually you could get away with f/2 sometimes).

[yusuf]

All the time on f1.4. Actually I more often use M50 than FA50 but moreover they are same.

[Kozlok]

I've got an old Super Tak, and I run that at 1.4 very often. Love the creamy bokeh.

[Reportage]

I lucked out and got a very sharp copy of the Fa 50 f/1.4
I'd say I shoot with it at 1.4 about 60% of the time.

I still needed to dial the compensation in at -6, but once it's set, it's great. Still not a razor like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (at least in the centre at 1.4) but pretty close.

Good for you. I use mine only at f/1.4 when there is no other alternative.

[yusuf]

Good for you. I use mine only at f/1.4 when there is no other alternative.

Possibly a focus issue. I don't remember reading about any copy variations reported in FA50. This one is at f1.4

[DSims]

Possibly a focus issue. I don't remember reading about any copy variations reported in FA50. This one is at f1.4

Or it means that you don't mind how much overall IQ is lost using that widest stop.

Maybe the result is exactly what you want. Maybe converting to B&W masks some of that loss. All of this means it's perfectly fine to use it this way. In fact it's even commendable if you're getting the image you seek.


But there's still a significant loss compared to what you get when you stop it down at least a stop.

[devorama]

I have the F 50mm 1.4 which I believe is the same optically to the FA 50. I prefer to shoot at F/1.7 for a little bump in sharpness. So rarely at 1.4 now.

[yusuf]

Or it means that you don't mind how much overall IQ is lost using that widest stop.

Don't we expect that for any lens?

[DSims]

Originally posted by DSims Quote
Or it means that you don't mind how much overall IQ is lost using that widest stop.
Don't we expect that for any lens?

No, we don't, but it'll cost you.

The DA*55/1.4 is a perfect example of this. It has minimal loss of IQ at f/1.8 - even at f/1.6 much of the time. This is why it costs much more than the FA50/1.4.

The new $4000 Zeiss 1.4/50 is another example. Even though I haven't studied the lens carefully I believe the positive statements about it (that it comes as close to perfect as practicable in a 50) based on my brief experience with other outstanding (~$2000) Zeiss lenses.


Certainly you've noticed that your FA31 and FA77 outdo most other lenses in this regard. With them I can barely tell the difference (IQ-wise) between a shot taken at f/1.8 and one at f/2.2. In other words, shooting wide open doesn't degrade the IQ. These are the only two lenses I've used that I can say this of.


BTW, I can't help but notice your location. I taught a class there in early 2008. I have fond memories of visiting the butterfly park next to the game reserve, as well as taking a few photos of the silly monkeys that loved hanging around outside of it.