[wed7]

Prime lenses are Pentax's strong points, what are your thoughts?

To be used in an apsc dslr.

Thank you

[Adam]

Depends on your definition of 'best', but the DA 50mm F1.8 is the way to go if you want AF.

[Kozlok]

If you want maximum value for a given dollar, the Takumar 55 f1.8 is usually available for ~$35 or $40, so it's a champion in my book. And the images are stunning! The Helios 44 is a unique look, and available cheaply as well.

For more automation, the A-50 1.7 is also beautiful, cheap and has auto aperture.

For me, though, I usually choose the 8-element Super Takumar 50/1.4. Is it the best? I don't know, but I like mine. Sometimes you just need to obliterate the background, this one seems to be able to get me what I want.

[hcc]

On nifty fifty, an excellent thread of PF member RioRico:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/114528-enough-fiftys-yet.html

For the best cheapo, you may consider to search in pawnshop and read beforehand another excellent thread of PF member RioRico:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/54-pentax-lens-articles/59245-pawnshop-le...ers-guide.html

My 5 cents ... hoping that it may help.

---

Last edited by hcc; 06-17-2014 at 09:20 PM.

[mee]

Depends on your definition of 'best', but the DA 50mm F1.8 is the way to go if you want AF.

Agreed. I never appreciated the SMC M series 50mm lenses.. the bokeh is really busy/agitated looking. yuck.

However, the DA 50mm f/1.8 is a finer lens.. build quality is plastic but IQ is fine (imo).

For reference with other manufacturers: Best 50mm lens for your camera: 8 'Nifty Fifty' lenses tested and rated | Digital Camera World - page 11

As you can see, it only placed below the much more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens in the comparison... and mostly for the plastic build and (at the time) price. They had no real complaints about the IQ (calling it 'impressive').

You can find it for around 150 USD if you shop around.. if not less. A bargain I think.

[stevebrot]

Best is such a hard thing to determine. All of my 50s were relatively cheap and most of my favorites are at the bottom end price-wise. My favs are (in no particular order):

• Pentax-M 50/1.7
• Pentax-K 55/1.8*
• KMZ Helios-44M 58/2
• Auto-Rikenon 50/1.8

Each brings something to the table in terms of rendering. For the record, I also am the recent owner of a Pentax-DA 50/1.8. It is a fun lens and definitely a great value item. I am needing to do a comparison review between it, the M 50/1.7, and K 55/1.8. It should be an interesting shoot-out.


Steve

* Technically my best fast 50

---------- Post added 06-17-14 at 09:37 PM ----------

I never appreciated the SMC M series 50mm lenses.. the bokeh is really busy/agitated looking. yuck.

Truly? I have never shot with the M 50/1.4 or M 50/2, but my M50/1.7 has quite acceptable bokeh.* FWIW, each of the M-series 50s was essentially the same as the A, F, and FA series 50s with the same maximum apertures that followed, so the indictment would apply to those lenses as well.


Steve

* My worst bokeh fast 50 is a two-way tie between the XR Rikenon 50/2 and Rikenon-P 50/2. Both are very sharp but pay the price with busy bokeh.

[EarlVonTapia]

My favorite 50 is the F 50 1.7 because it comes in a sexy F-Series body.

[disco_owner]

What about FA50 1.4 , can be had reasonably cheap 2nd hand wed7.

[Lowell Goudge]

It really depends on how you want to use a lens to get to a best & cheap 50.

If you want to have all exposure metering and P-TTL flash, an A50/2 is the way to go. But of you don't need flash, the K series lenses have the overall best build quality

In my opinion the M series have a slightly inferior "feel" about them. Focus damping is not as smooth as the K series.

If you like M42 lenses then the SMC tak or s-m-c tak have the best coatings, but I think, as some others have commented, the early super tak 8 element 50/1.4 is a league of its own, it is just not cheap.

[abmj]

Something to consider. The original "nifty fifty" was a "normal" lens for 35 mm cameras. I had an f/1.2 on my Canon F-1 that was fast as blazes and sharp as a tack. The equivalent in the digital world would be a 50 mm or 55 mm on a [/U]full frame camera[/U]. The point was that the "normal" lens gave a view and perspective roughly the same as the human eye - the camera saw what your eyes saw. For an APSC camera, the "nifty fifty" becomes equivalent to a not-so-nifty 75 mm. If a short telephoto is what you want, a 50 mm will fill the bill. On the other hand, if what you really want is a "normal" lens, you should be looking at something in the 35 mm range.

Unfortunately, the lens manufacturers have lagged behind the tech changes and not offered 35 mm lenses in f/1.2, 1.4 or 1.8. To get that speed, you will need to go with a "non-normal" 50mm or 55 mm.

[DSims]

For most people, A50/1.7 or DA50/1.8.

[mtux]

I prefer the DA50/1.8 because of: 1)round aperture blades! 2)AF when you need it.

[wed7]

Thanks for all the reply, I am meaning for a 50/55mm (efl~75mm) with a good optics for lowlight, bokeh and not expensive at the same time.

[OregonJim]

The 50's are not so nifty on APS. Portraits, yeah. All-around use, no. For that I would pick the DA35/2.4.

But, since you asked, the Chinon 55/1.4 is the best of all my 50's.

[civiletti]

I like the A50/1.4. It's sharp at mid-apertures and does nicely close focused wide open.