Pentax 50 DA 1.8 vs Manual Lenses

Jannis · 11-09-2014, 11:44 AM

Hi,

I had chance to briefly test plastic DA 50/1.8, but had not beed quite impressed. I thought, that my old adapted OM 50 1.8 and Pentacon 1.8 do their job better. But I have very short time to test it.

Is here someone that has plastic DA 50/1.8 and for example M 50/1.7? Is IQ on par with that old glasses?
I´m thinking about purchase before price will go up here (it actually went, but in some shops have old stock for old price - about $170). New price is $100 more... I can buy M1.7 for about $60 but in quite mediocre shape...

Thanks for your comments.

stillshot2 · 11-09-2014, 12:27 PM - **1 Like**

Honestly, my DA 50mm 1.8 is sharp at f1.8 and is even noticably better at f2.0. The more I stop down the better it gets. It is a great lens, especially at current prices. The biggest problem I find with this lens is that you have to get the focus just right at wide apertures or obviously it won't be be sharp if out of focus. And sometimes my K30 struggles to nail the focus with my DA 50mm 1.8 so I usually refocus often and takes lots of photos to make sure I get a few keepers. I would really like to try my DA 50mm 1.8 on the K3 to see if its improved autofocus system helps give me more in focus shots when used wide open. I have thought about getting an M 50mm 1.7 but I hear the Da 50mm 1.8 has smoother bokeh which was a main reason I have kept it around.

**savoche** · 11-09-2014, 12:45 PM - **1 Like**

I don't think there is much, if any, difference in terms of sharpness - they are both sharp, very sharp. The DA has better flare resistance and less CA, and maybe somewhat cooler colours with more punch and contrast. I think I prefer the more "vintage" character of the M. At the end of the day, though, which one I pick up usually depends on whether or not I want/need autofocus that day.

Actually, I almost always pick up the FA 43 instead of either - but that's another story (and another price range).

florinlib · 11-09-2014, 02:16 PM - **1 Like**

Here I made few tests with DA 50 - https://picasaweb.google.com/116520713575383586197/DA5018VsM5017?authuser=0&feat=directlink
For me DA 50 is the winner in terms of AF and sharpness wide open.

Jannis · 11-09-2014, 02:46 PM

Thaks you all form your advices. I have one more question. I have also SMC 40 ldt... Do I need 50mm? Stupid question, I know... Is difference between 40 and 50 enought? Just now, my lenses and my k-5ii is in service for calibrating becouse AF issues , btw.

stillshot2 · 11-09-2014, 06:59 PM

I would say there is a perceptible difference between 40mm and 50mm fov, but the 40 ltd only opens up to f2.8 so if you want better low light capabilities with the extra 1 1/3 stops of aperture that f1.8 will give, plus narrower depth of field possibilities, the 50mm will deliver.

drypenn · 11-09-2014, 11:08 PM

The difference between 40 and 50 when shooting indoors will be considerable. But, as Stillshot mentioned, the 50 being a faster lens will make do better with available light.

Shooting outdoors, the focal length difference will be negligible equivalent to a few paces forward or backward. The difference in aperture will also be negligible since you'll likely be shooting at f/4 and up.

Last edited by drypenn; 11-10-2014 at 12:55 AM. Reason: Typo error

bsamcash · 11-09-2014, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Jannis

Is difference between 40 and 50 enought?

I used to have the 40 Limited, and I now have the 43 plus several vintage 50s. It really surprises me how obvious the difference is on APS-C. On my MX, it's not too noticeable, but on my K-5IIs it seems huge. A 40mm looks a lot closer to a 35 than a 50 in my opinion.

axelm7 · 11-10-2014, 12:32 AM

Generally speaking, the bokeh is a bit rougher on the M 1.7 than the DA, and the CA is much better controlled in the DA, of course, as the coatings are 20 years ahead. Both are just as sharp but getting focus can be a bit tricky (you get used to it). Construction and handling of the M can't be beat, though; the focus ring is miles better in the manual lenses, and the barrel is all-metal. If you dig around on eBay and you're patient you can nab a mint M 1.7 for much less than $50. I got mine like new with both caps and a small case for $30, it's just a matter of waiting for the right deal!

**clackers** · 11-10-2014, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by axelm7

Both are just as sharp

I'm led to believe the 1.8 is optically the same as the 1.7, with a little loss of aperture happening in the plastic remounting (like the DA35/FA35).

Whether Pentax, Canon or Nikon, 50mm technology is so proven and plentiful that the 1.8 offerings apparently give an enormous amount of the performance of the more expensive 1.4 or 1.2 models.

Since they're so cheap, why not get both the DA 50 and the M 50?

One will have the rendering qualities of modern coatings, the other an aperture ring, etc.

Naruto · 11-10-2014, 01:05 AM

The DA 50 is sharper in the center than the 40 but less uniform. It has nice bokeh while the 40's one gets nervous. I think of the DA 50 as great optics in a crappy plastic box (compared with limited). I use both for different purposes.

axelm7 · 11-10-2014, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by clackers

I'm led to believe the 1.8 is optically the same as the 1.7, with a little loss of aperture happening in the plastic remounting (like the DA35/FA35).

Whether Pentax, Canon or Nikon, 50mm technology is so proven and plentiful that the 1.8 offerings apparently give an enormous amount of the performance of the more expensive 1.4 or 1.2 models.

Since they're so cheap, why not get both the DA 50 and the M 50?

One will have the rendering qualities of modern coatings, the other an aperture ring, etc.

Also, you get a different FOV through the M, as it covers the 35mm frame. On a crop sensor the lens' shortcomings are more easily exposed, yet it performs as good as the DA 1.8, which speaks volumes for the quality of the M series lenses.

Pablom · 11-10-2014, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by axelm7

Also, you get a different FOV through the M, as it covers the 35mm frame. On a crop sensor the lens' shortcomings are more easily exposed, yet it performs as good as the DA 1.8, which speaks volumes for the quality of the M series lenses.

This is not correct, the FOV is the same in both lenses.

axelm7 · 11-10-2014, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Pablom

This is not correct, the FOV is the same in both lenses.

The M 1.7 gives you the equivalent field of view of an 80mm APS-C lens when being used in a Pentax DSLR as far as I know. Try shooting a subject from the same distance with the DA 50mm and with any film-era 50mm, and you'll see that the manual lenses seem to have a longer focal length.

**filoxophy** · 11-10-2014, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by axelm7

The M 1.7 gives you the equivalent field of view of an 80mm APS-C lens when being used in a Pentax DSLR as far as I know. Try shooting a subject from the same distance with the DA 50mm and with any film-era 50mm, and you'll see that the manual lenses seem to have a longer focal length.

Focal length is a property of the lens, so any 50mm lens will have the same FOV when mounted on your Pentax DSLR (until they come out with 135 format sensor). The DA* 55mm f/1.4 will look the same through your viewfinder as the DFA 645 55mm f/2.8, if they're both mounted on a K-3, for example.

11-09-2014, 11:44 AM	#1
Jannis Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 76	Pentax 50 DA 1.8 vs Manual Lenses Hi, I had chance to briefly test plastic DA 50/1.8, but had not beed quite impressed. I thought, that my old adapted OM 50 1.8 and Pentacon 1.8 do their job better. But I have very short time to test it. Is here someone that has plastic DA 50/1.8 and for example M 50/1.7? Is IQ on par with that old glasses? I´m thinking about purchase before price will go up here (it actually went, but in some shops have old stock for old price - about $170). New price is $100 more... I can buy M1.7 for about $60 but in quite mediocre shape... Thanks for your comments.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Voigtlander color ultron 50/1.8 vs Pentax 50/1.7	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-01-2014 12:41 AM
Sigma 50/1.4 EX vs. Pentax FA 50/1.4 and DA 55/1.4	DonovanDwyer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	01-24-2014 12:54 PM
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 vs the Pentax DA 16-50 f/2.8	someguy42	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-06-2013 12:02 AM
F50 1.7 vs DA 50 1.8	Motyl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	10-03-2013 09:31 AM
50 A 1.2 vs 43 Limited vs 50 FA 1.4 vs DA* 55?	McLovin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-15-2009 09:17 PM

11-09-2014, 12:27 PM - 1 Like	#2
stillshot2 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Albums Posts: 1,070	Honestly, my DA 50mm 1.8 is sharp at f1.8 and is even noticably better at f2.0. The more I stop down the better it gets. It is a great lens, especially at current prices. The biggest problem I find with this lens is that you have to get the focus just right at wide apertures or obviously it won't be be sharp if out of focus. And sometimes my K30 struggles to nail the focus with my DA 50mm 1.8 so I usually refocus often and takes lots of photos to make sure I get a few keepers. I would really like to try my DA 50mm 1.8 on the K3 to see if its improved autofocus system helps give me more in focus shots when used wide open. I have thought about getting an M 50mm 1.7 but I hear the Da 50mm 1.8 has smoother bokeh which was a main reason I have kept it around.

11-09-2014, 12:45 PM - 1 Like	#3
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	I don't think there is much, if any, difference in terms of sharpness - they are both sharp, very sharp. The DA has better flare resistance and less CA, and maybe somewhat cooler colours with more punch and contrast. I think I prefer the more "vintage" character of the M. At the end of the day, though, which one I pick up usually depends on whether or not I want/need autofocus that day. Actually, I almost always pick up the FA 43 instead of either - but that's another story (and another price range).

11-09-2014, 02:16 PM - 1 Like	#4
florinlib Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 88	Here I made few tests with DA 50 - https://picasaweb.google.com/116520713575383586197/DA5018VsM5017?authuser=0&feat=directlink For me DA 50 is the winner in terms of AF and sharpness wide open.

11-09-2014, 02:46 PM	#5
Jannis Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 76 Original Poster	Thaks you all form your advices. I have one more question. I have also SMC 40 ldt... Do I need 50mm? Stupid question, I know... Is difference between 40 and 50 enought? Just now, my lenses and my k-5ii is in service for calibrating becouse AF issues , btw.

11-09-2014, 06:59 PM	#6
stillshot2 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Albums Posts: 1,070	I would say there is a perceptible difference between 40mm and 50mm fov, but the 40 ltd only opens up to f2.8 so if you want better low light capabilities with the extra 1 1/3 stops of aperture that f1.8 will give, plus narrower depth of field possibilities, the 50mm will deliver.

11-09-2014, 11:08 PM	#7
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	The difference between 40 and 50 when shooting indoors will be considerable. But, as Stillshot mentioned, the 50 being a faster lens will make do better with available light. Shooting outdoors, the focal length difference will be negligible equivalent to a few paces forward or backward. The difference in aperture will also be negligible since you'll likely be shooting at f/4 and up. Last edited by drypenn; 11-10-2014 at 12:55 AM. Reason: Typo error

11-09-2014, 11:59 PM	#8
bsamcash Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Cupertino, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 391	Originally posted by Jannis Is difference between 40 and 50 enought? I used to have the 40 Limited, and I now have the 43 plus several vintage 50s. It really surprises me how obvious the difference is on APS-C. On my MX, it's not too noticeable, but on my K-5IIs it seems huge. A 40mm looks a lot closer to a 35 than a 50 in my opinion.

11-10-2014, 12:32 AM	#9
axelm7 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 95	Generally speaking, the bokeh is a bit rougher on the M 1.7 than the DA, and the CA is much better controlled in the DA, of course, as the coatings are 20 years ahead. Both are just as sharp but getting focus can be a bit tricky (you get used to it). Construction and handling of the M can't be beat, though; the focus ring is miles better in the manual lenses, and the barrel is all-metal. If you dig around on eBay and you're patient you can nab a mint M 1.7 for much less than $50. I got mine like new with both caps and a small case for $30, it's just a matter of waiting for the right deal!

11-10-2014, 01:05 AM	#10
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by axelm7 Both are just as sharp I'm led to believe the 1.8 is optically the same as the 1.7, with a little loss of aperture happening in the plastic remounting (like the DA35/FA35). Whether Pentax, Canon or Nikon, 50mm technology is so proven and plentiful that the 1.8 offerings apparently give an enormous amount of the performance of the more expensive 1.4 or 1.2 models. Since they're so cheap, why not get both the DA 50 and the M 50? One will have the rendering qualities of modern coatings, the other an aperture ring, etc.

11-10-2014, 01:05 AM	#11
Naruto Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 66	The DA 50 is sharper in the center than the 40 but less uniform. It has nice bokeh while the 40's one gets nervous. I think of the DA 50 as great optics in a crappy plastic box (compared with limited). I use both for different purposes.

11-10-2014, 01:15 AM	#12
axelm7 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 95	Originally posted by clackers I'm led to believe the 1.8 is optically the same as the 1.7, with a little loss of aperture happening in the plastic remounting (like the DA35/FA35). Whether Pentax, Canon or Nikon, 50mm technology is so proven and plentiful that the 1.8 offerings apparently give an enormous amount of the performance of the more expensive 1.4 or 1.2 models. Since they're so cheap, why not get both the DA 50 and the M 50? One will have the rendering qualities of modern coatings, the other an aperture ring, etc. Also, you get a different FOV through the M, as it covers the 35mm frame. On a crop sensor the lens' shortcomings are more easily exposed, yet it performs as good as the DA 1.8, which speaks volumes for the quality of the M series lenses.

11-10-2014, 01:25 AM	#13
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	Originally posted by axelm7 Also, you get a different FOV through the M, as it covers the 35mm frame. On a crop sensor the lens' shortcomings are more easily exposed, yet it performs as good as the DA 1.8, which speaks volumes for the quality of the M series lenses. This is not correct, the FOV is the same in both lenses.

11-10-2014, 01:30 AM	#14
axelm7 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 95	Originally posted by Pablom This is not correct, the FOV is the same in both lenses. The M 1.7 gives you the equivalent field of view of an 80mm APS-C lens when being used in a Pentax DSLR as far as I know. Try shooting a subject from the same distance with the DA 50mm and with any film-era 50mm, and you'll see that the manual lenses seem to have a longer focal length.

11-10-2014, 01:41 AM	#15
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132	Originally posted by axelm7 The M 1.7 gives you the equivalent field of view of an 80mm APS-C lens when being used in a Pentax DSLR as far as I know. Try shooting a subject from the same distance with the DA 50mm and with any film-era 50mm, and you'll see that the manual lenses seem to have a longer focal length. Focal length is a property of the lens, so any 50mm lens will have the same FOV when mounted on your Pentax DSLR (until they come out with 135 format sensor). The DA* 55mm f/1.4 will look the same through your viewfinder as the DFA 645 55mm f/2.8, if they're both mounted on a K-3, for example.