[Nicolas06]

For me important was 1) faster optics, 2) build quality with metal mount , 3) aperture ring for manual control, 4) full frame coverage ( with great corners!) = sorry, but that is no brainer and FA 35mm F2.0 wins hands down.

I notice that only in 4) did some bit of picture quality came in (with great corners) Obviously your argument for FA instead DA where not really the picture quality of the DA (that perform sligtly better in fact due to being optimized for digital).

I did the same as you and gone FA50 and honestly I was not so impressed by the wide apperture (plain soft) or the finish (plastic ruber finish, only the mount is metal).

Would I have to make the choice again, I would go for the FA43 or FA31... I got the FA77 some time ago and this is a whole new world.

[manntax]

I use the da35 and da50 on full frame with no corner problems at all - they are both fine on FF. The build quality is pretty solid, and I've never had cause to worry about the mount. It's currently available new for £80 vs £400 for the fa f2. For most people, that makes the da35 a no brainer.

I know I know .. all that buzz and excitement of all 'clever' folks out there ... and just imagine those silly people at Ricoh selling a £400 lens in disguise for mere £80 - and even more silly , poor folks that are shelling out the hard cash ;-)
you are mistaken though - the DA IS a very similar optical design but it is not the same, has some plastic instead of glass and the diameter of glass is simple smaller, scaled down to cover with fuyll IQ only APS-C . Trust me the FA is superior not only on APS-C but also on film

(As an aside, I have an older a35/2, and I don't think it's that good until f2.8).

These are totally different designs as far as I know and the 'A' version is simple inferior to FA - the FA is superior in every single aspect you cant think of -apart from the build quality of course

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 11:00 PM ----------

I did the same as you and gone FA50 and honestly I was not so impressed by the wide apperture (plain soft) or the finish (plastic ruber finish, only the mount is metal).

FA50 I am not familiar with - F 50mm 1.7 is deflitely a cracker lens and a friend who has a 50mm 1.4 in SMC-F version makes me want to pick one too as it is truly a superb lens. All regular FA lenses are having poorer build quality than their -F counterparts.

[Flugelbinder]

...You didn't say if the issue persist with contrast AF through...

...Anyway you explained you liked the focal length so it would make no sence to go 50mm instead...

I will have to try it tomorrow, in good light.

Yes, and that's why I got the 35 in the first place, instead of the 50...

[6BQ5]

I think the DA 35mm is a pretty good lens. It works well for me starting at f/2.8 or f/3.2 ... all the way up to f/8 if I want maximum DoF before diffraction takes its toll. Are there better lenses out there? Sure! Ask yourself what does "better" mean? Better color? Better sharpness? Better contrast? Every single "better" that you add will increase the price. The DA 50mm f/1.8 is supposedly very sharp (I don't have one). It costs a little more. I think the FA 50mm f/1.4 has better colors and is also very sharp. It costs more than a little more. My FA 43mm f/1.9 is even sharper, has even better colors, and is even more contrasty for portraits. It costs way more than a little more! Keep going up the scale and you'll reach the DA* 55mm and the FA 77mm Limited. You might as well open the doors up and add the D FA 50mm f/2.8 and some of the Sigma primes made for Pentax too.

Merry Christmas!

[Flugelbinder]

...I think the FA 50mm f/1.4 has better colors and is also very sharp. It costs more than a little more...

Any opinion on the F 50/1.7?

[6BQ5]

Any opinion on the F 50/1.7?

I once had both the F and FA version of the 50mm f/1.7. The lenses performed identically to each other in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness. I verified this for myself by shooting the same scene with both at various apertures. After this comparison I sold my copy of the F version and I only have the FA. Why have two of the same formula?

I have casually compared the FA 50mm f/1.7 lens against the FA 50mm f/1.4. There are more similarities than differences in color, contrast, and sharpness. My f/1.4 seems to render colors a little more vividly with a bit more saturation than the f/1.7. Contrast is about the same. Both are identically sharp after f/2.8. The f/1.4 tends to be sharper at apertures larger than f/2.8. It really depends on the scene you are shooting. I can only guess that the f/1.4 has less DoF wide open so the AF system has less "wiggle room" in what would be acceptable focus. Some people think the opposite of me and that is fine. Perception is subjective. There could also be differences due to manufacturing variations, AF performance, sensor performance, image processing, etc.

Pentax has both formulas and they chose to continue the f/1.4 while canceling the f/1.7. Based on what I read here on the forum the DA 50mm f/1.8 is a direct descendant of the FA 50mm f/1.7. Maybe that is how the formula lives on? The f/1.4 formula can be traced back to the original Takumars. Pentax has had plenty of time to refine and polish the formula.

Both lenses are excellent and that is why I have kept both so far. I am planning to do a more intense comparison between the f/1.4 and the f/1.7 and I will keep only one. No need for me to have both if one suits me better than the other.

[Na Horuk]

Other choices: Sigma 50mm f1.4. I think these have a silent AF motor. The older version is pretty good, and the new "art" version is supposed to be amazing, but is also very big and not that affordable.

Samyang. Samyang makes 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 lenses, but they are manual focus only (but you can use the Pentax feature called catch in focus, or focus trapping, to get something close to AF. On Pentax mount, the lenses also have A setting on aperture ring, so you can use auto aperture and Av, P mode on camera, unlike some other camera brands with Samyang lenses). MF is perfectly silent! The lenses are a little big, though.

Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4. Silent AF motor, f1.4, very beloved lens, sharp and contrasty, made for portraiture, will render skin tones nicely. Not cheap, though.
Pentax FA 43mm ltd. Fast lens, legendary quality, metal build. Made for film cameras, but will work on digital as well. The most affordable of the FA limited trio

Except for the DA* 55mm, all of those are fairly big. Pentax makes the most compact kit in the APSC DSLR world, at least when thinking of both camera and lens on it. You can only find smaller kits either with smaller sensor, mirrorless, or with bigger lenses (or adapters).

[Nicolas06]

Except for the DA* 55mm, all of those are fairly big. Pentax makes the most compact kit in the APSC DSLR world, at least when thinking of both camera and lens on it. You can only find smaller kits either with smaller sensor, mirrorless, or with bigger lenses (or adapters).

You wanted to say except FA43 ?

[Flugelbinder]

Other choices: Sigma 50mm f1.4. I think these have a silent AF motor. The older version is pretty good, and the new "art" version is supposed to be amazing, but is also very big and not that affordable.

Samyang. Samyang makes 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 lenses, but they are manual focus only (but you can use the Pentax feature called catch in focus, or focus trapping, to get something close to AF. On Pentax mount, the lenses also have A setting on aperture ring, so you can use auto aperture and Av, P mode on camera, unlike some other camera brands with Samyang lenses). MF is perfectly silent! The lenses are a little big, though.

Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4. Silent AF motor, f1.4, very beloved lens, sharp and contrasty, made for portraiture, will render skin tones nicely. Not cheap, though.
Pentax FA 43mm ltd. Fast lens, legendary quality, metal build. Made for film cameras, but will work on digital as well. The most affordable of the FA limited trio

Except for the DA* 55mm, all of those are fairly big. Pentax makes the most compact kit in the APSC DSLR world, at least when thinking of both camera and lens on it. You can only find smaller kits either with smaller sensor, mirrorless, or with bigger lenses (or adapters).

All very good lenses, but way out of my reach, at the moment... Size wouldn't be a problem though...

[NitroDC]

50/1.7

honestly one of the best lenses Pentax has ever made (M/A/F/FA, they're all the same 50/1.7 formula so basically perform the same.

Stopped down to f/4 and over, it is my sharpest lens. The microcontrast and rendering is second to none.

[theunartist]

Any opinion on the F 50/1.7?

I have 8 or more 50mm and 55mm lenses (not all Pentax). I collected all of these when I started using Pentax. Several 50/1.4 and 1.7 including the F, Super Tak, SMC Tak, A and M, as well as a couple of 55mm including the 55/1.8 K.

After all this, I can say I rarely, if at all, use the 50 anymore but will occasionally use the 55's. In my opinion, the best of the manual focus group, is the M 50/1.7 or Super Tak 50/1.4 I like using any of the Takumars, since AV mode works well with this manual lens. My F 50/1.4 and F 50/1.7 are so hard to accurately focus even in AF mode, I probably only get 1 in 7 truly focused. But when they do focus it's very nice, bokeh is great, detail and color is there. Personally, I have found that the 50/55mm Focal Length did not fit my eye and have pretty much gone to the 35mm...

Pentax F 50/1.4

Old Bay by theunartist, on Flickr


Rising Temps by theunartist, on Flickr

Pentax F 50/1.7


Super Takumar 50/1.4

Henry the Dog by theunartist, on Flickr

---------- Post added 12-28-14 at 04:32 PM ----------

Had to dig this up from long ago but good example of DOF

Pentax M 50/1.7 + K10D

[Omestes]

50/1.7

honestly one of the best lenses Pentax has ever made (M/A/F/FA, they're all the same 50/1.7 formula so basically perform the same.

Stopped down to f/4 and over, it is my sharpest lens. The microcontrast and rendering is second to none.

honestly one of the best lenses Pentax has ever made (M/A/F/FA, they're all the same 50/1.7 formula so basically perform the same.

This might be completely subjective, but my A50 1.7 seems a bit better than my FA50 1.7. They are both stellar, but the A version seems to have a bit more contrast, and perhaps a bit better color rendering. It would be hard to tell the pictures apart, but there is a (probably completely subjective) slight difference in feel.

The Unartist's pictures also highlight what I love about the 1.7 series, there is just something magical about how they render highlight and shadow that I don't really see in other Pentax 50s. The pictures just seem more "crisp", for whatever reason.

[6BQ5]

I once had both the F and FA version of the 50mm f/1.7. The lenses performed identically to each other in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness. I verified this for myself by shooting the same scene with both at various apertures. After this comparison I sold my copy of the F version and I only have the FA. Why have two of the same formula?

I have casually compared the FA 50mm f/1.7 lens against the FA 50mm f/1.4. There are more similarities than differences in color, contrast, and sharpness. My f/1.4 seems to render colors a little more vividly with a bit more saturation than the f/1.7. Contrast is about the same. Both are identically sharp after f/2.8. The f/1.4 tends to be sharper at apertures larger than f/2.8. It really depends on the scene you are shooting. I can only guess that the f/1.4 has less DoF wide open so the AF system has less "wiggle room" in what would be acceptable focus. Some people think the opposite of me and that is fine. Perception is subjective. There could also be differences due to manufacturing variations, AF performance, sensor performance, image processing, etc.

Pentax has both formulas and they chose to continue the f/1.4 while canceling the f/1.7. Based on what I read here on the forum the DA 50mm f/1.8 is a direct descendant of the FA 50mm f/1.7. Maybe that is how the formula lives on? The f/1.4 formula can be traced back to the original Takumars. Pentax has had plenty of time to refine and polish the formula.

Both lenses are excellent and that is why I have kept both so far. I am planning to do a more intense comparison between the f/1.4 and the f/1.7 and I will keep only one. No need for me to have both if one suits me better than the other.

Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too much but ...

I informally compared my FA 50mm f/1.7 to my FA 50mm f/1.4. The f/1.4 is sharper at f/1.6 than the f/1.7 is at f/1.7. The f/1.7 catches up and surpasses the f/1.4 up to f/2.8. From f/3.2 onward the lenses performed identically when focused on a landscape (infinity) and when focused up close (like a portrait). Although the f/1.7 is sharper at f/2.8 I found the portrait taken with the f/1.4 at f/2.8 to be more pleasing. The rendering felt more gentle and complimentary. Maybe dreamier is a better word? Is that an odd observation?

My FA 50mm f/1.4 feels more vivid because it causes my K-30 to overexpose by +0.1 to +0.3. When I compensate downward so the histograms look similar then the FA 50mm f/1.4 seems to have more mid-tone contrast. It exaggerates some of the detail. I guess that's what makes it feel sharper.

Anyways, that's just my informal observation.