AF 35 f2 or AF50 f1.4

varnco · 08-03-2008, 03:55 PM

I am consider both, as I am looking for a relatively low light lens to add to my current two lenses:

Kit Zoom Lens
77 Limited 1.8

I really like taking shots in natural light conditions... f1.4 - f2.0.

I know the limited 31 gets rave reviews, but I can only shell out so much for lenses, and I absolutely love my 77, but need something shorter.

AF50 1.4 equals a 75mm FOV
AF35 2.0 equals a 50 mm FOV

Thoughts?

Stratario · 08-03-2008, 04:14 PM

I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50.

Gooshin · 08-03-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Stratario

I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50.

as someone that owns all 3, i find the 50 most used

not only does it (in my opinion, on a K20D) produce sharpness pictures equivalent and if not better than the other two

it is also extreamly usable at F1.4

not to mention being cheaper than both of the other ones, meaning i wont cry as much if it gets stolen/dropped/damaged in anyway.

i have now sold my FA35, and thinking of selling my FA43.

dont believe the hype, the differences are very hard to pinpoint.

varnco · 08-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Stratario

I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50.

Well, I am trying to keep the price down a bit, otherwise the 31 would be at the top of the list.

Thanks for the feedback.

I've pretty much narrowed it down to these 2 previously mentioned, and at $199, the 1.4 looks very good, but I may enjoy the 50mm FOV of the 35 for $100 more, but I may miss the 1.4.

**Aristophanes** · 08-03-2008, 05:29 PM

Inside or outside use. That's what I ask? Subjects? Venues?

I find the FA 50mm 1.4 to be excellent, but too long for indoor use, especially on portraits (or partials). I am tripping over furniture to frame things. I can't take a step back right out a window.

And, at 1.4, I am seeing some very sharply defined noses but a lot of fuzzy ears. After awhile, the lack of depth is a problem. Also, fast as it is, sometimes I must use a flash, negating a lot of that speed advantage, but improving my DOF as I stop down to accommodate.

I have tried a 35mm and I think it will do fine for my indoor prime. I, too, dream of the 31 Ltd. (or the new lens on the roadmap), but it's a financial step too far.

The 50mm will be ideal outside "people" prime because it's the right length, price and is very sharp. I am often chasing a little kid with the thing, so there's also the fact that the longer the focal length, the farther away from my subject. Not always a good thing when they run away and you have to chase them. I figure every 10mm in focal length is a 2 year-old's 3 step head start!

That's my rationale for making the same decision you are posed with. I hope it helps.

Originally posted by varnco

Well, I am trying to keep the price down a bit, otherwise the 31 would be at the top of the list.

Thanks for the feedback.

I've pretty much narrowed it down to these 2 previously mentioned, and at $199, the 1.4 looks very good, but I may enjoy the 50mm FOV of the 35 for $100 more, but I may miss the 1.4.

bigben91682 · 08-03-2008, 05:29 PM

Both are wonderful performers, and they both frequent my camera. But for the money, and the speed, there's no beating the 50/1.4.

A ton of people have 'em and I've never heard of anyone regretting buying one...

varnco · 08-03-2008, 05:45 PM

I figure most of my shots will be indoor, where light is limited as is space, and fast lens is needed. I am a bit worried about the DOF at 1.4... I run into problems sometimes now with my 77 at 1.8.

Looks like I'm leaning towards the 35

varnco · 08-03-2008, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

as someone that owns all 3, i find the 50 most used

not only does it (in my opinion, on a K20D) produce sharpness pictures equivalent and if not better than the other two

it is also extreamly usable at F1.4

not to mention being cheaper than both of the other ones, meaning i wont cry as much if it gets stolen/dropped/damaged in anyway.

i have now sold my FA35, and thinking of selling my FA43.

dont believe the hype, the differences are very hard to pinpoint.

How is it that you use the 1.4? Indoors or mostly out? That's one of the items Im struggling with, having the 77 limited I have a long(er) prime already.

frank · 08-03-2008, 07:00 PM

Since you already have the 77/1.8, better just get a 35/2 so you'd cover abit wider angle. Both 50/1.4 and 35/2 are great performer, you can't go wrong w/ either one. But I think 35-77 combo is better than 50-77.

Cheers!

**sabarrett** · 08-03-2008, 07:31 PM

How about the Sigma 30/1.4? Its obviously more money, but you would get the speed.

TourDeForce · 08-03-2008, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by varnco

I figure most of my shots will be indoor, where light is limited as is space, and fast lens is needed. I am a bit worried about the DOF at 1.4... I run into problems sometimes now with my 77 at 1.8.

Looks like I'm leaning towards the 35

You don't HAVE to shoot at 1.4. Just stop the thing down and you'll be fine. If you find a situation where only 1.4 will do, then a slower lens will most certainly NOT solve that problem.

I have an FA 1.4 and typically shoot at f/3.5 or above. It is GREAT for a portrait lens even indoors. If you're shooting candids at a party or sup'm like that, then a shorter focal length is in order, but for portraiture the 75mm equivalent focal length is nearly ideal.

Besides, at under $200 the 1.4 is easy to obtain, and easy to re-sell if it doesn't fit your needs. The more expensive lenses limit your resale market.

Considered a zoom to find what focal length you use most?

How 'bout renting a few of the top contenders to test them heads up?

Finally, if you're not taking pictures for a living, or even if you are, have you considered a good zoom? Some offer IQ very near the primes with LOTS of flexability. I've been playing with a Power-Zoom 28-105mm that is just fantastic. It's heavy as hell, but I have yet to be let down by this lens in terms of IQ. It even offers a bit of contrast & punch that many highly reguarded lenses lack. Despite its weight it may find a permanent home in my bag.

Steinback · 08-03-2008, 08:44 PM

I'm currently trying to find an FA 35 in Canada. I already have an M50 F2, a Super Takumar 50 F1.4 and an SMC Tak 55 F1.8, so as much as I would like an autofocussing 50mm I really don't need a 4th lens in that focal range.

The 50s I have work well for portraits and outdoor work but I've found them to be too long for my taste when I'm shooting at parties or other tighter location where I can't necessarily take a couple of steps back to frame. I've also considered the Sigma 28 F1.8 for somewhere around $300 but its another lens that I haven't been able to find stocked so I can take a look at it before buying.

TourDeForce · 08-03-2008, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Steinback

The 50s I have work well for portraits and outdoor work but I've found them to be too long for my taste when I'm shooting at parties or other tighter location where I can't necessarily take a couple of steps back to frame.

Same gripe I have with the 50, it's limiting in a 'candids' situation. For that you need a short zoom, I think.

Originally posted by Steinback

I've also considered the Sigma 28 F1.8 for somewhere around $300 but its another lens that I haven't been able to find stocked so I can take a look at it before buying.

I actually was looking to buy one of those myself. If you have to have a prime, the 30mm EX 1.8 might be a consideration too. I gave up on the wider primes because...

I solved the 50mm for protraits & buying additional shorter lenses problem by picking up a Sigma 17-70mm. It sees the most time on my camera these days, until I get out the gear for pro gigs. Then the 50 sees service along with the Tamron 70-300 LD Di, and the ancient 135mm Vivitar manual lens. Yes, I still use that old warhoarse!

joele · 08-04-2008, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by frank

Since you already have the 77/1.8, better just get a 35/2 so you'd cover abit wider angle. Both 50/1.4 and 35/2 are great performer, you can't go wrong w/ either one. But I think 35-77 combo is better than 50-77.

Cheers!

I would agree with this, I had the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 70/2.4 and sold the 50/1.4 it just wasn't used much in between the other two and it never really blew me away.

But really it is impossible for any of us to say, it depends on what you shoot most of all, they are all good lenses it is just the FOV from the 35mm is perfect for me most of the time..

Gooshin · 08-04-2008, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by varnco

How is it that you use the 1.4? Indoors or mostly out? That's one of the items Im struggling with, having the 77 limited I have a long(er) prime already.

you use 1.4 when wnat a really thin DOF for specialized portrait work.

i use my 50mm between 2.0 and 4.0

like the other guy said, you dont have to use it at 1.4, but if you need to, you can!

also personaly i find my 43 lackluster until 2.8 + so

08-03-2008, 03:55 PM	#1
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100	AF 35 f2 or AF50 f1.4 I am consider both, as I am looking for a relatively low light lens to add to my current two lenses: Kit Zoom Lens 77 Limited 1.8 I really like taking shots in natural light conditions... f1.4 - f2.0. I know the limited 31 gets rave reviews, but I can only shell out so much for lenses, and I absolutely love my 77, but need something shorter. AF50 1.4 equals a 75mm FOV AF35 2.0 equals a 50 mm FOV Thoughts?

08-03-2008, 05:29 PM	#6
bigben91682 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 728	Both are wonderful performers, and they both frequent my camera. But for the money, and the speed, there's no beating the 50/1.4. A ton of people have 'em and I've never heard of anyone regretting buying one... Last edited by bigben91682; 08-03-2008 at 05:30 PM. Reason: can

08-04-2008, 03:11 AM	#14
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	Originally posted by frank Since you already have the 77/1.8, better just get a 35/2 so you'd cover abit wider angle. Both 50/1.4 and 35/2 are great performer, you can't go wrong w/ either one. But I think 35-77 combo is better than 50-77. Cheers! I would agree with this, I had the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 70/2.4 and sold the 50/1.4 it just wasn't used much in between the other two and it never really blew me away. But really it is impossible for any of us to say, it depends on what you shoot most of all, they are all good lenses it is just the FOV from the 35mm is perfect for me most of the time.. Last edited by joele; 08-04-2008 at 04:09 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k-7+FA50/1.4 vs. D90+AF50/1.4D	fulcrumx29	Pentax DSLR Discussion	34	08-11-2009 04:43 PM

08-03-2008, 04:14 PM	#2
Stratario Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 366	I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50.

08-03-2008, 04:39 PM	#3
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Stratario I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50. as someone that owns all 3, i find the 50 most used not only does it (in my opinion, on a K20D) produce sharpness pictures equivalent and if not better than the other two it is also extreamly usable at F1.4 not to mention being cheaper than both of the other ones, meaning i wont cry as much if it gets stolen/dropped/damaged in anyway. i have now sold my FA35, and thinking of selling my FA43. dont believe the hype, the differences are very hard to pinpoint.

08-03-2008, 04:47 PM	#4
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100 Original Poster	Originally posted by Stratario I recommend FA 43 Ltd. It's better than FA 35 and FA 50. Well, I am trying to keep the price down a bit, otherwise the 31 would be at the top of the list. Thanks for the feedback. I've pretty much narrowed it down to these 2 previously mentioned, and at $199, the 1.4 looks very good, but I may enjoy the 50mm FOV of the 35 for $100 more, but I may miss the 1.4.

08-03-2008, 05:29 PM	#5
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Inside or outside use. That's what I ask? Subjects? Venues? I find the FA 50mm 1.4 to be excellent, but too long for indoor use, especially on portraits (or partials). I am tripping over furniture to frame things. I can't take a step back right out a window. And, at 1.4, I am seeing some very sharply defined noses but a lot of fuzzy ears. After awhile, the lack of depth is a problem. Also, fast as it is, sometimes I must use a flash, negating a lot of that speed advantage, but improving my DOF as I stop down to accommodate. I have tried a 35mm and I think it will do fine for my indoor prime. I, too, dream of the 31 Ltd. (or the new lens on the roadmap), but it's a financial step too far. The 50mm will be ideal outside "people" prime because it's the right length, price and is very sharp. I am often chasing a little kid with the thing, so there's also the fact that the longer the focal length, the farther away from my subject. Not always a good thing when they run away and you have to chase them. I figure every 10mm in focal length is a 2 year-old's 3 step head start! That's my rationale for making the same decision you are posed with. I hope it helps. Originally posted by varnco Well, I am trying to keep the price down a bit, otherwise the 31 would be at the top of the list. Thanks for the feedback. I've pretty much narrowed it down to these 2 previously mentioned, and at $199, the 1.4 looks very good, but I may enjoy the 50mm FOV of the 35 for $100 more, but I may miss the 1.4.

08-03-2008, 05:45 PM	#7
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100 Original Poster	I figure most of my shots will be indoor, where light is limited as is space, and fast lens is needed. I am a bit worried about the DOF at 1.4... I run into problems sometimes now with my 77 at 1.8. Looks like I'm leaning towards the 35

08-03-2008, 05:48 PM	#8
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100 Original Poster	Originally posted by Gooshin as someone that owns all 3, i find the 50 most used not only does it (in my opinion, on a K20D) produce sharpness pictures equivalent and if not better than the other two it is also extreamly usable at F1.4 not to mention being cheaper than both of the other ones, meaning i wont cry as much if it gets stolen/dropped/damaged in anyway. i have now sold my FA35, and thinking of selling my FA43. dont believe the hype, the differences are very hard to pinpoint. How is it that you use the 1.4? Indoors or mostly out? That's one of the items Im struggling with, having the 77 limited I have a long(er) prime already.

08-03-2008, 07:00 PM	#9
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Since you already have the 77/1.8, better just get a 35/2 so you'd cover abit wider angle. Both 50/1.4 and 35/2 are great performer, you can't go wrong w/ either one. But I think 35-77 combo is better than 50-77. Cheers!

08-03-2008, 07:31 PM	#10
sabarrett Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 270	How about the Sigma 30/1.4? Its obviously more money, but you would get the speed.

08-03-2008, 07:52 PM	#11
TourDeForce Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 514	Originally posted by varnco I figure most of my shots will be indoor, where light is limited as is space, and fast lens is needed. I am a bit worried about the DOF at 1.4... I run into problems sometimes now with my 77 at 1.8. Looks like I'm leaning towards the 35 You don't HAVE to shoot at 1.4. Just stop the thing down and you'll be fine. If you find a situation where only 1.4 will do, then a slower lens will most certainly NOT solve that problem. I have an FA 1.4 and typically shoot at f/3.5 or above. It is GREAT for a portrait lens even indoors. If you're shooting candids at a party or sup'm like that, then a shorter focal length is in order, but for portraiture the 75mm equivalent focal length is nearly ideal. Besides, at under $200 the 1.4 is easy to obtain, and easy to re-sell if it doesn't fit your needs. The more expensive lenses limit your resale market. Considered a zoom to find what focal length you use most? How 'bout renting a few of the top contenders to test them heads up? Finally, if you're not taking pictures for a living, or even if you are, have you considered a good zoom? Some offer IQ very near the primes with LOTS of flexability. I've been playing with a Power-Zoom 28-105mm that is just fantastic. It's heavy as hell, but I have yet to be let down by this lens in terms of IQ. It even offers a bit of contrast & punch that many highly reguarded lenses lack. Despite its weight it may find a permanent home in my bag.

08-03-2008, 08:44 PM	#12
Steinback Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: GTA, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,673	I'm currently trying to find an FA 35 in Canada. I already have an M50 F2, a Super Takumar 50 F1.4 and an SMC Tak 55 F1.8, so as much as I would like an autofocussing 50mm I really don't need a 4th lens in that focal range. The 50s I have work well for portraits and outdoor work but I've found them to be too long for my taste when I'm shooting at parties or other tighter location where I can't necessarily take a couple of steps back to frame. I've also considered the Sigma 28 F1.8 for somewhere around $300 but its another lens that I haven't been able to find stocked so I can take a look at it before buying.

08-03-2008, 09:01 PM	#13
TourDeForce Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 514	Originally posted by Steinback The 50s I have work well for portraits and outdoor work but I've found them to be too long for my taste when I'm shooting at parties or other tighter location where I can't necessarily take a couple of steps back to frame. Same gripe I have with the 50, it's limiting in a 'candids' situation. For that you need a short zoom, I think. Originally posted by Steinback I've also considered the Sigma 28 F1.8 for somewhere around $300 but its another lens that I haven't been able to find stocked so I can take a look at it before buying. I actually was looking to buy one of those myself. If you have to have a prime, the 30mm EX 1.8 might be a consideration too. I gave up on the wider primes because... I solved the 50mm for protraits & buying additional shorter lenses problem by picking up a Sigma 17-70mm. It sees the most time on my camera these days, until I get out the gear for pro gigs. Then the 50 sees service along with the Tamron 70-300 LD Di, and the ancient 135mm Vivitar manual lens. Yes, I still use that old warhoarse!

08-04-2008, 07:49 AM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by varnco How is it that you use the 1.4? Indoors or mostly out? That's one of the items Im struggling with, having the 77 limited I have a long(er) prime already. you use 1.4 when wnat a really thin DOF for specialized portrait work. i use my 50mm between 2.0 and 4.0 like the other guy said, you dont have to use it at 1.4, but if you need to, you can! also personaly i find my 43 lackluster until 2.8 + so