[emsee]

Could anyone share the experience on Pentax FA 50mm F1.4 on K1? I used FA 50mm F1.4 long time ago (when I bought my first DSLR - K20D). After using it for a couple of months, I sold it to fund for my next lens purchase - 43mm limited.

I am seeing that the FA 50mm 1.4 is around $300 (or even less) and with the new D-FA 50mm F1.4 coming, Pentax might be getting rid of the remaining inventory.

Based on what I know (or read in various forums), the FA 50mm F1.4 is less sharp and contrasty below F2 and around F2.8 onwards it is much better. May be it was decided to get this 'magical' or 'dreamy' look

-Emsee

[AussieTrev]

I have one but don't use it a lot on the K-1, more due to having the new D FA 24-70 and using that all the time.

The FA 50 is sometimes called the nifty 50 and is an excellent lens. For more information I'd suggest reading the lens reviews and then the in depth review linked within.

SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4 Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Hope this helps.

[stevebrot]

I am seeing that the FA 50mm 1.4 is around $300 (or even less) and with the new D-FA 50mm F1.4 coming, Pentax might be getting rid of the remaining inventory.

That is a reasonable deduction. However, while I don't follow pricing for that focal length (have tons of fast 50s), I don't believe that current pricing is unusually low ($350 list vs. $330 street). In 2007, list price had been stable for several years at its introductory price of $220 USD and fell to an all-time low of about $150 before it was pulled from the U.S. market. (It came back later at about its current price. Both the FA 50/1.4 and FA 35/2.0 have died and come back a couple of times.)

If you don't mind screw drive AF and traditional performance, the FA 50/1.4 is decent value. A used FA, F, A, or M 50/1.4 is even better value since all four are the same optically and differ only in terms of coating technology.


Steve

[kiwi_jono]

Well there are certainly good and bad points on this lens. Overall I find it a useful lens on the K-1.
Some of this (like bokeh) is subjective but here is my take...

Good points:
* Very useful focal length on K-1
* Very small and light for a fast FF lens - its always in my bag!
* Very sharp stopped down from f5.6 and pretty sharp from f2.8
* Good bokeh from about f2
* Good value

Bad points:
* It is a bit soft wide open - although this can be good
* Contrast wide open is fairly low (but PP can fix that)
* To my eyes I'm not a big fan of the bokeh at f1.4 (but for close focus scenarios can be good)

Close focus bokeh (which is not too bad in this scenario:


Oh and I just wanted to add (since someone mentioned it) the FA35 F2 is a lovely lens on the K-1. Definitely my most used lens on the K-1. I found the FA35 quite useful on the K-5 but on the K-1 it really comes into its own. What surprised me the most is that on average the bokeh is much better (smoother) that it was when I used it on the K-5 - at least partly due to needing closer focusing distances on the K-1 for the same framing.

---

Last edited by kiwi_jono; 03-18-2017 at 07:17 PM.

[MadMathMind]

I tried it for a bit. I found it to be middling in detail and resolution. The midtone contrast, in particular, seems to be lacking and it really lacks that detailed punch. It's not the worst lens ever but it's definitely not a perfect pairing for a K-1, which deserves more. Finally Ricoh will give us the DFA* to remedy that hole.

This said, for its price, it's fine. It's not a very expensive lens so the expectations shouldn't be stratospheric. What @stevebot says about "traditional performance" is a nice way to put it. It's just very ordinary.

[Adam]

We're going to be a comparative review of the FA 50mm and the D FA* 50mm when it comes out.

Being based on an old optical design that favors compactness over IQ, the FA 50mm obviously makes some compromises, but I think it will still have room in the lineup until a cheap full frame 50 is released.

[robthebloke]

If you still have the FA43, you're all good. Some people whinge about that lens, but I honestly don't understand why. It's my most used lens on the k-1 - almost as if they designed the k-1 around it. The FA50 isn't bad, but aside from a larger aperture, it has no redeeming features compared to the 43.

If, like me, and everyone who has ever used both lenses, you preferred the 43 back then, you're still going to prefer the 43 now on FF.

[stevebrot]

What @stevebot says about "traditional performance" is a nice way to put it. It's just very ordinary.

Yes, nice and also very accurate. The performance is "traditional" in the sense that its design is, well, "traditional" and follows the conventions for lenses of that class going back some 55 years. Almost all Japanese 50/55/58mm f/1.4 lenses have similar design (traceable to Zeiss Planar) and most have similar performance characteristics. Those include being fairly soft with lower contrast wide open and decent sharpness a few stops down.


Steve

[ivanvernon]

We're going to be a comparative review of the FA 50mm and the D FA* 50mm when it comes out.

Being based on an old optical design that favors compactness over IQ, the FA 50mm obviously makes some compromises, but I think it will still have room in the lineup until a cheap full frame 50 is released.

I use the plastic DA 50mm (as well as the D FA 50 macro) on my K-1. I thought the DA 50 WAS the cheap full-frame 50. (I also use the D FA 50mm f 2.8 macro on the K-1, and with the K-1's shadow recovery the 2.8 maximum aperture is not a great handicap, but the D FA is not particularly cheap.) Now I am wondering in what ways a cheap full-frame 50 would be different from the DA?

[D1N0]

The FA 50 1.4 performs very well for a smallish 50+ years old design. It has great character and is sharp stopped down. The low contrast and softness flare wide open are great for portraiture and dreamy shots. It is certainly not an ordinary nifty fifty, but a great classic.

[emsee]

If you still have the FA43, you're all good. Some people whinge about that lens, but I honestly don't understand why. It's my most used lens on the k-1 - almost as if they designed the k-1 around it. The FA50 isn't bad, but aside from a larger aperture, it has no redeeming features compared to the 43.

If, like me, and everyone who has ever used both lenses, you preferred the 43 back then, you're still going to prefer the 43 now on FF.

No, I no longer has the FA 43mm F1.9 LTD. I sold it to fund for some of my other purchases (zoom lenses).

---------- Post added 03-19-17 at 10:56 AM ----------

Well there are certainly good and bad points on this lens. Overall I find it a useful lens on the K-1.
Some of this (like bokeh) is subjective but here is my take...

Good points:
* Very useful focal length on K-1
* Very small and light for a fast FF lens - its always in my bag!
* Very sharp stopped down from f5.6 and pretty sharp from f2.8
* Good bokeh from about f2
* Good value

Bad points:
* It is a bit soft wide open - although this can be good
* Contrast wide open is fairly low (but PP can fix that)
* To my eyes I'm not a big fan of the bokeh at f1.4 (but for close focus scenarios can be good)

Close focus bokeh (which is not too bad in this scenario:


Oh and I just wanted to add (since someone mentioned it) the FA35 F2 is a lovely lens on the K-1. Definitely my most used lens on the K-1. I found the FA35 quite useful on the K-5 but on the K-1 it really comes into its own. What surprised me the most is that on average the bokeh is much better (smoother) that it was when I used it on the K-5 - at least partly due to needing closer focusing distances on the K-1 for the same framing.

Interesting comments especially on FA 35mm. I see that FA 35mm is available from Ricoh/Pentax web store - Not from anyone else!!

[monochrome]

Interesting comments especially on FA 35mm. I see that FA 35mm is available from Ricoh/Pentax web store - Not from anyone else!!

FA35/2 is in the catalog in the USA (it is available for purchase by dealers here) but it appears no one is ordering it. Amazon has 2 in stock; RIAC's captive web vendor has the only other inventory.

[stevebrot]

Now I am wondering in what ways a cheap full-frame 50 would be different from the DA?

Perhaps with a somewhat larger image circle to allow better edge/corner performance and less vignette? I have used the DA 50/1.8 on 35mm film and was disappointed since I truly like the lens when paired with my K-3.

I anticipate that the eventual step-down fast 50 will by a compact D FA 50/1.7 with performance comparable to the FA, F, A, and M series equivalents.

FA35/2 is in the catalog in the USA (it is available for purchase by dealers here) but it appears no one is ordering it. Amazon has 2 in stock; RIAC's captive web vendor has the only other inventory.

I noticed that some months ago when the FA 35/2 reappeared on these shores and have been surprised that it remains unavailable through other outlets in N. America. One nice thing is that the pricing through the Pentax Web store is very competitive compared to its price before it last disappeared.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The FA 50 1.4 performs very well for a smallish 50+ years old design. It has great character and is sharp stopped down. The low contrast and softness flare wide open are great for portraiture and dreamy shots. It is certainly not an ordinary nifty fifty, but a great classic.

Apparently Nikon feels similarly about their equivalent design. They ask almost $500 USD for the manual focus Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS. Perhaps Pentax should bring back the comparable Pentax-K 50/1.4


Steve

[Adam]

I use the plastic DA 50mm (as well as the D FA 50 macro) on my K-1. I thought the DA 50 WAS the cheap full-frame 50. (I also use the D FA 50mm f 2.8 macro on the K-1, and with the K-1's shadow recovery the 2.8 maximum aperture is not a great handicap, but the D FA is not particularly cheap.) Now I am wondering in what ways a cheap full-frame 50 would be different from the DA?

The DA is a crop lens. It doesn't have any black corners on FF, so in many cases it works just fine, but the edge performance at wide apertures is really quite subpar on FF. Plus, there's a lot of vignetting.