[edom31]

Anyone out there having either a K, M, A, F series 1.4 and 1.7, and actually prefer the 1.7 over the 1.4?

Not talking about use/handling only, but rather overall performance/results?

I am happy to own an F 1.7 and an A 1.4... use them both fully manual to not cheat. I cannot get over the fact that the results on the 1.7 are more to my delight. Sharper, more focused, better composition even!

I do find the 1.4 to be more troublesome to handle. I keep coming back tto it for indoor activity photograph (non-pro), and I always end up disenchanted, wishing to had used the f 1.7.

Anyone has any words of wisdom regarding the use of the 50mm 1.4?

[twilhelm]

I have the M 50 1.4 / 1.7 The A 50 1.7 the K 55 1.8 and a Takumar 55 1.8. The M 50 1.7 is the most used of the lot with the K 55 1.8 a close second. I prefer the rendering and handling overall of these two lenses.

The 1.4 is a tad faster and may be a bit sharper once stopped down a bit, but wide open the 1.7 and 1.8 win hands down.

[stevebrot]

Anyone out there having either a K, M, A, F series 1.4 and 1.7, and actually prefer the 1.7 over the 1.4?

Yes


Steve

[clackers]

Sharper, more focused, better composition even!

"Better composition"?

[GUB]

I tend towards the A1.7 as my bread an butter lens. Just seems to be a better package than my various 1.4s technically wise. Another thing to consider is that on FF the 1.4s have such a shallow dof that you are forced to stop down a click or two. (Thinking portraiture here). That leaves you with iris shaped (hexagon etc) highlights. Whereas the 1.7 may be able to run wide open and so circular smoother bokeh.

[pepperberry farm]

and I find myself in the minority here: I much prefer my A50/1.4 over the A50/1.7; I like the rendering and clarity over the 1.7, the easier handling of the 1.4, and I love the option of that razor-thin DOF....

[Kozlok]

I too prefer the 1.7. I only ever had the traveling nifty fifty, but loved it. In my opinion, if you like the F1.7, you will love the FA43. I think they have similar looks.

[edom31]

"Better composition"?

Yep it sounds overly idiotic, but the comfortability the 1.7 lens offers makes me compose my photos better - that's what was meant...

[lytrytyr]

Anyone has any words of wisdom regarding the use of the 50mm 1.4?

With manual focus, faster lenses tend to be easier to focus accurately.

I generally did better with my M 50/1.4 than I did with my 55/1.8 Takumar.

[ChristianRock]

I have an M 50 1.4 that was donated to me due to having iris issues (very slow). I think it has its merits wide open almost like a semi-soft lens - soft in a flattering way with great colors and rendering. So it can have its uses for artistic purposes.
The M 50 1.7 on the other hand is just a great lens, and I've had the A 50 1.7 and still have the F 50 1.7 and they're very very close but not quite the same (and I've had two M 50 1.7 lenses and they were both superb so I know it's not just my one copy of the M 50 1.7). So I agree that the 50 1.7 is a better lens as a whole, and it is the one I would reach out for... and sometimes the K 55 f2 would be used for its wonderful rendering stopped down.

...until the Rikenon P 50 1.4 came in and now the other 50s became almost obsolete (except the F 50 1.7 that is used for its AF in family outings, and the M 50 f4 Macro, another recent addition, that gets used when macro will be needed and ends up staying on the camera for other 50mm type shots...) The Rikenon P 50 1.4 is sharp wide open and its color and rendering, while different form Pentax, are still very nice.

So my excellent M 50 1.7 has not seen much use... nor has the excellent K 55 f2 and the still otherwise very useful M 50 1.4... if I have to point to one all-around great 50, I'll point to the Rikenon P. I had the XR version and I have to say it's nowhere near as good as the P, the P is a different optical formula and coatings and is just in another league.

Some examples from the Rikenon P (on APS-C):

f1.4


f2 (notice the semi-rounded 8-blade iris has great highlights even stopped down! no sawblade bokeh here, no sir!)


f2.8


f5.6


One more to showcase the stopped down bokeh... I think this was f4, I'm not sure anymore.

[monochrome]

I own a large number of manual 50’s from f/1.2 - f/2. As someone else noted above, since I OVF focus on K-1, I prefer the larger aperture lenses stopped down a bit to the smaller aperture lenses in most circumstances. I rarely shoot a 50 wide open. If I want background blur of a central subject that fills half the frame, with a 50 I am too close to the subject for comfort. I use an 85 or 105 and stand 10 or more feet away for that. If I want a wider view I’m stopped down to f/5.6 anyway, where the various lenses are indistinguishable.

But that’s just me.


* I shouldn’t have sold that Rikenon.

[Just1MoreDave]

I had the same pair as the OP, the A50/1.4 and the F50/1.7. The A50/1.4 was more of a challenge. If I kept the character of the lens in mind when shooting, I got good shots. Maybe the extra attention makes me remember some shots more. I could sometimes take advantage of the softness at f1.4 or the extra aperture blades. The F50/1.7 has more consistent performance, so I don't remember working as hard, except to use the crappy focus ring.

I don't think I would own both lenses today. With my *ist DS, that extra half stop was essential, and AF was spotty enough to not be that useful. But with a K5, I just raise ISO and let AF work.

[stevebrot]

* I shouldn’t have sold that Rikenon.

Which is why I won't sell my Rikenons...perhaps one of the 50/2 XRs, but not the M42s...


Steve

[WPRESTO]

I noticed someone above liked the Rikenon 50mm f1.4. I went to a lot of trouble getting one when I was using a Ricoh XRM. It was mechanically really beautiful - ultra-silky smooth focusing ring - but I found the IQ consistently disappointing. Maybe I had a bad copy. FYI: back when the f1.7 was introduced in some magazine tests & comparisons it was called the "sharpness champ" of the Pentax normal FL lens offerings, with the f2 the "bargain" and the f1.4 the "speed champ" if you needed some extra aperture regularly. Given thirty or forty images taken with these three lenses stopped to common apertures, f4 to f9.5 or so, I doubt very much that anyone could consistently tell which lens was used to take which image, although they might pick out one confidently because "that was (or was-not) taken with X because of the highlight shapes."

[ChristianRock]

I noticed someone above liked the Rikenon 50mm f1.4. I went to a lot of trouble getting one when I was using a Ricoh XRM. It was mechanically really beautiful - ultra-silky smooth focusing ring - but I found the IQ consistently disappointing. Maybe I had a bad copy.

There's no comparison between the XR (which I assume you got with your XRM) and the P. Totally different lenses - looking into the glass, the elements are different sizes, the coatings look totally different also.

The XR was horrible wide open and only ok at f2. I didn't mind using it at f2 though because the colors were nice. I only compared it with my M 50 1.7 and the Rikenon XR 50 1.7 (the latter two being very similar in performance) and the Rikenon XR only caught up with the other two by f5.6.

This is the XR 50 1.4 wide open:



The redeeming quality of the XR was that it focused closer (I think around 1:5 or 0.2) while the P focuses identical to the Pentax 50s (0.17). It doesn't seem much of a difference but it is helpful for flower closeups. The XR also handles better - all metal construction while the P has some plastic. And the focus ring on the XR is one of the most delicious things I've ever had my hands on. I'm sure most of you know what I mean...

By the way, if anyone wants a Rikenon XR 50 1.4 that is stuck at wide open, they can have mine... I don't see myself using it as is. Once it's fixed, it's a lens with lovely rendering stopped down. Just don't use it wide open unless you want some unpredictable results

I rarely shoot a 50 wide open.

Which is probably why you sold me the Rikenon

* I shouldn’t have sold that Rikenon.

I'm thankful that you did

---------- Post added 04-04-18 at 03:15 PM ----------

As for the Pentax-M 50 1.7 vs 1.4 comparisons, here's a shot wide open from each:

50 1.4


50 1.7


Pixel peeping reveals that 1.7 to be much sharper in the in-focus area, even on a K10D.., I've taken a lot of shots with both wide open so I hope y'all don't need convincing But the 50 1.4 still has this almost magical quality to it. And stopped down, both are tack sharp but I think I like the 1.4 colors a bit better. Not that the 1.7 isn't great in bokeh and color. They're both great lenses.