50 f/1,4 vs 50-135 f/2,8

silent_eyes · 09-14-2008, 11:25 AM

I'm thinking of getting this SMC FA 50 f/1,4 - but... as I understand, it's quite soft wide open, so I guess I'll be mostly using it at f/2,8 of f/4 for portraits, and here's my problem - I have 50-135 which is great at 50mm and f/2,8 so - do I need new lens, if I'm going to be using it at same length and aparture as my 50-135...

Igilligan · 09-14-2008, 11:38 AM

Size * size * size

My Tamy 28-75 is my go to constant 2.8 zoom, but it is heavy and large compared to the FA-50... If you never need a small lens or do not want the artzy 1.4 Dof then you could get away with the 50-135.

You might consider the FA 35 or DA 35 since they are also nice at F2 and F2.8, and a bit wider for a different perspective than just duplicating the 50mm of the 50-135

Or just pick up a used A or M 50 1.4...

innershell · 09-14-2008, 11:53 AM

Ditto! The FA50/1.4 is the smallest lens in my bag. Nothing comes smaller other than a pancake lens, which is convenient at times.

**sinus007** · 09-14-2008, 11:53 AM

Hi silent eyes,
I have both and use both. Yes, FA50 is on the soft side wide open. I use it for inside shots of people when/where a flash isn't the best solution therefore F1.4 is a must. Also, of course, size does matter. Sometimes when I chage to FA50, the first thought: did I put a lens on? - sure, idiot, how else could you see the subject

Gooshin · 09-14-2008, 11:58 AM

if you will never shoot above 2.8, get the 50-135

the FA50 F1.4 should only be conisdered if you WILL shoot at below 2.8 for whatever reason.

and its not a matter of beign "soft", its a matter of having no depth of field, and really making your objects within 10 feet of you pop out.

silent_eyes · 09-14-2008, 12:26 PM

hm, this is all true, size is not really that important since I'd be using it mainly for portraits, studio and outdoors, but not street or something that versatile... I was thinking that DoF that shallow like 50 @ f/1,4 is not really usable, so I'd be using it around 2-2,8 anyway, and if I really need more shallow DoF, I can simply zoom towards 135mm end on my 50-135... I guess I'll do some testing with it first... thanx guys

qksilver · 09-14-2008, 02:19 PM

yeah its all about the shallow dof. but if you nail a shot you nail it. even at 1.4 I have both the 50-135 and the 50 1.4 It is a great lens for 200 bucks, or wait for a rebate and end up paying 150 for it, you cant go wrong.

here are some shots at 1.4

Here is a shot a 2.0

roentarre · 09-14-2008, 02:22 PM

If you are after convinience and sharpness, Da* 50-135 is the one to go for.

nulla · 09-14-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

If you are after convinience and sharpness, Da* 50-135 is the one to go for.

Agree there....

How long to go for yours James?

Neil

silent_eyes · 09-14-2008, 05:44 PM

well, I guess that's it - I'm not going to buy 50 1,4... I think I'll use that money either for some more mem. cards or portable hard drive

50-135 is just fine for portrait work

hm... I think this is the first time for me that I actually decided NOT to buy a new lens

Igilligan · 09-14-2008, 06:29 PM

Seriously... pick up an M or an A 50 1.4...... they can be found fairly cheap. I got a M42 S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 for 35 bucks at a camera swap. That would give you the Shallow Dof and lowlight options with MF and in the end in real low light you would use MF on the FA 50 anyway....

I have had a lot of fun with the MF 50 1.4 and I actually like it better than my FA 50... but shhhhhh, dont tell the FAnatics

silent_eyes · 09-15-2008, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Igilligan

Seriously... pick up an M or an A 50 1.4...... they can be found fairly cheap. I got a M42 S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 for 35 bucks at a camera swap. That would give you the Shallow Dof and lowlight options with MF and in the end in real low light you would use MF on the FA 50 anyway....

I have had a lot of fun with the MF 50 1.4 and I actually like it better than my FA 50... but shhhhhh, dont tell the FAnatics

actually, I do own super carenar 50mm f/1,9 which is quite nice, and pentax m 50 f/1,7 but I find manual focusing without split-screen a major pain in the butt... so, since DoF is next to none at f/1,4 through 2,0 - I'd like an autofocus 50 for portraits...

Miserere · 09-15-2008, 01:41 PM

A few things:

I don't know your level as a photographer, but I'm willing to bet you're not good enough to be able to criticise the "softness" of the FA 50 at f/1.4 (I think maybe 2 people in this whole forum can do that, and I am not one of them).
Your depth of field will not decrease when you zoom in to 135mm anymore than if you took a few steps forward with a 50mm. Perspective, however, will.
DoF at f/1.4 is NON-non-existent, meaning it DOES exist, and can be very useful, as qksilver's portraits have demonstrated.
The FA 50mm is not only a portrait lens. I have used it in low light to capture live bands...at f/1.4. When you're standing 3-4 meters away, there is plenty DoF.

sewebster · 09-15-2008, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

A few things:[*]I don't know your level as a photographer, but I'm willing to bet you're not good enough to be able to criticise the "softness" of the FA 50 at f/1.4 (I think maybe 2 people in this whole forum can do that, and I am not one of them).

I don't think I agree with this, here are samples at f/1.4 and f/5.6. 1.4 is clearly softer to me, especially nearer to the sides. Of course, I don't think it really matters too much, but it is fairly noticeable. Unless my lens is just busted.

EDIT: removed my images, as I think they were just cluttering this thread, see discussion later if you really care.

Gooshin · 09-15-2008, 02:08 PM

FA50 @ F1.4

sharpness/softness is a relative thing

also, @ F1.4, you really got to know where you are focusing....

09-14-2008, 11:25 AM	#1
silent_eyes Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 80	50 f/1,4 vs 50-135 f/2,8 I'm thinking of getting this SMC FA 50 f/1,4 - but... as I understand, it's quite soft wide open, so I guess I'll be mostly using it at f/2,8 of f/4 for portraits, and here's my problem - I have 50-135 which is great at 50mm and f/2,8 so - do I need new lens, if I'm going to be using it at same length and aparture as my 50-135...

09-14-2008, 06:29 PM	#11
Igilligan Guest	Dont give up yet.... Seriously... pick up an M or an A 50 1.4...... they can be found fairly cheap. I got a M42 S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 for 35 bucks at a camera swap. That would give you the Shallow Dof and lowlight options with MF and in the end in real low light you would use MF on the FA 50 anyway.... I have had a lot of fun with the MF 50 1.4 and I actually like it better than my FA 50... but shhhhhh, dont tell the FAnatics

09-15-2008, 01:41 PM	#13
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	A few things: I don't know your level as a photographer, but I'm willing to bet you're not good enough to be able to criticise the "softness" of the FA 50 at f/1.4 (I think maybe 2 people in this whole forum can do that, and I am not one of them). Your depth of field will not decrease when you zoom in to 135mm anymore than if you took a few steps forward with a 50mm. Perspective, however, will. DoF at f/1.4 is NON-non-existent, meaning it DOES exist, and can be very useful, as qksilver's portraits have demonstrated. The FA 50mm is not only a portrait lens. I have used it in low light to capture live bands...at f/1.4. When you're standing 3-4 meters away, there is plenty DoF.

09-15-2008, 01:56 PM	#14
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Originally posted by Miserere A few things:[]I don't know your level as a photographer, but I'm willing to bet you're not good enough to be able to criticise the "softness" of the FA 50 at f/1.4 (I think maybe 2 people in this whole forum can do that, and I am not one of them). I don't think I agree with this, here are samples at f/1.4 and f/5.6. 1.4 is clearly softer to me, especially nearer to the sides. Of course, I don't think it really matters too much, but it is fairly noticeable. Unless my lens is just busted. EDIT: removed my images, as I think they were just cluttering this thread, see discussion later if you really care. Last edited by sewebster; 09-15-2008 at 02:30 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chinon 135 & Chinar 135 , Good Bad or Ugly	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	02-26-2010 09:03 PM
shoot out DA50-135 v.s. A50 A85 A100 A*135	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	12-11-2008 10:44 AM

09-14-2008, 11:38 AM	#2
Igilligan Guest	Size * size * size My Tamy 28-75 is my go to constant 2.8 zoom, but it is heavy and large compared to the FA-50... If you never need a small lens or do not want the artzy 1.4 Dof then you could get away with the 50-135. You might consider the FA 35 or DA 35 since they are also nice at F2 and F2.8, and a bit wider for a different perspective than just duplicating the 50mm of the 50-135 Or just pick up a used A or M 50 1.4...

09-14-2008, 11:53 AM	#3
innershell Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 408	Ditto! The FA50/1.4 is the smallest lens in my bag. Nothing comes smaller other than a pancake lens, which is convenient at times.

09-14-2008, 11:53 AM	#4
sinus007 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Hi silent eyes, I have both and use both. Yes, FA50 is on the soft side wide open. I use it for inside shots of people when/where a flash isn't the best solution therefore F1.4 is a must. Also, of course, size does matter. Sometimes when I chage to FA50, the first thought: did I put a lens on? - sure, idiot, how else could you see the subject

09-14-2008, 11:58 AM	#5
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	if you will never shoot above 2.8, get the 50-135 the FA50 F1.4 should only be conisdered if you WILL shoot at below 2.8 for whatever reason. and its not a matter of beign "soft", its a matter of having no depth of field, and really making your objects within 10 feet of you pop out.

09-14-2008, 12:26 PM	#6
silent_eyes Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 80 Original Poster	hm, this is all true, size is not really that important since I'd be using it mainly for portraits, studio and outdoors, but not street or something that versatile... I was thinking that DoF that shallow like 50 @ f/1,4 is not really usable, so I'd be using it around 2-2,8 anyway, and if I really need more shallow DoF, I can simply zoom towards 135mm end on my 50-135... I guess I'll do some testing with it first... thanx guys

09-14-2008, 02:19 PM	#7
qksilver Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 131	yeah its all about the shallow dof. but if you nail a shot you nail it. even at 1.4 I have both the 50-135 and the 50 1.4 It is a great lens for 200 bucks, or wait for a rebate and end up paying 150 for it, you cant go wrong. here are some shots at 1.4 Here is a shot a 2.0

09-14-2008, 02:22 PM	#8
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	If you are after convinience and sharpness, Da* 50-135 is the one to go for.

09-14-2008, 03:57 PM	#9
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Quote: If you are after convinience and sharpness, Da* 50-135 is the one to go for. Agree there.... How long to go for yours James? Neil

09-14-2008, 05:44 PM	#10
silent_eyes Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 80 Original Poster	well, I guess that's it - I'm not going to buy 50 1,4... I think I'll use that money either for some more mem. cards or portable hard drive 50-135 is just fine for portrait work hm... I think this is the first time for me that I actually decided NOT to buy a new lens

09-15-2008, 12:11 PM	#12
silent_eyes Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 80 Original Poster	Originally posted by Igilligan Seriously... pick up an M or an A 50 1.4...... they can be found fairly cheap. I got a M42 S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 for 35 bucks at a camera swap. That would give you the Shallow Dof and lowlight options with MF and in the end in real low light you would use MF on the FA 50 anyway.... I have had a lot of fun with the MF 50 1.4 and I actually like it better than my FA 50... but shhhhhh, dont tell the FAnatics actually, I do own super carenar 50mm f/1,9 which is quite nice, and pentax m 50 f/1,7 but I find manual focusing without split-screen a major pain in the butt... so, since DoF is next to none at f/1,4 through 2,0 - I'd like an autofocus 50 for portraits...

09-15-2008, 02:08 PM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	FA50 @ F1.4 sharpness/softness is a relative thing also, @ F1.4, you really got to know where you are focusing....