Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2018, 02:56 PM   #46
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,566
QuoteOriginally posted by RKKS08 Quote
I used the M 2/50 a lot in the early 1980s, and it is quite good at F4, and tak sharp at F 5.6-11.
Any difference to lenses 20 times the price will show in real life pictures only with pixel peeping., if at all.
I have a 'M' 50 f/2 which was kitted with the ME/SE I purchased in 1979.
I have a 'A' 50 f/1.7 which was kitted with the Super Program I purchased four years later.

I still have both lenses, but the lubricant in the 'A' 50 f/1.7 seems to be giving out because the focus ring is becoming very stiff. I usually shoot at f/5.6 or narrower aperture; are you saying that I could use the 'M' 50 f/2 and I would notice virtually no difference? {that could save me some real money}

09-09-2018, 04:13 PM - 1 Like   #47
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,505
Original Poster
So I've got some of the lenses that have been discussed and I noticed something; the F 50 1.7 and M 50 1.4 seem to be the same height. So I did this little sloppy test;



I wanted to compare the lenses about how they would actually be installed on whatever camera I'm using. So for the M 40 on the left, it has the DA 40 Ltd hood installed with a film can cap installed. Then the F 50 1.7 with the thin caps that have been on FA and DA lenses. Finally the M 50 1.4. I'd probably use a UV filter on the 50's, honestly, but this is still a valid comparison as the "winner" would get the same filter, making it a wash.

From what I can tell using just eyesight, the F 50 1.7 is at most a single millimeter shorter than the M 50 1.4. All lenses are at their shortest via focusing them to infinity.

Is the M 50 1.7 any shorter than either the F 50 1.7 or the M 50 1.4?

p.s. great work on that F series focus ring, Pentax, really nice work there, it's almost usable.
p.s.s. I'm not buying an A 50 1.7 when M 50 1.7's are cheaper and more sturdy and good lord people I've already stated this.
09-09-2018, 04:32 PM - 1 Like   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,307
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
So I've got some of the lenses that have been discussed and I noticed something; the F 50 1.7 and M 50 1.4 seem to be the same height. So I did this little sloppy test;



I wanted to compare the lenses about how they would actually be installed on whatever camera I'm using. So for the M 40 on the left, it has the DA 40 Ltd hood installed with a film can cap installed. Then the F 50 1.7 with the thin caps that have been on FA and DA lenses. Finally the M 50 1.4. I'd probably use a UV filter on the 50's, honestly, but this is still a valid comparison as the "winner" would get the same filter, making it a wash.

From what I can tell using just eyesight, the F 50 1.7 is at most a single millimeter shorter than the M 50 1.4. All lenses are at their shortest via focusing them to infinity.

Is the M 50 1.7 any shorter than either the F 50 1.7 or the M 50 1.4?

p.s. great work on that F series focus ring, Pentax, really nice work there, it's almost usable.
p.s.s. I'm not buying an A 50 1.7 when M 50 1.7's are cheaper and more sturdy and good lord people I've already stated this.
The M 50 1.7 (A50 1.7) is considerably shorter than the M 50 1.4. About the difference of 2 lens filters. (Iíll try to upload a comparison photo later tonight)
09-09-2018, 05:40 PM - 2 Likes   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,307
Here's a quick 50mm comparison.

From Left to Right: M50 f/2; A50 f/2; A50 f/1.7; M50 f/1.7; M50 f/1.4 and K55 f/1.8

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K10D  Photo 
09-09-2018, 06:41 PM   #50
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,505
Original Poster
That's awesome! From here it looks like the 50 1.7's and 50 2.0's are all pretty close to each other, with the thinnest being the A 50 f2 and the thickest (surprisingly) being the M 50 f2.

I think that settles it, that unless there's something from the 3rd party lens manufacturers that hasn't been mentioned yet, an M 50 1.7 would be my best bet. I'll give up 1mm for the increase in light grabbing and general IQ wide open.
09-09-2018, 07:04 PM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,307
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
That's awesome! From here it looks like the 50 1.7's and 50 2.0's are all pretty close to each other, with the thinnest being the A 50 f2 and the thickest (surprisingly) being the M 50 f2.

I think that settles it, that unless there's something from the 3rd party lens manufacturers that hasn't been mentioned yet, an M 50 1.7 would be my best bet. I'll give up 1mm for the increase in light grabbing and general IQ wide open.
The M50 1.7 is one of my all time favorite lenses. It renders great wide open and has a very nice smooth bokeh.
09-10-2018, 04:11 AM   #52
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,805
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
That's awesome! From here it looks like the 50 1.7's and 50 2.0's are all pretty close to each other, with the thinnest being the A 50 f2 and the thickest (surprisingly) being the M 50 f2.
They are not all focussed at infinity. According to the lens database they are all 31mm long
09-10-2018, 05:27 AM   #53
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,093
QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
Some of the numerous Chinon 50s are very good.
I like my Auto Chinon 50mm F/1.9. Got it off eBay for $4 plus $12 shipping. I don't use it much because I have too many lenses in the 40-60mm range, but it's hard to beat a $16 lens.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
09-10-2018, 05:42 AM   #54
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,805
The chinon's are optically great en well behaved. Build quality is a little less than Pentax. They are not as short though. It is customary for legacy nifty fifties F1.7/8 to F2 to have a receded front element so the lens body acts as a hood. Pentax didn't do that with the m and a series, making the lens shorter.
09-10-2018, 07:00 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lawrence, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,505
Original Poster
Yeah, my plan is to employ a couple step down rings to make a really ugly version of the DA 40 Ltd's hood that is also functional. Thinking a final opening of about 40mm should be large enough in diameter to not vignette.
09-10-2018, 09:11 AM   #56
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1,229
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I usually shoot at f/5.6 or narrower aperture; are you saying that I could use the 'M' 50 f/2 and I would notice virtually no difference?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s I was shooting nearly every weekend on parties. From December 1981 on I used a ME Super with the M2.0/50 and Metz flashes. At that time the auto mode of affordable flashes were restricted to the use of 2-4 different aperture values, depending on ISO of the film. I know that during this time I only used F5.6 with ISO100 color negative film. Of several pictures I sold poster size prints, which were at least good enough (I had no comparison to Leica shots). After I bought a Super A in 1984/85, I used this with the A1.4/50 for the same purpose, also @F5.6, and never had the impression that the pictures were sharper.
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
That's awesome! From here it looks like the 50 1.7's and 50 2.0's are all pretty close to each other
As I said in a previous post, the M2/50 and the M1.7/50 share the same tubus (in respect to outside dimensions). But because of the added glass the front lens of the 1.7 is much nearer to the front ring, so it is better not to use this lens without hood. The front lens of the 2.0 sits much deeper in the tubus, which makes - apart from extreme light situations - a lens hood redundant.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ad, camera & lens, f2, film camera, k-mount, lens, lens combo, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro Thin Red Stems Dewman Post Your Photos! 5 10-23-2019 08:14 PM
When did "shallow" become "thin"? p38arover General Photography 45 03-12-2017 01:02 PM
Q7 + 06: Thin enough to make it through concert security? aragarthiel Pentax Q 6 12-25-2016 10:02 PM
Weekly Challenge #246 The thin slice jmschrei Weekly Photo Challenges 29 06-13-2013 10:58 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats. pasipasi Post Your Photos! 12 08-28-2008 04:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top