[clackers]

Well, daylight clear exteriors won't happen unless I would detonate nukes in orbit as the mother of all flashbulbs ...

And I've been using a heavy tripod from the start with this type of shots.

I'm not sure you understand Post 12, DMB!

Landscape photographers blend separately exposed (and focused) shots all the time.

[dms]

Clackers suggestion would seem to be especially easy in this case as there is a region (about 3/4 way up) that is very dark across the entire image, so a crop there, and butt the two images against each other, and maybe slight blending at the crop line.

Also I looked at night images I did w/ takumar 50mm f/1.4 (which should be the same optical formulae as your K version, just not multi coated), and some with the SMC-M 50 mm f/1.7, and the 50mm f/1.7 is considerably better. Just don't have any good A vs B of the same scene--if I can get this I will post it.

Okay I was curious and did same scene with these two lenses, as follows. Except last one, they are 100% crop of left upper section, and last one is 100% crop of central section. The last one to check/verify the focus was OK--I used LV to check focus, and I looked at lens to verify it was set to infinity, but the image edge is quite a bit less sharp, hence I include a central section. The takumar is single coated, but I don't think that is the problem we are seeing (meaning about the smearing of the light with the 50mm f/1.4, not the lower resolution).

50mm f/1.7 wide open
50mm f/1.7 one click closed
50mm f/1.4 wide open
50mm f/1.4 one click closed
50mm f/1.4 wide open

BTW, (as an unrelated comment) although I saved these as medium quality jpg's, the artifacts due to the jpg compression are very obvious in the sky--while viewed as pro-photo there is none of this problem.

[DrMindbender]

I'm not sure you understand Post 12, DMB!

Landscape photographers blend separately exposed (and focused) shots all the time.

I know. I was just being snarky. However, the problem is that there is a semi-busy T intersection to the left of frame which results in annoying light painting of the scene with long exposures due to turning cars.

I really should see what my A 50mm/1.7 can do before I ask where I should throw my money around. The hoods and filters that came with it might achieve what I want better than a new lens. (Or fix the problem with A, F & FA lenses.)

[pres589]

DMB: What issue are you trying to fix with a filter?

dms: Interesting. Seems like that Tak 50 1.4 is pretty, well, soft wide open. I'm loving the performance, wide open, that I get with my M 50 1.7. I have wondered if that lens was made for black and white photography; with a step-down ring acting as a hood, and even with a UV filter screwed in to protect the front element, things are very nicely sharp in my experience with my specific copy of that lens.

[TwoUptons]

There was a review in Consumer Reports (a US consumer advocacy magazine) in 1967 or so that compared the then-current 50mm lenses across platforms.

If I remember it right (and I read it in a library years later) all of the ‘slightly slower’ 50mm lenses were sharper and with fewer aberrations than the f1.4s, regardless of whose they were. So the Pentax f1.8 of the era was better than the f1.4, for example, and the same was true for Nikon, Canon, and a couple others.

I’ll add the same was not true for the cheapest 50s from all brands; the amount of difference also varied and was nearly always gone by f4 or so.

My experiences have followed this throughout the film era (which explains the continued popularity of the F50 f1.7). It’s not been until recently that I think the sharpness of the 50 f1.4s wide open has really been a priority.

All that to say it’s no surprise to me that the f1.7 looks better here at f1.7... though the new DFA 50 f1.4 may do a bit better

-Eric

[clackers]

I know. I was just being snarky. However, the problem is that there is a semi-busy T intersection to the left of frame which results in annoying light painting of the scene with long exposures due to turning cars.

?

This isn't astrophotography, the exposure might be two seconds at ISO 100.

Just take ten shots, choose the best.

Changing lens won't do what you're hoping for, because the problem is the scene.

It has two components, and the setting for one doesn't suit the other.

[DrMindbender]

DMB: What issue are you trying to fix with a filter?

I'm also considering going to one extreme and try for the "windows in the dark" look. So I'm curious to see how my new polarising filter can aid that by eliminating the reflected light off of the cars.

---------- Post added 12-27-18 at 04:22 PM ----------

?

This isn't astrophotography, the exposure might be two seconds at ISO 100.

Just take ten shots, choose the best.

Changing lens won't do what you're hoping for, because the problem is the scene.

It has two components, and the setting for one doesn't suit the other.

Fair enough. Although, I should point out how long 2 seconds are during the dead of winter.

[clackers]

I'm also considering going to one extreme and try for the "windows in the dark" look. So I'm curious to see how my new polarising filter can aid that by eliminating the reflected light off of the cars.

Note that the polarizing filter will push your ISO up by double, maybe quadruple, before anything else happens. And those point light sources in the background may become unpredictable, including artefacts from the rear surface of the polarizer itself.

[reh321]

Well, daylight clear exteriors won't happen unless I would detonate nukes in orbit as the mother of all flashbulbs.

However, what I'm trying to do is to produce a sharper image. Eliminating the graininess is out of the question since I'm fairly certain now that I can't drop the ISO to 1600 with any lens and I won't have the funds for a new body in the time frame

What you are seeing as 'grain' is actually "noise".

When you do have money for a new camera body, I would suggest that you consider a K-70 {currently $600} or KP {better build quality - currently for $800}. These newest cameras don't come equipped with a "nuke", but I did push ISO to 25600 with virtually no noise.
Iso 25600! - PentaxForums.com

I lose some Dynamic Range at that ISO, which is why I asked about seeing interior of the car, but you would get a much better view of the exterior at that kind of value.

[pres589]

It would be kind of cool if somehow one of the really great photographers that post here (I'm not one of them) could somehow take a couple of these shots for him, using his equipment, to suss out the best method for trying to capture the images he's looking for. I don't think the K-5 is really the issue here vs. a newer body, right? I mean, ISO 3200 with that camera is not a noise fest normally. A better lens would probably help, like an FA 50 1.7, DA*55, or Sigma 50 EX DG, but maybe also a tripod and longer exposure time to allow a bit of lens stop-down.

I think there's been good suggestions in the thread but they're a bit scattered.

[ZombieArmy]

Clackers suggestion would seem to be especially easy in this case as there is a region (about 3/4 way up) that is very dark across the entire image, so a crop there, and butt the two images against each other, and maybe slight blending at the crop line.

Also I looked at night images I did w/ takumar 50mm f/1.4 (which should be the same optical formulae as your K version, just not multi coated), and some with the SMC-M 50 mm f/1.7, and the 50mm f/1.7 is considerably better. Just don't have any good A vs B of the same scene--if I can get this I will post it.

Okay I was curious and did same scene with these two lenses, as follows. Except last one, they are 100% crop of left upper section, and last one is 100% crop of central section. The last one to check/verify the focus was OK--I used LV to check focus, and I looked at lens to verify it was set to infinity, but the image edge is quite a bit less sharp, hence I include a central section. The takumar is single coated, but I don't think that is the problem we are seeing (meaning about the smearing of the light with the 50mm f/1.4, not the lower resolution).

50mm f/1.7 wide open
50mm f/1.7 one click closed
50mm f/1.4 wide open
50mm f/1.4 one click closed
50mm f/1.4 wide open

BTW, (as an unrelated comment) although I saved these as medium quality jpg's, the artifacts due to the jpg compression are very obvious in the sky--while viewed as pro-photo there is none of this problem.

This looks wrong to me. The tak might be this soft at 1.4 but there's no way it's this bad one click closed. Could be copy variation or missed focus.

[dms]

This looks wrong to me. The tak might be this soft at 1.4 but there's no way it's this bad one click closed. Could be copy variation or missed focus.

I thought so too, that was why I rechecked my lens to see that it was set to infinity--after seeing the results on the computer. Not able to redo the photos now, or next days. But it may be my Takumar has a centering problem. (I had not used my 50mm Takumar for decades, and took it out for this comparison.) Hopefully this does not affect the conclusion as to the aberrations with strong light sources in the image.