[Athanassios]

OPINION /

• I was surprised that Pentax “re-introduced” this glass without a hood but with a ND x16 filter in “classic SMC” versions and with nothing else in its “modern” HD version.
• In “nifty-fifties” I have this glass with Serial # 5409827 [ Made in Japan] as well as the legendary Pentax-A 1.2/50 and the iconic HD-FA 1.4/50
• For this “pentaxian Test” I used my APS-C camera ie KP and I only hope that the “image circle” may improve things when I do the same test with my K1ii ie FF.
• Ever since I bought this lens, I realised that it is HORRIBLE without a hood so I bought a step-up ring 49-62 and a 62mm metal hood to “save the unsaved”.
• Below I like to share with you some hand-held “tests” of this glass that Pentax decided to keep alive and modernise at the same time they discontinued in many other lenses.
• Bottom line: This lens is bad without a hood and incapable of procuding decend results wide open, even indoors.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

   

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by Athanassios; 05-18-2023 at 06:20 AM.

[timb64]

This needs moving to the Lens Forum.

[Athanassios]

This needs moving to the Lens Forum.

For some reason I am NOT ALLOWED to post there.

[Wheatfield]

Moved to SLR Lens Forum.

[BigMackCam]

This lens is bad without a hood and incapable of procuding decend results wide open, even indoors.

I'd agree that it benefits hugely from a hood, and I wish Pentax would include one with the new HD and Classic variants... but see below; a shot taken just now with my K-3 and SMC FA50 f/1.4 *without* a hood, manually focused in Live View. To compensate for the lower contrast, I added a small amount of local contrast (plus gentle sharpening, which I'd apply to most images) in RawTherapee 5.9. The first image is the whole frame, second is a 1:1 crop with in-focus area dead-centre of the frame, on Her Majesty's leading eye. How much more detail do you really need?

Incapable of producing decent results wide open? That depends to some extent on the use-case, but mostly on the photographer's ability to focus accurately at very shallow depth-of-field and perform simple post-processing...

[SelrahCharleS]

Based on the fact they will be releasing an SMC version and talk about rendering like "50 years ago" in the press release I think that is the look they expect buyers of that lens to be going for.

I'm interested to see how much of a difference the HD coating makes on that design though.

[Athanassios]

I'd agree that it benefits hugely from a hood, and I wish Pentax would include one with the new HD and Classic variants... but see below; a shot taken just now with my K-3 and SMC FA50 f/1.4 *without* a hood, manually focused in Live View). To compensate for the lower contrast, I added a small amount of local contrast (plus gentle sharpening, which I'd apply to most images) in RawTherapee 5.9. The first image is the whole frame, second is a 1:1 crop with in-focus area dead-centre of the frame, on Her Majesty's leading eye. How much more detail do you really need?

Incapable of producing decent results wide open? That depends to some extent on the use-case, but mostly on the photographer's ability to focus accurately at very shallow depth-of-field and perform simple post-processing...

Why not tell us about your opinion of how your image looks like without any post processing? My opinion is about RAW images converted into photo files and our base file in this lens is bad. Very bad. Unless you think that eg the softness of the rose outdoors wide open is salvageable by pp. it’s not.

[BigMackCam]

Why not tell us about your opinion of how your image looks like without any post processing? My opinion is about RAW images converted into photo files and our base file in this lens is bad. Very bad. Unless you think that eg the softness of the rose outdoors wide open is salvageable by pp. it’s not.

I'm on my tablet and away from my computer right now, but when I get home I'll happily share before and after shots that show the untouched raw file and tiny adjustments that transformed it into a perfectly useable image.

Truth be told, most "mass market" enthusiast-oriented fast fifties from the film era aren't great wide open, and benefit from being stopped down to at least f/2.8. I have a Minolta AF equivalent that I use on Sony A-mount, which performs similarly. They all do, more or less... and all would have a difficult time with that rose in such harsh lighting with blown highlights. I suspect you'd have got better results by reducing the exposure one or two stops and lifting shadows as necessary...

Folks buying an FA50/1.4 - be it the original, the re-issued Classic or updated HD variant - should know they're buying film-era performance. Otherwise, they can stump up for the outstanding DFA*50/1.4 with class-leading modern performance (as you've no doubt experienced) at an appropriate price. It's great to have choices.

FWIW, the HD update to the FA50/1.4 is one of very few lenses I'm actually interested in buying these days, to pair with my HD FA35/2 as a matching set. I'm delighted they're releasing it - and I'll be happier still if they add an HD-updated FA28/2.8 too (with its film-era performance limitations acknowledged and fully accepted)

[othar]

I don't have this lens and it probably has its flaws, but in my opinion do your images show back focus, not necessarily a sharpness issue

[pschlute]

This lens is bad without a hood and incapable of procuding decend results wide open, even indoors

Really ?

[pschlute]

For some reason I am NOT ALLOWED to post there.

I can see no such restriction to you posting.

[BigMackCam]

Why not tell us about your opinion of how your image looks like without any post processing? My opinion is about RAW images converted into photo files and our base file in this lens is bad. Very bad. Unless you think that eg the softness of the rose outdoors wide open is salvageable by pp. it’s not.

I'm on my tablet and away from my computer right now, but when I get home I'll happily share before and after shots that show the untouched raw file and tiny adjustments that transformed it into a perfectly useable image.

Truth be told, most "mass market" enthusiast-oriented fast fifties from the film era aren't great wide open, and benefit from being stopped down to at least f/2.8. I have a Minolta AF equivalent that I use on Sony A-mount, which performs similarly. They all do, more or less... and all would have a difficult time with that rose in such harsh lighting with blown highlights. I suspect you'd have got better results by reducing the exposure one or two stops and lifting shadows as necessary...

OK... as promised:

Here's the untouched raw file, loaded into RawTherapee, followed by the 1:1 crop:





As expected with this type and vintage of lens, it's soft and lacking in contrast when shot wide open - but the detail isn't lacking... it's all there, it just needs to be teased out; and that's easy. I enabled RawTherapee's default level of Capture Sharpening, default level of Unsharp Mask Sharpening (set to sharpen edges only), and default level of Local Contrast. No clever fiddling around... No heavy post-processing... just the default values on three commonly-used tools:



... which resulted in this:





Looks much better, doesn't it? And the adjustments really were minimal.

BUT, "the lens is horrible wide open without post-processing!!", you say? Well, let's be clear - there are plenty of very modern lenses for various systems that rely heavily on hidden in-lens / in-camera processing to deliver good-looking images - but we don't see how "bad" those lenses are optically, because the processing has already been done before the raw files are produced, and it's baked in. The only difference between them and the FA50/1.4 examples above is, I'm doing the (very simple) processing in post.

-------------------------------

I highly recommend LensTip's 2010 review of the FA50/1.4. Some take-away comments from the review include:

Usually the ordinary classic 50 mm lenses are one of the sharpest devices in any system. In the f/4-f/8 aperture range they give results even high-end zoom instruments can only dream about.

The Pentax performs very well here. Some reservations you can have when it comes to the image quality at the maximum relative aperture but every 50 mm device experiences some problems there. By f/2.0 we see the situation improve a lot in the frame centre but you can express still some serious reservations about the edges. Only by f/2.8 we get a very good sharpness both at the edge and in the centre.

the overall performance of the lens should be assessed as good.

Up from f/2.8 aperture the lens generates outstandingly sharp images. By f/2.0 you can have some reservations about the frame edge and inadequate lighting conditions certainly might make some photographers use f/1.4. Doing so, they will not be exactly happy with the results but they can’t complain either because for this price the competitors offer you nothing better.

Now, that review is 13 years old, and technology has moved on considerably in terms of sensor resolution and optical design - which is why we have modern, high-performing beasts such as the D FA*50/1.4; but for those who understand what they're buying - i.e. a film-era fast fifty with performance appropriate to its class, and the ability to capture excellent images when used to its strengths - the original SMC, new Classic and new HD variants of the FA50/1.4 still offer good performance at the price. You just have to understand what you're dealing with, the limitations therein, and set your expectations accordingly.

Going back to your suggestion...

Why not tell us about your opinion of how your image looks like without any post processing?

... I'd say it looks exactly as I'd expect from an instrument of this class and vintage... and even though its comfort zone is f/2.8 onwards (arguably, f/4 onwards for best results), I say it's absolutely possible to get excellent images from it at wider apertures - even wide open - with little effort, a bit of forethought and very minor post-processing. That's just my opinion, though... Each to their own.

One of your test images - the rose photo at f/1.4 - would be a challenge for many older, fast lenses wide open due to the blown highlights contrasted with darker background (that's classic blooming / fringing territory, right there). Others - the "sun at the front" blue turtle and especially the green eyes, both at f/1.4 - aren't accurately focused (no offence intended - it can be tricky with fast glass, I know). So, whilst I accept you don't like the performance of the lens (and that's fine), I wouldn't want folks considering buying one to think that's all it's capable of...

[pschlute]

The other thing to add is that post-processing of a raw capture is essential, whatever the lens you use.

My image I posted above of my dog Rio had normal PP of the raw file. Included in that is standard input sharpening from the raw converter, and my standard output sharpening of the resultant resized image using USM.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

As it is with every lens and camera: the photographer is to blame. Lens and camera are a means and the photographer has to use both to come to an at least acceptable picture. That requires technique. Only when either lens or camera is at fault, that needs to be supported by things like wrong alignment of the lens or a malfunctioning of camera. When I have the results that you come up with (to state the FA 50mm as a baddy) I always start blaming myself. Lens and camera are dumb, you have to "tell" them precisely what to do, of you do not...

[vector]

FWIW, the HD update to the FA50/1.4 is one of very few lenses I'm actually interested in buying these days, to pair with my HD FA35/2 as a matching set. I'm delighted they're releasing it

I second that sentiment. I have mostly moved to Nikon Z these days for long telephoto options and sold my Pentax APSC gear but I can't part with my K1 and I am planning to pick up this updated HD version of the 50mm. I have the DFA*50 and it is amazing but heavy but that lens is really meant to be shot at F1.4 and most of the time I don't need and shouldn't be shooting wide open so the portability of the tiny Pentax primes is super appealing.

For the OP, I have thousands of images I love taken with the old FA 50mm F1.4. I shot it mainly at F2 but also have photos at F1.4 both indoor and out that worked out great. It's not razor sharp like the DFA* but it makes for beautiful soft portraits. Focus accuracy is key and I tended to under expose a stop if shooting wide open to help reduce the flaring and fringing, but at F2 I'd use it just about anywhere with no hood and no concerns.