Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-30-2009, 05:22 PM   #121
Veteran Member
georgweb's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,381
Maybe the better walkaround sunny boy Planar,


Contax Carl Zeiss AE 1.7/50 + polarizer on K100D no PP

I guess the 1.7 Planar has more flare resistance than the 1.4. Both lenses exhibit real good
performance with polarizers - maybe a benefit of the 'über-Kontrast' :-)

Keep those 50ish coming,
Georg

11-30-2009, 11:06 PM   #122
Veteran Member
xjjohnno's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
Yashica 50mm f1.4 pics
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/qvmarket3/slides/PICT1473.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/november2009/slides/PICT1485.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/november2009/slides/PICT1433.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
12-01-2009, 05:54 AM   #123
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 31
50s club! I have a little question. I own an A-50 1.7, and as much as i love the images it produces, i'm quite often put of by it's construction, and it's rather nasty aperture ring. I was thinking of maybe seizing an M-50mm if the opportunity presented itself, but would probably only do so if i could find a nicely priced 1.4. Has anyone of you ompared the A 50 1.7 and the M 50 1.4 I know i would prefer the handling of the M, but is it comparable in image quality? On stans-photography.info i read the A 1.7 is better than the M 1.7 but a) is this something one would even notice and b) as before, how does the 1.4 compare to the 1.7.

Oh, and would you suppose the 1.4 is still acceptably focusable on the very spartan focusing screen of the k20D, or do i then also have to invest in a split image focusing screen (that is something i would not really do). Right now, my 50 mm snaps into focus, but i don't know how the shallower depth of field would treat me. Of course, maybe the brighter viewfinder would help...
12-01-2009, 11:14 AM   #124
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 346
This probably won't be a popular observation, but...

I'd be willing to bet just about anything that if these pictures were posted without any EXIF data, very few would be identifiable by lens. This is especially true of the more artistic shots, which I (and others, based on the comments) am drawn to.

That tells me that all of the Pentax 50s are relatively good and more than capable of taking good pictures, and that a good picture has a lot more to do with the photographer's eye than it does with the camera or the lens. Of course you know that already, but it's just what stood out for me looking at so many images of 50s.

12-01-2009, 11:31 AM   #125
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by mr. jef Quote
50s club! I have a little question. I own an A-50 1.7, and as much as i love the images it produces, i'm quite often put of by it's construction, and it's rather nasty aperture ring. I was thinking of maybe seizing an M-50mm if the opportunity presented itself, but would probably only do so if i could find a nicely priced 1.4. Has anyone of you ompared the A 50 1.7 and the M 50 1.4 I know i would prefer the handling of the M, but is it comparable in image quality? On stans-photography.info i read the A 1.7 is better than the M 1.7 but a) is this something one would even notice and b) as before, how does the 1.4 compare to the 1.7.

Oh, and would you suppose the 1.4 is still acceptably focusable on the very spartan focusing screen of the k20D, or do i then also have to invest in a split image focusing screen (that is something i would not really do). Right now, my 50 mm snaps into focus, but i don't know how the shallower depth of field would treat me. Of course, maybe the brighter viewfinder would help...
As noted in the comment above, all of the Pentax 50s are good lenses. Some are definitely better than others, but not that different in actual practice.

Regarding the A 50/1.7 vs. M 50/1.7 vs. the M 50/1.4...The A and M lenses have the same optical formula and should be comparable. The M 50/1.4 is obviously faster, but the f/1.7 is supposed to be sharper at f/2 and f/2.8.

In regards to focus screen...That is truly a thorny issue. The stock focus screen on your K20D shows DOF as it exists at about f/4. This is not good enough for fine manual focus with any lens faster than f/2.8, even with focus assist. I currently use the KatzEye with Optibrite. The split image and microprism help immensely as does the matte donut. Less expensive screens are available on eBay and well as at focusingscreen.com.

Overall, I am extremely pleased with my aftermarket screen and have no desire to go back to the stock screen. However, I can issue these cautions:
  • The aftermarket screens are not as bright as the stock screen, even with the Optibrite treatment
  • You will get split image blackout to some degree with slower lenses such as the DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit.
  • Ditto regarding microprism graininess
  • The focus aids may be extremely distracting for close-up and macro photography

Steve
12-01-2009, 12:48 PM   #126
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 31
Thanks for your answer. That sounds like quite the catch 22 with those focusing screens. For now, i'm able to focus the 1.7 accurately enough for my own satisfaction, but indeed, when i try my love's 50mm 1.4 on her nikon D90, triplechecking is needed ( arguably, the nikon has a viewfinder that is not as nice as the pentax, but still, for a modern camera it's quite acceptable (and god, i do miss my old minolta xd7's focusing screen, so bright...))
12-01-2009, 01:27 PM   #127
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by mr. jef Quote
...(and god, i do miss my old minolta xd7's focusing screen, so bright...))
Like looking out a window...
12-01-2009, 01:54 PM   #128
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by mr. jef Quote
Has anyone of you ompared the A 50 1.7 and the M 50 1.4...
As was mentioned, the 50/1.7 is sharper from f/1.7-2.8. After that, the lenses are practically the same. The 50/1.4 has some purposefully left spherical abberrations and a not entirely flat field curvature which make it less suitable to be put on extension tubes for macro work (the 50/1.7 will do well) but gives it a bokeh that is more pleasing for portrait work, for example.

QuoteOriginally posted by mr. jef Quote
Oh, and would you suppose the 1.4 is still acceptably focusable on the very spartan focusing screen of the k20D...
Not really.

12-01-2009, 05:13 PM   #129
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
...Not really.
Ditto for any lens faster than f/2.8 and really not that good at f/2.8.

Steve
12-02-2009, 02:23 PM   #130
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kern County California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 59
Acutally, I'm kind of the opposite case from Mr. Jef.... I ended up with an M 1.7 and an M 1.4... when I actually would like an A 1.7... So which one of the M's should I keep? Planned use would be on a new K-X, so I doubt I would need the 1.4 - or would I regret letting that one go?

Would a trade of an M 1.4 for an A 1.7 be "even"? Both have some desirable attributes...
12-02-2009, 07:34 PM   #131
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,430
Research the aperture ring issue on the A50/1.7 - it uses a plastic detent to catch the ball bearing. The plastic is spot welded inside the aperture ring and the welds are known to break. The aperture ring then either moves freely or doesn't move at all. This is only a problem if you use the lens on manual settings. If you set to "A" and leave it there this doesn't matter.

Personally, I chose the A50/1.4 and M50/1.7 (as well as an S-M-C Tak 50/1.4)..The A for bokeh, but it does not have as flat a field as the M. The M for overall sharpness at all apertures (although from f/4 on both are quite sharp) and a very flat field.

Plus the M just seems to blend better with my MESuper and the A is a natural when I want to manual focus on a K10D but want aperture control from the camera.

[EDIT]: Oops, most of this has already been said, by posters more experienced than I.

Last edited by monochrome; 12-03-2009 at 07:59 AM.
12-03-2009, 12:25 AM   #132
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,822
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote

[EDIT]: Oops, most of this has already been said, by posters more experienced than I.

hahaha, you just discovered life!
12-03-2009, 01:55 PM   #133
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kern County California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 59
Thanks Monochrome... So it doesn't seem like they're different enough to keep both. I see no reason to do that, so which one should I keep? Or are the differences ClassA mentioned significant?
12-03-2009, 02:09 PM   #134
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 346
FYI I've been seeing folks here suggesting it's possible to pick up a 50/1.7 for significantly less than you can get a new 50/1.4. I just checked eBay and the last two 50/1.7s sold for $275 average. I bought a new 50/1.4 from Henry's on eBay for $300 a couple days ago, and with 10% cash back it will end up at $270.

Question is, would you pay the same amount for a used 50/1.7 as you would for a new 50/1.4? Is the difference that significant?
12-03-2009, 03:06 PM   #135
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,822
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by switters Quote
FYI I've been seeing folks here suggesting it's possible to pick up a 50/1.7 for significantly less than you can get a new 50/1.4. I just checked eBay and the last two 50/1.7s sold for $275 average. I bought a new 50/1.4 from Henry's on eBay for $300 a couple days ago, and with 10% cash back it will end up at $270.

Question is, would you pay the same amount for a used 50/1.7 as you would for a new 50/1.4? Is the difference that significant?
These must be FA's and not A's!
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!
50mm, brand, club, clubs, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SD Association vows breakthrough 300MBps SD card speeds cdurfor Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 1 09-04-2010 08:06 AM
What is "Fast" about the fast Fifties... jess Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-04-2009 05:18 PM
Not Thrifty Fifties k100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 04-12-2008 09:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 AM. | 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