Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-01-2009, 02:42 PM   #16
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,368
After getting the DA40mm, my 50mm f1.7 got sold and replaced by a manual 55mm f1.4 porst and a 55mm f1.8 takumar ($40 lenses).

10-01-2009, 02:44 PM   #17
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,684
I may be the oddball, but I absolutely loved all the 50s I used on my K20D. Right at first it felt a little odd but within no time it was my favorite focal length, and I came to "see" just about any photographic situation in terms of 50mm on APS-C (I have a similar feel for 28mm equivalent, but there are no cheap 18mm primes...).

It's interesting to look back and see, on 35mm my favorite lens was a 100mm f2.8, on 4/3 the 30mm f1.4 (60mm equiv.), on Pentax a 50mm f1.8 (75mm equiv.) and now on Canon an 85mm f1.8 (136mm equiv.). Must be fast short-tele primes are just my "thing." Often enough (including now) they were the only lenses I carried or even owned. The only situations I ever really feel the need for something else for are wide-angles for interesting skies and certain landscapes.
10-01-2009, 02:44 PM   #18
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I agree 50mm is not the most generally useful FL on APS-C. It's great for a certain type of portrait, and a few other fairly specialized situations. But msot 50mm lenses - your included - are *great* lenses, just in terms of pure IQ, and hence are perfect choices for situations when you have some flexibility in terms of focal length. For instance, an sort of still life or product photography when it's OK to just change distance to subejct in order to get the framing you want. No zoom on your list is going to compete with your 50 for that. It's one of the appeals of the prime, to me.

On the other hand, you probably paid more for that lens than the value it brings you. So I'd sell it, pick up an M50/1.7 for probably a tenth the cost so you have one *extremely* high quality optic in your collection, and put the *rest* toward a more generally useful lens if you so desire.
Besides the added speed, I think zooms "alter" the picture by their convenience factor. The kit lens, for example, produces "normal" pics at 50mm but "distorted" ones below 24mm. For the most part, the standard 50mm lens will give you the same result and also a consistent one.

Different strokes and all that...I have used the M50 for street pics but some people would be appalled by the idea!

He basically stole that F50! Some of us opined in another thread that he keep it for the speed factor alone. No big loss though, if he puts it on ebay...since he'll pull in $150-ish of profit. (One M50/1.7 of mine will probably be going on the market soon...shameless promotion ) No AF, but same lens otherwise. Sharp sharp sharp! I'm keeping the other one
10-01-2009, 02:44 PM   #19
Veteran Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by ivoire Quote
After getting the DA40mm, my 50mm f1.7 got sold and replaced by a manual 55mm f1.4 porst and a 55mm f1.8 takumar ($40 lenses).
I have thought about this too (have both 40 & 50) but...
a) 50 matches with 31 like glove and hand
b) 50 is 100% FF and one never knows...

10-01-2009, 03:24 PM   #20
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,368
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I have thought about this too (have both 40 & 50) but...
a) 50 matches with 31 like glove and hand
b) 50 is 100% FF and one never knows...
Most of my pics are at 200-300mm and 12-24mm. The DA 40 is so compact and sharp that it is too convenient not to have. The f50mm 1.7 was a very nice lens, but rarely got used in 2 yrs. FF is quite a ways off for me.
10-01-2009, 03:39 PM   #21
Senior Member
KFrog's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Katy, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 294
Nobody mentioned the FA50mm f1.4 or are we only talking about the 1.7? I have the FA and it's fine lens. Standard lens in the bag for speed, lightness and "tak" sharp. Also it's great in low light situations. Saved my bacon a couple of times.

And speaking of "tak" I also have a Takumar 50 for those times when I want the manual focus smoothness.
10-01-2009, 03:47 PM   #22

Vaughn.... Just a thought.

Look at how you shoot with your 18-55 kit.. If you are not down in the wide end16-24 much then I would recommend the Tamron 28-75 constant F2.8. It costs about what the other two do, but it is 2.8 thru the entire 28-75 range and can do some nice OOF area for portraits and flower shots...

when I had just the FA 50 1.4 and the Tammy 28-75 the Tamron almost always was on the camera.
10-01-2009, 03:51 PM   #23
Veteran Member
pasipasi's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oulu
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
I love 50mm on film so much that I'm probably going full frame on digital just to get that same feel.

10-01-2009, 04:03 PM   #24
Veteran Member
mtroute's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 532
QuoteOriginally posted by pasipasi Quote
I love 50mm on film so much that I'm probably going full frame on digital just to get that same feel.
or spend about $2000 less and buy a 31mm...your logic is odd.
10-01-2009, 05:07 PM   #25
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ytterbium Quote

I apologize, if someone finds it annoying, but for me it feels like a must to include some photos in my posts now and then, in a photography related forums. Autumn greetings:
Are you kidding? Picture is worth a thousand posts. Especially the way you captured the light on those apples, well done.
10-01-2009, 06:25 PM   #26
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
Original Poster
I'll see how the finances go between now and our trip. Maybe a little birthday money will come my way. I don't have a dime in the F50. I bought a full kit at a pawn shop and made a hundred bucks and the 50 as profit! I like the IQ but I just find I don't really use the lens. The 55-300 showed me more of the advantages of a sharp lens because I actually use it more. I find myself using the wider end of the 18-55 a lot on my bike rides for landscapes so I like wide. The difference between the 50-200 and 55-300 was pretty obvious. I figure that the 16-45 would show the same advantage over the kit lens.
10-01-2009, 06:43 PM   #27

There are a couple of sigma 17-70s in the market... for 275 ish
10-01-2009, 06:45 PM   #28
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
The biggest advantage of the 16-45 over the kit is that it's sharp wide open and it doesn't vignette at 16mm... though it's bulkier, but still acceptable in comparison to 16-50/2.8...

One of the best lenses I ever had, but i've replaced it with the 12-24 + 35 combo...
10-01-2009, 06:45 PM   #29
Forum Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 74
I definitely would move up from the kit lens. As far as the 50 mm, I don't use mine very much. It was actually my first decent lens after the kit, back in the days when you could nab a FA 50 1.4 for 190 dollars on Amazon. I used to love it and still enjoy shooting with it, but the focal length is either too short or, too long. The thing I like it best for is portraits, but it just doesn't feel quite right for those either. The DA 40 and 70 aren't as fast, but I use them more.
10-01-2009, 06:49 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
VaughnA, you would find the 50 useful under lowlights or night photography. a 35 f2.8 or 40 f2.8 doesn't cut it that well. unless if you have both or willing to purchase the wide angle FA LTD and telephoto FA LTD which are fast, then you could sell your 50 1.7. my FA 1.7 works along with the 35/2, if I needed a lil bit of flexibility. both have the same sharpness, IMO but a lil bit different in color rendering.

every lens have their certain purpose. so the question that you must answer is, are you planning on doing some night photography?

  • 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!
k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc Feelin' small cdurfor Post Your Photos! 6 10-25-2010 12:19 PM
Night i got a feelin... tigershiok Post Your Photos! 1 07-10-2010 07:52 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]