FA50mm/1.4 vs FA50mm/1.7

**Aristophanes** · 08-09-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

my vote would be to keep the 1.7. 1.4 is easy to find. while the 1.7 would be more of a chance acquisition nowadays.

Thank all.

The FA 50/1.7 is virtually brand new. The fellow I bought it from never used it. He preferred zooms and got his primes with a gift certificate or something like that. It was sitting in his closet, never used, with the early 1990's instruction manual. Works 100%.

It also came with an FA* 24/2. Never used. I am wrestling to see if I want to keep that one as well.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Pentaxor · 08-09-2010, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Thank all.

The FA 50/1.7 is virtually brand new. The fellow I bought it from never used it. He preferred zooms and got his primes with a gift certificate or something like that. It was sitting in his closet, never used, with the early 1990's instruction manual. Works 100%.

It also came with an FA* 24/2. Never used. I am wrestling to see if I want to keep that one as well.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I would think the FA*24 would really be nice. if only I need that speed at a wide focal range and do some bit's of wide portraits, I would consider it. but since I mostly use a 24mm for other things, it might be easy for me not to keep one. jmho.

NeverSatisfied · 08-09-2010, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Adam

I don't have any of my sample shots handy, but from my experience, the 1.7 is sharper overall. I'd also recommend keeping it over the 1.4 because it's harder to find.

Also, in the lens DB (which I'm sure you've already checked), the 1.7 has a higher average (9.38 vs 8.83).

Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models?

FWIW I had both the M 50/1.7, and still have the F 50/1.7, and if both are manual focused, the M was sharper wide open, while using AF on the F lens actually resulted in the same sharpness as the manual-focused M lens, wide-open. (Is that too confusing?

) The focus ring on the F 50/1.7 is just not very precise in comparison.

audiobomber · 08-09-2010, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models?

Some F lenses are the same as FA, some are not. I believe the A, F and FA 50 mm f1.4 lenses are optically identical, but there are differences between f1.4 and f1.7 lenses.

This test, the only comparison I've seen that provides objective data, shows the A 50mm 1.4 with higher MTF scores than the F 50 1.7. Nifty 50 Shootout ERPhotoReview

dgaies · 08-09-2010, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models?

Optically the F50/1.7 and FA50/1.7 are the same, as are the F50/1.4 and FA50/1.4.

The truth is that the ratings are somewhat subjective to begin with as one person's "7" might be another person's "9". Combine that with the small number of ratings per lens (statistically speaking) and the bottom line is that it would be impossible to conclude that lens "A" is better than lens "B" based solely on their average rating.

**Aristophanes** · 08-10-2010, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Optically the F50/1.7 and FA50/1.7 are the same, as are the F50/1.4 and FA50/1.4.

The truth is that the ratings are somewhat subjective to begin with as one person's "7" might be another person's "9". Combine that with the small number of ratings per lens (statistically speaking) and the bottom line is that it would be impossible to conclude that lens "A" is better than lens "B" based solely on their average rating.

Agreed. The paradox is that the F 50/1.7 rates lower than its identical FA 50/1.7, but the twin F 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4 reverse ratings.

All these on optical formulas that have not changed in 20+ years!

Thank-you for the fast 50 shootout and the MTF's. Interesting. Having read those and taken a few shots, and the fact that I have an A 50/1.7 and an M 50/1.7 (reversed a lot), leads me to say keep the 1.4, sell the 1.7.

Or flip a coin

I also think my FA*24/2 might wind up for sale. My take on big glass is " if it's big, it better be a zoom".

BTW--Both the FA 50/1.7 and FA*24/2 have less than 50 shots each on them. They were literally bought, and sat in a camera bag for years.

dgaies · 08-10-2010, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Agreed. The paradox is that the F 50/1.7 rates lower than its identical FA 50/1.7, but the twin F 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4 reverse ratings.

All these on optical formulas that have not changed in 20+ years!

Thank-you for the fast 50 shootout and the MTF's. Interesting. Having read those and taken a few shots, and the fact that I have an A 50/1.7 and an M 50/1.7 (reversed a lot), leads me to say keep the 1.4, sell the 1.7.

Or flip a coin

I also think my FA*24/2 might wind up for sale. My take on big glass is " if it's big, it better be a zoom".

BTW--Both the FA 50/1.7 and FA*24/2 have less than 50 shots each on them. They were literally bought, and sat in a camera bag for years.

Back when I first posted this question, I ended up keeping the FA50/1.7.

Since that time I also picked up an A50/1.2 and an FA43/1.9. So with speed and AF covered by those guys, the FA50/1.7 doesn't get much time on the camera.

An FA*24/2 would be mighty tempting... and would look very nice sitting next to my recently aquired FA*85

**rparmar** · 08-10-2010, 09:06 PM

Yes, the answer is the FA43.

:-)

(I have 50/1.7, 50/1.2, Cosina 55/1.2)

NeverSatisfied · 08-10-2010, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Yes, the answer is the FA43.

:-)

(I have 50/1.7, 50/1.2, Cosina 55/1.2)

Ever since I joined the Cosina club I've come to appreciate a lens with a little "personality." I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea!

Pentaxor · 08-10-2010, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea!

hmmmmm....interesting and very tempting.

NeverSatisfied · 08-19-2010, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

hmmmmm....interesting and very tempting.

Hey Pentaxor! My evil plot to rule the world is under way! Oh wait, that was a different plan!

The FA 43 Ltd will soon be mine!

Can't wait!

Pentaxor · 08-20-2010, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

Hey Pentaxor! My evil plot to rule the world is under way! Oh wait, that was a different plan!

The FA 43 Ltd will soon be mine!

Can't wait!

back-off Satan. stay away from me.

anyway, I might consider taking this road as well. although what worries me is that I'll be missing something in the 30mm area which is significant for my shots as well. also a bit of the performance at wide open. having said that, the FA43 would make an excellent portraiture lens, especially in the wider openings and amazing resolution stop down.

in fairness the FA35/2 + FA50/1.7 = FA43/1.9 in a certain way. it just missed out on the wider focal length which I find needing more. argghhh !

jjdgti · 08-23-2010, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea!

I have the F 50mm 1.7 and the FA 35/2. Interesting idea to get the 43mm/1.9.

I had the FA 50mm 1.4 and like its bokeh better, but needed the money.

Can anyone have experience replacing the 50mm/1.7 and the Fa 35/2 for the 43mm/1.9? Your thought????

Thanks,

dgaies · 08-23-2010, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by jjdgti

Can anyone have experience replacing the 50mm/1.7 and the Fa 35/2 for the 43mm/1.9? Your thought????

I tried that exchange several months ago. I think whether or not you like the swap depends on how you used the FA35/2. If you tended to leave it on your camera as "normal" lens, especially for indoor use, you might find the 43 a little too long in comparison. I didn't miss the slight loss in length compared to the 50... just take an extra step or two towards the subject (at least for moderate distance subjects).

However, even though that was my original plan, I ended up picking up an FA31 when I found one at a decent price and I've used that quite a bit lately and as a result my FA43 hasn't seen much as much action. \That said, I really should make an effort to use it more as it's a fantastic little lens with great IQ.

jjdgti · 08-23-2010, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

I tried that exchange several months ago. I think whether or not you like the swap depends on how you used the FA35/2. If you tended to leave it on your camera as "normal" lens, especially for indoor use, you might find the 43 a little too long in comparison. I didn't miss the slight loss in length compared to the 50... just take an extra step or two towards the subject (at least for moderate distance subjects).

However, even though that was my original plan, I ended up picking up an FA31 when I found one at a decent price and I've used that quite a bit lately and as a result my FA43 hasn't seen much as much action. \That said, I really should make an effort to use it more as it's a fantastic little lens with great IQ.

Thanks for your input.

08-09-2010, 01:16 PM	#18
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Odd Discrepancy Originally posted by Adam I don't have any of my sample shots handy, but from my experience, the 1.7 is sharper overall. I'd also recommend keeping it over the 1.4 because it's harder to find. Also, in the lens DB (which I'm sure you've already checked), the 1.7 has a higher average (9.38 vs 8.83). Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models? FWIW I had both the M 50/1.7, and still have the F 50/1.7, and if both are manual focused, the M was sharper wide open, while using AF on the F lens actually resulted in the same sharpness as the manual-focused M lens, wide-open. (Is that too confusing?) The focus ring on the F 50/1.7 is just not very precise in comparison.

08-10-2010, 09:54 PM	#24
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Now there's an idea! Originally posted by rparmar Yes, the answer is the FA43. :-) (I have 50/1.7, 50/1.2, Cosina 55/1.2) Ever since I joined the Cosina club I've come to appreciate a lens with a little "personality." I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea!

08-19-2010, 10:34 PM	#26
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Part One Complete Originally posted by Pentaxor hmmmmm....interesting and very tempting. Hey Pentaxor! My evil plot to rule the world is under way! Oh wait, that was a different plan! The FA 43 Ltd will soon be mine! Can't wait!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA50mm f 1.4 - help please	pentakxian	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	10-29-2010 08:07 PM
FA50mm f1.7	bobmaxja	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	06-24-2010 11:45 PM
FA50mm F1.4 vs. FA50mm F1.7	switters	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	06-24-2010 11:19 PM
FA50mm f/1.4	domfijac	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	12-15-2009 10:57 AM

08-09-2010, 11:38 AM	#16
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Pentaxor my vote would be to keep the 1.7. 1.4 is easy to find. while the 1.7 would be more of a chance acquisition nowadays. Thank all. The FA 50/1.7 is virtually brand new. The fellow I bought it from never used it. He preferred zooms and got his primes with a gift certificate or something like that. It was sitting in his closet, never used, with the early 1990's instruction manual. Works 100%. It also came with an FA* 24/2. Never used. I am wrestling to see if I want to keep that one as well. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

08-09-2010, 11:43 AM	#17
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Aristophanes Thank all. The FA 50/1.7 is virtually brand new. The fellow I bought it from never used it. He preferred zooms and got his primes with a gift certificate or something like that. It was sitting in his closet, never used, with the early 1990's instruction manual. Works 100%. It also came with an FA* 24/2. Never used. I am wrestling to see if I want to keep that one as well. Decisions, decisions, decisions. I would think the FA*24 would really be nice. if only I need that speed at a wide focal range and do some bit's of wide portraits, I would consider it. but since I mostly use a 24mm for other things, it might be easy for me not to keep one. jmho.

08-09-2010, 02:25 PM	#19
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models? Some F lenses are the same as FA, some are not. I believe the A, F and FA 50 mm f1.4 lenses are optically identical, but there are differences between f1.4 and f1.7 lenses. This test, the only comparison I've seen that provides objective data, shows the A 50mm 1.4 with higher MTF scores than the F 50 1.7. Nifty 50 Shootout ERPhotoReview

08-09-2010, 02:29 PM	#20
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917 Original Poster	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied Hi Adam, you're right about those ratings, I've perused them in the D.B. as well, but what I thought odd was that the F 50/1.7 is rated lower than the F 50/1.4. Isn't that funny? As I thought there was no difference optically between the F and FA models? Optically the F50/1.7 and FA50/1.7 are the same, as are the F50/1.4 and FA50/1.4. The truth is that the ratings are somewhat subjective to begin with as one person's "7" might be another person's "9". Combine that with the small number of ratings per lens (statistically speaking) and the bottom line is that it would be impossible to conclude that lens "A" is better than lens "B" based solely on their average rating.

08-10-2010, 07:35 PM	#21
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by dgaies Optically the F50/1.7 and FA50/1.7 are the same, as are the F50/1.4 and FA50/1.4. The truth is that the ratings are somewhat subjective to begin with as one person's "7" might be another person's "9". Combine that with the small number of ratings per lens (statistically speaking) and the bottom line is that it would be impossible to conclude that lens "A" is better than lens "B" based solely on their average rating. Agreed. The paradox is that the F 50/1.7 rates lower than its identical FA 50/1.7, but the twin F 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4 reverse ratings. All these on optical formulas that have not changed in 20+ years! Thank-you for the fast 50 shootout and the MTF's. Interesting. Having read those and taken a few shots, and the fact that I have an A 50/1.7 and an M 50/1.7 (reversed a lot), leads me to say keep the 1.4, sell the 1.7. Or flip a coin I also think my FA24/2 might wind up for sale. My take on big glass is " if it's big, it better be a zoom". BTW--Both the FA 50/1.7 and FA24/2 have less than 50 shots each on them. They were literally bought, and sat in a camera bag for years.

08-10-2010, 08:12 PM	#22
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917 Original Poster	Originally posted by Aristophanes Agreed. The paradox is that the F 50/1.7 rates lower than its identical FA 50/1.7, but the twin F 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4 reverse ratings. All these on optical formulas that have not changed in 20+ years! Thank-you for the fast 50 shootout and the MTF's. Interesting. Having read those and taken a few shots, and the fact that I have an A 50/1.7 and an M 50/1.7 (reversed a lot), leads me to say keep the 1.4, sell the 1.7. Or flip a coin I also think my FA24/2 might wind up for sale. My take on big glass is " if it's big, it better be a zoom". BTW--Both the FA 50/1.7 and FA24/2 have less than 50 shots each on them. They were literally bought, and sat in a camera bag for years. Back when I first posted this question, I ended up keeping the FA50/1.7. Since that time I also picked up an A50/1.2 and an FA43/1.9. So with speed and AF covered by those guys, the FA50/1.7 doesn't get much time on the camera. An FA24/2 would be mighty tempting... and would look very nice sitting next to my recently aquired FA85

08-10-2010, 09:06 PM	#23
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Yes, the answer is the FA43. :-) (I have 50/1.7, 50/1.2, Cosina 55/1.2)

08-10-2010, 10:23 PM	#25
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea! hmmmmm....interesting and very tempting.

08-20-2010, 12:42 AM	#27
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied Hey Pentaxor! My evil plot to rule the world is under way! Oh wait, that was a different plan! The FA 43 Ltd will soon be mine! Can't wait! back-off Satan. stay away from me. anyway, I might consider taking this road as well. although what worries me is that I'll be missing something in the 30mm area which is significant for my shots as well. also a bit of the performance at wide open. having said that, the FA43 would make an excellent portraiture lens, especially in the wider openings and amazing resolution stop down. in fairness the FA35/2 + FA50/1.7 = FA43/1.9 in a certain way. it just missed out on the wider focal length which I find needing more. argghhh !

08-23-2010, 10:49 AM	#28
jjdgti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 1,824	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied I originally picked up the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 because they were "sharp", but I'm thinking I could easily trade those two and bridge the gap with an FA43. Very enticing idea! I have the F 50mm 1.7 and the FA 35/2. Interesting idea to get the 43mm/1.9. I had the FA 50mm 1.4 and like its bokeh better, but needed the money. Can anyone have experience replacing the 50mm/1.7 and the Fa 35/2 for the 43mm/1.9? Your thought???? Thanks,

08-23-2010, 11:04 AM	#29
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917 Original Poster	Originally posted by jjdgti Can anyone have experience replacing the 50mm/1.7 and the Fa 35/2 for the 43mm/1.9? Your thought???? I tried that exchange several months ago. I think whether or not you like the swap depends on how you used the FA35/2. If you tended to leave it on your camera as "normal" lens, especially for indoor use, you might find the 43 a little too long in comparison. I didn't miss the slight loss in length compared to the 50... just take an extra step or two towards the subject (at least for moderate distance subjects). However, even though that was my original plan, I ended up picking up an FA31 when I found one at a decent price and I've used that quite a bit lately and as a result my FA43 hasn't seen much as much action. \That said, I really should make an effort to use it more as it's a fantastic little lens with great IQ.

08-23-2010, 11:52 AM	#30
jjdgti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 1,824	Originally posted by dgaies I tried that exchange several months ago. I think whether or not you like the swap depends on how you used the FA35/2. If you tended to leave it on your camera as "normal" lens, especially for indoor use, you might find the 43 a little too long in comparison. I didn't miss the slight loss in length compared to the 50... just take an extra step or two towards the subject (at least for moderate distance subjects). However, even though that was my original plan, I ended up picking up an FA31 when I found one at a decent price and I've used that quite a bit lately and as a result my FA43 hasn't seen much as much action. \That said, I really should make an effort to use it more as it's a fantastic little lens with great IQ. Thanks for your input.