[roentarre]

Fa 50/1.7 performs better than Fa 50/1.4 at f1.7 with sharpness and colour accuracy performance.

[danielchtong]

So much about test shots



From my FA 50mmF1.4 before I sold that

















From F50mmF1.7









Daniel

[Pentaxoid]

I didn't originally post the 1.4 @ 1.4, but I upoloaded them this morning for you.

Thank you very much!

When I compare shots at 2.8 and 1.4, I am sure that the price tag can be highly improved by post processing the picture and bumping the contrast. There is very little difference between the two shots. The bar code is completely blurry, but that's certainly due the fact the focus is already lost in that area.

At 1.4 I am unable to see any difference with and without the hood at normal size.

@danielchtong: your FA 1.4 shots are misleading. They appear unsharp because they were shot in low light, @800 iso (with 1/250s!) and aggressive compression which is far from optimum.

[Class A]

For the record, I don't actually own a lens hood for the FA50, I just borrowed the hood from my 50-200 and held it in front of the lens.

Do you mean the Pentax 49mm Lens Hood PH-RBD49 for 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR Lens?
Could you please let me know how deep it is and what the diameter is at the front?

I was wondering what the maximum hood size is I could use for my FA 50/1.4 on APS-C and the 50-200 hood probably defines the maximum dimensions.

Thanks for doing the comparison and sharing your results! Much appreciated.

[LaHo]

You can use a deep metal hood (marked 'tele') like this one New! Metal Tele 49mm Screw-in Lens Hood on the K/M/F/FA 50mm on APS-C. Cheap, good protection against bumps and also suberb against flare.

[dgaies]

Yeah, it was the hood from my 50-200 (not the WR one, but I assume the hoods are of similar size). Not sure if there would be any vignetting wide open if you used a similar length hood on the FA50/1.4 since the 50-200 doesn't have as large of an aperture.

[audiobomber]

I've looked at dgaies' test several times and I always come to the same conclusions:
1. Do not use an FA 50mm 1.4 without a hood.
2. When a hood is used, the FA 50mm 1.4 has slightly better contrast than the f/1.7 at every aperture in this test .

[yeatzee]

I've looked at dgaies' test several times and I always come to the same conclusions:
1. Do not use an FA 50mm 1.4 without a hood.
2. When a hood is used, the FA 50mm 1.4 has slightly better contrast than the f/1.7 at every aperture in this test .

Its very interesting to hear someone say this because to me, its apparent that the F/1.7 has much better contrast even when both have hoods.

[dgaies]

Its very interesting to hear someone say this because to me, its apparent that the F/1.7 has much better contrast even when both have hoods.

I've looked at dgaies' test several times and I always come to the same conclusions:
1. Do not use an FA 50mm 1.4 without a hood.
2. When a hood is used, the FA 50mm 1.4 has slightly better contrast than the f/1.7 at every aperture in this test .

Yeah, I find it interesting as well as I think most people who have looked at the posted images have felt that the 1.7 has at least a slight advantage, even with the hoods on. That's not too say that the FA50/1.4 doesn't have other advantages over the FA50/1.7 that the test images don't demonstrate (bokeh, perhaps color and of course performance at f/1.4 ). But from the sample images I posted I am having trouble seeing where the 1.4 outperforms the 1.7 in terms of contrast and sharpness, even with the hood on.

[Class A]

You can use a deep metal hood (marked 'tele') like this one New! Metal Tele 49mm Screw-in Lens Hood on the K/M/F/FA 50mm on APS-C.

Thanks for the pointer!
Did you try it on a 50/1.4? I presume vignetting is not a problem?
Unfortunately, the product page doesn't specify the dimensions.

Yeah, I find it interesting as well as I think most people who have looked at the posted images have felt that the 1.7 has at least a slight advantage, even with the hoods on.

I think what Dan sees is an overall better contrast for the 1.4 images. The blacks are a bit darker with them (EDIT: Actually I'm not sure whether they really are. I'm viewing them on a laptop screen whose contrast is viewing angle dependent. The different vertical positioning of the images already makes a slight difference. Not sure if your screen is free from this effect, Dan). I think what the majority sees are the micro-contrast advantages of the 1.7. The finest details are less fuzzy in the images showing f/1.7-f/2.4 compared to the 1.4 shots.

Bringing up the contrast for the 1.7 images a bit would get them to the same level as the 1.4 images whereas it doesn't work that well the other way round. The better micro contrast of the 1.7 translates to better effective resolution.

That's not too say that the FA50/1.4 doesn't have other advantages over the FA50/1.7 that the test images don't demonstrate (bokeh, perhaps color and of course performance at f/1.4 ).

I agree. The 50/1.7 has another advantages which is a flatter field curvature. That makes it more suitable for close ups or to be used on extension tubes. However, the 50/1.4 has other things going for it. If the 50/1.7 design would not cause compromises in other areas, I'm sure it would have been used for the 50/1.4 as well.

[SOldBear]

For the posters asking about hood for 50mm lens. This is mine:

[dgaies]

For the posters asking about hood for 50mm lens. This is mine:

Reminds me of the DA40 hood

[SOldBear]

Reminds me of the DA40 hood

It is inspired by the DA40 hood.

[audiobomber]

It is inspired by the DA40 hood.

I'm interested. What is it?

[SOldBear]

I'm interested. What is it?

Nothing special. My FA-50 F/1.7 and F-28 F/2.8 each has a 49-28mm stepdown adapter ring. My DA70 and DA21 each has a 49-37mm and a 37-30.5mm stepdown adapter ring (I can't find 49-30.5mm adapter).

Also, my Tamron 90mm macro F/2.8 and Sigma 50mm macro F/2.8 each has a 55-37mm and a 37-30.5mm.

I like this kind of "lens hood." They are compact and IMHO protect the lens better than traditional hoods.