Rather underwhelmed by the FA 50mm/1.4

Pentaxor · 04-09-2010, 06:09 PM

once in a while, you'll see an FA35/2 costing from $300-$350.

alohadave · 04-09-2010, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by raider

My FA50/1.4 does not look that sharp in my k100D. I think there are some focus mismatch issue (either FF or BF). The same lens on my K-7 is great and tack sharp.

A friend has the sigma 50/1.4 and he mentioned that the lens is razor sharp even at f1.4. maybe u want to check that out.

Is it BF/FF, or is it that the DoF is so small that it's really easy to focus on the wrong spot and not realize it?

Class A · 04-09-2010, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Yes, the Nokton makes the FA redundant...

I wish.

Sometimes having AF is really nice. Also, with a stock focussing screen you don't have much fun manually focusing below f/2.8 so in my book the Nokton is a great lens but doesn't make the FA redundant unless you only want to do MF and have tweaked your camera to support MF at f-ratios below f/2.8.

Zeeke · 04-10-2010, 02:23 AM

Hi
I have previously had two copies of the FA 50 1.4 and both have been boring at f1.4-2.8.Now I bought an A 50 f1.4 which I perceive to be sharper and contrast richer.
Anyone with similar experiences?

Zeeke · 04-10-2010, 02:49 AM

My daughter with the A 50 at f1.4

**Ash** · 04-10-2010, 03:37 AM

This is an old one with the FA 50 at f/1.4 in difficult lighting conditions:

And this one at f/2:

**Rondec** · 04-10-2010, 04:31 AM

I guess the thing about the FA 50 is that it isn't a "cheap" lens any more. Current US prices are about 370 dollars. That makes it more expensive than the DA 40 and only 100 less than the DA 35 and 70.

I got mine for 190 and for the build, etc it felt about right. I think currently it is priced about one hundred dollars too much, but then again, not certain why I am whining. I'm not even looking for one right now.

ll_coffee_lP · 04-10-2010, 04:55 AM

You make a good point Rondec, with respect to build.

What if the FA50 was called a limited, had an all metal construction, and cost $600? My guess is that everyone would be falling all over it. The mere fact that it is a budget lens lends itself to scrutiny.

How many people shoot landscapes at f/8-f/11 in good light, but wouldn't really consider using the kit lenses - just because it is a kit lens...?

c[_]

Nubi · 04-10-2010, 05:26 AM

I dropped mine about a month ago, and the thing went to heaven. Since then, I feel a bit crippled. I think it is a fine lens. It is just that focal length on APS-C makes it close to 85 in 135 mm format, but not quite. It is an odd focal length to learn, and I think it is a bit more tricky. I do need another to though. I think I am going with Zeiss.

switters · 04-10-2010, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I guess the thing about the FA 50 is that it isn't a "cheap" lens any more. Current US prices are about 370 dollars. That makes it more expensive than the DA 40 and only 100 less than the DA 35 and 70.

I got mine for 190 and for the build, etc it felt about right. I think currently it is priced about one hundred dollars too much, but then again, not certain why I am whining. I'm not even looking for one right now.

Rondex,

Where are you seeing the DA 40 for less than $370 US? The cheapest I can from a reputable seller is $430.

I just found a 43/1.9 I can borrow for the weekend and I'm going to try it out again. I see that they're selling for about $550 in the marketplace, so it's not an insurmountable difference from $430 for the DA 40 that I was prepared to spend.

joele · 04-10-2010, 07:51 AM

I hated the FA50/1.4 the first time I had it (back with k10d) though I was one of the few unimpressed back then (well against the grain)...

But having bought one again to use with the k7 I am enjoying it a lot.. Not sure if it is just focusing better with the k7, a better copy or I am just using it differently, but it wasn't well worth the price.. After borrowing Roentarre's Nocton 58 I will buy one of them too, but the FA50 still has its place for me and I won't sell it..

Blue · 04-10-2010, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Ash

I may go against the grain, however I'd stand by the opinion that the FA 50/1.4 is indispensible. I very rarely shoot at f/1.4, but I have often shot at f/2.0 with absolutely stellar results. Perhaps not in terms of microcontrast, but the bokeh and control of DoF is excellent with the FA 50.

I find the 31 and 77 ltds are exquisite straight out of the camera, but with some PP work my FA 50 results can come quite close to what these FA ltds can produce. Having the FA ltds makes me wonder whether I should keep the FA 50, and indeed I use it a lot less now, but I've just been too pleased with it to let it go.

Might just leave it to the Mrs to use once she gets into photography.

I'm going to agree with Ash and Rense here and go against the grain. I find it strange that people can't get some very good images with the FA 50mm f1.4. I also suspect that the same people won't be all that much happier with the FA 30mm f2 either. I usually use it outside or inside without flash. I do find it doesn't work well with my K20d and Metz 48 for some reason. The only reason I'd sell it is to buy the FA 43mm ltd, and that is because I have the A 50mm f1.2.

Blue · 04-10-2010, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by jct us101

Sadly I think the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f/1.8 lenses. Unfortunately though, the Pentax isn't sharp at it's wide open aperture like those lenses.

I don't really know what you mean by "the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f1.8" when Pentax has had an f1.4 lens in ever series they have produced beginning with the Super Tak until the DA and now they have the DA* 55mm f1.4.

Edit: Have you used an FA 50mm f1.4?

**monochrome** · 04-10-2010, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I don't really know what you mean by "the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f1.8" when Pentax has had an f1.4 lens in ever series they have produced beginning with the Super Tak until the DA and now they have the DA* 55mm f1.4.

Edit: Have you used an FA 50mm f1.4?

He's Baaaaaccckkkk!

switters · 04-10-2010, 08:33 AM

It's not that I can't get good images with the FA50. But as I noted in the title of the post, I'm underwhelmed by the results. I admitted that this is likely because I'm comparing it against the FA43 and FA77, which were the two primes I had a few years back when I was using a K10D. The FA50 is perfectly adequate. It's just missing that "something special" that I noticed with the FA Limiteds. This isn't surprising, of course.

I came to this conclusion in part by comparing my current FA50 shots with my past FA43 and FA77 shots. The FA43 is my favorite lens in any mount, so the comparison is probably not fair. But there it is.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lenses F2 50mm, F4 75-150mm, F1.7 50mm, F4 200mm, F2.5 135mm, F4.5 80-2	hangu	Sold Items	10	03-27-2010 07:51 PM
Whats A Better Fast Prime? The Sigma 50mm Or Pentax FA 50MM? Or Another Option?	Christopher M.W.T	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	10-01-2009 08:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4	raybird	Sold Items	7	08-29-2008 01:06 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 3 x 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 40mm pancake, 135mm, 70-210mm, FAJ 28-80mm	igowerf	Sold Items	12	10-13-2007 08:55 PM
Well a little underwhelmed by the K10D	steffi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	78	04-16-2007 05:18 AM

04-09-2010, 06:09 PM	#31
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	once in a while, you'll see an FA35/2 costing from $300-$350.

04-09-2010, 06:21 PM	#32
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by raider My FA50/1.4 does not look that sharp in my k100D. I think there are some focus mismatch issue (either FF or BF). The same lens on my K-7 is great and tack sharp. A friend has the sigma 50/1.4 and he mentioned that the lens is razor sharp even at f1.4. maybe u want to check that out. Is it BF/FF, or is it that the DoF is so small that it's really easy to focus on the wrong spot and not realize it?

04-09-2010, 07:01 PM	#33
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Yes, the Nokton makes the FA redundant... I wish. Sometimes having AF is really nice. Also, with a stock focussing screen you don't have much fun manually focusing below f/2.8 so in my book the Nokton is a great lens but doesn't make the FA redundant unless you only want to do MF and have tweaked your camera to support MF at f-ratios below f/2.8.

04-10-2010, 02:23 AM	#34
Zeeke New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 19	Hi I have previously had two copies of the FA 50 1.4 and both have been boring at f1.4-2.8.Now I bought an A 50 f1.4 which I perceive to be sharper and contrast richer. Anyone with similar experiences?

04-10-2010, 03:37 AM	#36
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	This is an old one with the FA 50 at f/1.4 in difficult lighting conditions: And this one at f/2:

04-10-2010, 04:31 AM	#37
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I guess the thing about the FA 50 is that it isn't a "cheap" lens any more. Current US prices are about 370 dollars. That makes it more expensive than the DA 40 and only 100 less than the DA 35 and 70. I got mine for 190 and for the build, etc it felt about right. I think currently it is priced about one hundred dollars too much, but then again, not certain why I am whining. I'm not even looking for one right now.

04-10-2010, 04:55 AM	#38
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	You make a good point Rondec, with respect to build. What if the FA50 was called a limited, had an all metal construction, and cost $600? My guess is that everyone would be falling all over it. The mere fact that it is a budget lens lends itself to scrutiny. How many people shoot landscapes at f/8-f/11 in good light, but wouldn't really consider using the kit lenses - just because it is a kit lens...? c[_]

04-10-2010, 05:26 AM	#39
Nubi Guest	I dropped mine about a month ago, and the thing went to heaven. Since then, I feel a bit crippled. I think it is a fine lens. It is just that focal length on APS-C makes it close to 85 in 135 mm format, but not quite. It is an odd focal length to learn, and I think it is a bit more tricky. I do need another to though. I think I am going with Zeiss.

04-10-2010, 07:13 AM	#40
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rondec I guess the thing about the FA 50 is that it isn't a "cheap" lens any more. Current US prices are about 370 dollars. That makes it more expensive than the DA 40 and only 100 less than the DA 35 and 70. I got mine for 190 and for the build, etc it felt about right. I think currently it is priced about one hundred dollars too much, but then again, not certain why I am whining. I'm not even looking for one right now. Rondex, Where are you seeing the DA 40 for less than $370 US? The cheapest I can from a reputable seller is $430. I just found a 43/1.9 I can borrow for the weekend and I'm going to try it out again. I see that they're selling for about $550 in the marketplace, so it's not an insurmountable difference from $430 for the DA 40 that I was prepared to spend.

04-10-2010, 07:51 AM	#41
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	I hated the FA50/1.4 the first time I had it (back with k10d) though I was one of the few unimpressed back then (well against the grain)... But having bought one again to use with the k7 I am enjoying it a lot.. Not sure if it is just focusing better with the k7, a better copy or I am just using it differently, but it wasn't well worth the price.. After borrowing Roentarre's Nocton 58 I will buy one of them too, but the FA50 still has its place for me and I won't sell it..

04-10-2010, 08:10 AM	#42
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Ash I may go against the grain, however I'd stand by the opinion that the FA 50/1.4 is indispensible. I very rarely shoot at f/1.4, but I have often shot at f/2.0 with absolutely stellar results. Perhaps not in terms of microcontrast, but the bokeh and control of DoF is excellent with the FA 50. I find the 31 and 77 ltds are exquisite straight out of the camera, but with some PP work my FA 50 results can come quite close to what these FA ltds can produce. Having the FA ltds makes me wonder whether I should keep the FA 50, and indeed I use it a lot less now, but I've just been too pleased with it to let it go. Might just leave it to the Mrs to use once she gets into photography. I'm going to agree with Ash and Rense here and go against the grain. I find it strange that people can't get some very good images with the FA 50mm f1.4. I also suspect that the same people won't be all that much happier with the FA 30mm f2 either. I usually use it outside or inside without flash. I do find it doesn't work well with my K20d and Metz 48 for some reason. The only reason I'd sell it is to buy the FA 43mm ltd, and that is because I have the A 50mm f1.2.

04-10-2010, 08:14 AM	#43
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by jct us101 Sadly I think the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f/1.8 lenses. Unfortunately though, the Pentax isn't sharp at it's wide open aperture like those lenses. I don't really know what you mean by "the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f1.8" when Pentax has had an f1.4 lens in ever series they have produced beginning with the Super Tak until the DA and now they have the DA* 55mm f1.4. Edit: Have you used an FA 50mm f1.4?

04-10-2010, 08:21 AM	#44
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Blue I don't really know what you mean by "the basic design around the lens was to get a foothold on Canon and Nikon with the f1.8" when Pentax has had an f1.4 lens in ever series they have produced beginning with the Super Tak until the DA and now they have the DA* 55mm f1.4. Edit: Have you used an FA 50mm f1.4? He's Baaaaaccckkkk!

04-10-2010, 08:33 AM	#45
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346 Original Poster	It's not that I can't get good images with the FA50. But as I noted in the title of the post, I'm underwhelmed by the results. I admitted that this is likely because I'm comparing it against the FA43 and FA77, which were the two primes I had a few years back when I was using a K10D. The FA50 is perfectly adequate. It's just missing that "something special" that I noticed with the FA Limiteds. This isn't surprising, of course. I came to this conclusion in part by comparing my current FA50 shots with my past FA43 and FA77 shots. The FA43 is my favorite lens in any mount, so the comparison is probably not fair. But there it is.