Rather underwhelmed by the FA 50mm/1.4

switters · 04-08-2010, 07:41 PM

I've been using the FA 50/1.4 for the past 2-3 months. I'm rather underwhelmed. I don't think there's anything wrong with my copy, it just lacks something.

I've just returned to Pentax after an absence from photography in general. A few years ago I had a K10D with FA43 and FA77, so that's what I'm comparing the 50/1.4 against. Which probably isn't fair.

This time around funds are much tighter. I don't think I can afford the FA43, which would be my first choice. Maybe I should try the DA40? How does that lens compare to the FA50?

I know there are other good manual 50s, but I want the AF.

jct us101 · 04-08-2010, 07:45 PM

I've heard a lot of similar comments about the lens. It's not bad, it's just not that great. I suppose the aspect of having a lens that has f/1.4 is too much excitement being built up, and then when you actually get it you're a bit dissapointed. I would suggest the 40mm pancake as an alternative though. It's incredibly small if you have a small body like the K-x and it is pretty good in terms of image quality. You do lose a stop or two of light through it though.

switters · 04-08-2010, 07:48 PM

What I've found is that I almost never shoot under f/2.8 with the 50 because it's so soft. Also, since I'm mostly photographing people, f/1.4 isn't often useful - unless I'm going for a really "artsy" shot.

I think I will give the DA40 a try. Sigh. I wish I could afford the FA43. That was an inspiring lens.

raider · 04-08-2010, 09:32 PM

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.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 04-08-2010, 09:32 PM

I did shoot for several weeks with the FA50 in low light, most of the time at f/1.4. It's not at all soft but you have to get the focus right (I use manual focus pretty much all the time). I expect that some softness when using it wide open might be more visible on charts, but on portraits it's not an issue at all - thin DOF is another thing.

My initial impressions were also not overwhelming, but I've learned to use my lenses better and this is a very fine lens.

On the other hand, I would be disappointed if the FA43 and FA77 were not better than the FA50, given that they are some of the best regarded prime lenses in the Pentax lineup (next to the 31mm).

switters · 04-08-2010, 09:51 PM

I had the Sigma 50/1.4 with a Canon 5D at one point. It is a fantastic lens - if you get a good copy. It took me three tries, but the third really was nearly perfect. Except that it's big and heavy. Felt fine on a 5D but suspect it would be awkward on a K-x.

kytra · 04-08-2010, 10:07 PM

I would take a look to the 35mm/2 or the Sigma 50mm/1.4. I own the latter and it is a fantastic lens (provided you get a good copy) and I have tried the 35/2 and I found it very sharp. Both can be purchased at roughly half price compared with the FA 43mm so...

Pentaxor · 04-08-2010, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by switters

I've been using the FA 50/1.4 for the past 2-3 months. I'm rather underwhelmed. I don't think there's anything wrong with my copy, it just lacks something.

I've just returned to Pentax after an absence from photography in general. A few years ago I had a K10D with FA43 and FA77, so that's what I'm comparing the 50/1.4 against. Which probably isn't fair.

This time around funds are much tighter. I don't think I can afford the FA43, which would be my first choice. Maybe I should try the DA40? How does that lens compare to the FA50?

I know there are other good manual 50s, but I want the AF.

I tried the DA40. from my experience, I like it more than the FA50/1.4. it's 2 stops slower, but I like it's character. I suggest the DA40 because it's the cheapest of the bunch, right after the FA50/1.4. I think there is also an F50/1.7 being sold at the marketplace right now. you might want to check that out as well. it also has a different character compared to the FA50/1.4.

Pentaxor · 04-08-2010, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by kytra

I would take a look to the 35mm/2 or the Sigma 50mm/1.4. I own the latter and it is a fantastic lens (provided you get a good copy) and I have tried the 35/2 and I found it very sharp. Both can be purchased at roughly half price compared with the FA 43mm so...

I was thinking about this one as well, but held back because switters might find it wide for his taste. but anyway, if 35mm doesn't bother him, it's a great lens in it's own right.

jct us101 · 04-08-2010, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I was thinking about this one as well, but held back because switters might find it wide for his taste. but anyway, if 35mm doesn't bother him, it's a great lens in it's own right.

Oh I hadn't even thought of the 35mm. That is apparently one of the best prime lenses that Pentax makes. I would definitely recommend that one especially considering how cheap you can get it used. And have you seen the awesome hood that goes with it? I really like it.

Ecaterin · 04-08-2010, 10:40 PM

I had the FA50 1.4 for a while and was similarly unimpressed. I sold it and bought the DA35mm macro Ltd. for right about the same price and that lens blows me away. Stunning

It *definitely* has that special something - apparently all the Ltd. lenses come with fairy dust dispensers. You can't go wrong with any of the DA Limiteds, and they're for sale at very reasonable prices at the market place here all the time

**Ash** · 04-08-2010, 11:04 PM

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.

jct us101 · 04-08-2010, 11:06 PM

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.

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.

xjjohnno · 04-08-2010, 11:16 PM

Well I sold my FA 50 f1.4 to fund a Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 so I guess it didn't do much for me either.

**Rense** · 04-09-2010, 02:12 AM

I think I'm with Ash in this one. My copy of the 50/1.4 delivers very good results, even wide open. Not in first instance. I had to work on my technique. But after getting used to the lens, I am very ( read: very!) pleased with its results.... Colour, contrast, sharpness....it's just what I want in a lens...

04-08-2010, 07:41 PM	#1
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346	Rather underwhelmed by the FA 50mm/1.4 I've been using the FA 50/1.4 for the past 2-3 months. I'm rather underwhelmed. I don't think there's anything wrong with my copy, it just lacks something. I've just returned to Pentax after an absence from photography in general. A few years ago I had a K10D with FA43 and FA77, so that's what I'm comparing the 50/1.4 against. Which probably isn't fair. This time around funds are much tighter. I don't think I can afford the FA43, which would be my first choice. Maybe I should try the DA40? How does that lens compare to the FA50? I know there are other good manual 50s, but I want the AF.

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

04-08-2010, 07:45 PM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	I've heard a lot of similar comments about the lens. It's not bad, it's just not that great. I suppose the aspect of having a lens that has f/1.4 is too much excitement being built up, and then when you actually get it you're a bit dissapointed. I would suggest the 40mm pancake as an alternative though. It's incredibly small if you have a small body like the K-x and it is pretty good in terms of image quality. You do lose a stop or two of light through it though.

04-08-2010, 07:48 PM	#3
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346 Original Poster	What I've found is that I almost never shoot under f/2.8 with the 50 because it's so soft. Also, since I'm mostly photographing people, f/1.4 isn't often useful - unless I'm going for a really "artsy" shot. I think I will give the DA40 a try. Sigh. I wish I could afford the FA43. That was an inspiring lens.

04-08-2010, 09:32 PM	#4
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	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.

04-08-2010, 09:32 PM	#5
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	I did shoot for several weeks with the FA50 in low light, most of the time at f/1.4. It's not at all soft but you have to get the focus right (I use manual focus pretty much all the time). I expect that some softness when using it wide open might be more visible on charts, but on portraits it's not an issue at all - thin DOF is another thing. My initial impressions were also not overwhelming, but I've learned to use my lenses better and this is a very fine lens. On the other hand, I would be disappointed if the FA43 and FA77 were not better than the FA50, given that they are some of the best regarded prime lenses in the Pentax lineup (next to the 31mm).

04-08-2010, 09:51 PM	#6
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346 Original Poster	I had the Sigma 50/1.4 with a Canon 5D at one point. It is a fantastic lens - if you get a good copy. It took me three tries, but the third really was nearly perfect. Except that it's big and heavy. Felt fine on a 5D but suspect it would be awkward on a K-x.

04-08-2010, 10:07 PM	#7
kytra Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Bucharest Posts: 482	I would take a look to the 35mm/2 or the Sigma 50mm/1.4. I own the latter and it is a fantastic lens (provided you get a good copy) and I have tried the 35/2 and I found it very sharp. Both can be purchased at roughly half price compared with the FA 43mm so...

04-08-2010, 10:15 PM	#8
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by switters I've been using the FA 50/1.4 for the past 2-3 months. I'm rather underwhelmed. I don't think there's anything wrong with my copy, it just lacks something. I've just returned to Pentax after an absence from photography in general. A few years ago I had a K10D with FA43 and FA77, so that's what I'm comparing the 50/1.4 against. Which probably isn't fair. This time around funds are much tighter. I don't think I can afford the FA43, which would be my first choice. Maybe I should try the DA40? How does that lens compare to the FA50? I know there are other good manual 50s, but I want the AF. I tried the DA40. from my experience, I like it more than the FA50/1.4. it's 2 stops slower, but I like it's character. I suggest the DA40 because it's the cheapest of the bunch, right after the FA50/1.4. I think there is also an F50/1.7 being sold at the marketplace right now. you might want to check that out as well. it also has a different character compared to the FA50/1.4.

04-08-2010, 10:17 PM	#9
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by kytra I would take a look to the 35mm/2 or the Sigma 50mm/1.4. I own the latter and it is a fantastic lens (provided you get a good copy) and I have tried the 35/2 and I found it very sharp. Both can be purchased at roughly half price compared with the FA 43mm so... I was thinking about this one as well, but held back because switters might find it wide for his taste. but anyway, if 35mm doesn't bother him, it's a great lens in it's own right.

04-08-2010, 10:21 PM	#10
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by Pentaxor I was thinking about this one as well, but held back because switters might find it wide for his taste. but anyway, if 35mm doesn't bother him, it's a great lens in it's own right. Oh I hadn't even thought of the 35mm. That is apparently one of the best prime lenses that Pentax makes. I would definitely recommend that one especially considering how cheap you can get it used. And have you seen the awesome hood that goes with it? I really like it.

04-08-2010, 10:40 PM	#11
Ecaterin Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Seattle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 723	I had the FA50 1.4 for a while and was similarly unimpressed. I sold it and bought the DA35mm macro Ltd. for right about the same price and that lens blows me away. Stunning It definitely has that special something - apparently all the Ltd. lenses come with fairy dust dispensers. You can't go wrong with any of the DA Limiteds, and they're for sale at very reasonable prices at the market place here all the time

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2010, 11:04 PM	#12
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	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.

04-08-2010, 11:06 PM	#13
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	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. 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.

04-08-2010, 11:16 PM	#14
xjjohnno Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,115	Well I sold my FA 50 f1.4 to fund a Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 so I guess it didn't do much for me either.

04-09-2010, 02:12 AM	#15
Rense Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zetten - The Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,050	I think I'm with Ash in this one. My copy of the 50/1.4 delivers very good results, even wide open. Not in first instance. I had to work on my technique. But after getting used to the lens, I am very ( read: very!) pleased with its results.... Colour, contrast, sharpness....it's just what I want in a lens...