The M Club!

**pres589** · 10-04-2018, 06:44 AM

iheiramo, curious about your thoughts on the M 50 1.7 wide open vs. the 1.4. What are some notable differences in IQ and general use/performance?

I'm kind of wanting a K 50 1.2 and would sell my M 50 1.4 as part of that upgrade. The M 50 1.7 I currently own would be the 'day to day' lens as it's quite nice to focus and handles nicely on my film camera.

**iheiramo** · 10-04-2018, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by pres589

iheiramo, curious about your thoughts on the M 50 1.7 wide open vs. the 1.4. What are some notable differences in IQ and general use/performance?

I'm kind of wanting a K 50 1.2 and would sell my M 50 1.4 as part of that upgrade. The M 50 1.7 I currently own would be the 'day to day' lens as it's quite nice to focus and handles nicely on my film camera.

I don't have a strong understanding on this yet. Still figuring out these lenses. The rendition from 1.4 is seems more delicate to me. Less contrast probably. Smoother bokeh wide open and also maybe sharper wide open. OOF highlights form nice round balls, as they tend to go heksagonal with 1.7. Handlin feels the same to me.
Stopped down bokeh is probably better in 1.7. At least that's my current feeling. Near MFD sharpness seems to be about the same, but so far I haven't been satisfied with the performance at infinity with 1.4 when compared to 1.7. Don't know the reason for this yet. Could be user error, miss placed infinity or feature of the lens.

As I tend to carry M85 with me the 1.7 might be the better fifty for me in travel kit. But I might chance my opinion before the month is thru

I don't know K50/1.2, but M50/1.4 & 1.7 are so close in performance that man can easily live witt either one. On the other hand, with the prices they go, one can easily afford both.

**pres589** · 10-04-2018, 07:49 AM

Yes, the 1.7 is better for travel, and focuses nicely. I've been wanting to figure out how much of a step-down ring I could use as a hood like the DA 40 Ltd's (which I use on my M 40) which would also help protect the front element while not protruding much from the lens barrel.

Interesting comment about the 1.4's poorer performance when focused to infinity. I do get what you're saying about "delicate renderings" with that lens and bokeh etc. I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell...

**iheiramo** · 10-04-2018, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by pres589

I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell...

1.2 probably will give you similar, but even better, features that 1.4 gives over 1.7, if I have understood correctly, so I get what you say. I have only M series fifties, so will propably keep 1.4, 1.7 & 4 as they have different strengths and there's not much money. For f2 there's just no use as it's basically weaker version of 1.7, so it can go after I have shot SIC month in FF with it.

I have sold my DA50 as I find rendering of M50/1.7 far superior to it and didn't feel the need for AF.

**pres589** · 10-04-2018, 08:54 AM

I'm not good at manual focusing even when I use my film camera with its split-prism focusing screen that is quite good in and of itself. Back-focusing seems to be one of my other useless super powers. I'm a lot better at manual focusing with the film camera than my digital, though.

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-04-2018, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by iheiramo

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is the wide open and portrait fifty and 1.7 is the stopped down landscape lens. 4 for by its nature is The Macro and 2 is the no go fifty

That is a beautiful pair of subjects in that portrait session.

**iheiramo** · 10-04-2018, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

That is a beautiful pair of subjects in that portrait session.

Thanks, my wife and our horse.

Piotrek K · 10-04-2018, 01:41 PM - **5 Likes**

M 75-150/4 at 150/f11 with SMC Close-up lens S 56 (645 close-up lens - 58 filter). While not the best photo it shows the quality of the setup quite well.

wkraus · 10-05-2018, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by pres589

I'm not good at manual focusing even when I use my film camera with its split-prism focusing screen that is quite good in and of itself. Back-focusing seems to be one of my other useless super powers. I'm a lot better at manual focusing with the film camera than my digital, though.

It's possible that the mirror needs to be adjusted in your film camera (that's how focusing was calibrated in pre-AF days). It sure needed adjustment in the MX I used to shoot long ago.

Jonathan Mac · 10-05-2018, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by pres589

Yes, the 1.7 is better for travel, and focuses nicely. I've been wanting to figure out how much of a step-down ring I could use as a hood like the DA 40 Ltd's (which I use on my M 40) which would also help protect the front element while not protruding much from the lens barrel.

Interesting comment about the 1.4's poorer performance when focused to infinity. I do get what you're saying about "delicate renderings" with that lens and bokeh etc. I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell...

Very nice results and a good job of focusing.

Originally posted by iheiramo

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is the wide open and portrait fifty and 1.7 is the stopped down landscape lens. 4 for by its nature is The Macro and 2 is the no go fifty

I remember another user stating that a 49mm to 37mm (I think) step-down ring worked well as a hood on the M 50/1.4 and vastly improved it's performance wide open. I haven't tried it myself as I haven't been able to find a single step-down ring from 49 to 37 but I'm sure with a couple of rings it could be done.

I agree there's very little between the M 50/1.7 and the /1.4 overall. I've had good results with both but the 1.7 gets used more often as it's smaller and lighter and therefore good for travelling with as a standard prime for film and short fast tele on digital.

**pres589** · 10-05-2018, 08:43 AM

B&H has step down rings available that go from 49mm to 37mm. Maybe there's someone selling them that's a bit more local to you. Thanks for the info on the sizing.

**CharLac** · 10-05-2018, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Brian Mould

K3ii and M200 f/4

A good friend of mine, Mike Burke (RIP), used to race Vintage at Mosport

Down a ways....#227

Gallery –

**CharLac** · 10-05-2018, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

The 28mm f/3.5 shift is a K, though it was made right through the time of the M, A, F and into FA epoch.

Okay, please, what is the difference between an M and a K?

Thanks

**paulh** · 10-05-2018, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by CharLac

Okay, please, what is the difference between an M and a K?

Thanks

A quick and dirty answer is the M-series came after the K's. They are generally smaller than the K's and with slightly different optical formulas in most cases. I'll let the more knowledgeable folks elaborate.

**pres589** · 10-05-2018, 12:10 PM - **1 Like**

The M-series lenses say M on them. The K-'s don't say that, they're just labeled SMC. Agreed that they were made to match the smaller M-series cameras (think MX as an example) vs. older K-series cameras like the K2 or K1000. Sometimes all new focal length & max aperture pairings were created to get there, like with the M 85mm f2, sometimes they went with all new optical designs like how the K 35mm f2 is different from the M 35mm f2.

Functionally they're equivalent; k-mount, aperture ring required to control aperture vs. in-body control option like the A, F, and FA series lenses. Manual focus like the K's save for the ME-F's auto-focusing weirdo zoom that is a one-off oddity.

Often the M-series is thought to perform worse, optically, than the K-series counterparts that came before them. Not always the case and really they should be evaluated on their own merits. Some wonderful lenses in the M-series; I really like my M 85 f2, M 40 f2.8, and M 28 f2.8 (second gen).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The A Club	jake.astig	Lens Clubs	3998	3 Minutes Ago 01:09 PM
The F Club!	jsherman999	Lens Clubs	1237	6 Days Ago 04:04 PM
D-FA WR Club	Rico	Lens Clubs	671	03-10-2024 03:17 AM
Ltd club, here I come	axl	Lens Clubs	21	12-12-2010 03:06 AM
In the club again	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	4	10-20-2008 08:59 AM

10-04-2018, 06:44 AM	#6931
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	iheiramo, curious about your thoughts on the M 50 1.7 wide open vs. the 1.4. What are some notable differences in IQ and general use/performance? I'm kind of wanting a K 50 1.2 and would sell my M 50 1.4 as part of that upgrade. The M 50 1.7 I currently own would be the 'day to day' lens as it's quite nice to focus and handles nicely on my film camera.

10-04-2018, 07:21 AM	#6932
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Originally posted by pres589 iheiramo, curious about your thoughts on the M 50 1.7 wide open vs. the 1.4. What are some notable differences in IQ and general use/performance? I'm kind of wanting a K 50 1.2 and would sell my M 50 1.4 as part of that upgrade. The M 50 1.7 I currently own would be the 'day to day' lens as it's quite nice to focus and handles nicely on my film camera. I don't have a strong understanding on this yet. Still figuring out these lenses. The rendition from 1.4 is seems more delicate to me. Less contrast probably. Smoother bokeh wide open and also maybe sharper wide open. OOF highlights form nice round balls, as they tend to go heksagonal with 1.7. Handlin feels the same to me. Stopped down bokeh is probably better in 1.7. At least that's my current feeling. Near MFD sharpness seems to be about the same, but so far I haven't been satisfied with the performance at infinity with 1.4 when compared to 1.7. Don't know the reason for this yet. Could be user error, miss placed infinity or feature of the lens. As I tend to carry M85 with me the 1.7 might be the better fifty for me in travel kit. But I might chance my opinion before the month is thru I don't know K50/1.2, but M50/1.4 & 1.7 are so close in performance that man can easily live witt either one. On the other hand, with the prices they go, one can easily afford both.

10-04-2018, 07:49 AM	#6933
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Yes, the 1.7 is better for travel, and focuses nicely. I've been wanting to figure out how much of a step-down ring I could use as a hood like the DA 40 Ltd's (which I use on my M 40) which would also help protect the front element while not protruding much from the lens barrel. Interesting comment about the 1.4's poorer performance when focused to infinity. I do get what you're saying about "delicate renderings" with that lens and bokeh etc. I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell...

10-04-2018, 08:10 AM	#6934
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Originally posted by pres589 I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell... 1.2 probably will give you similar, but even better, features that 1.4 gives over 1.7, if I have understood correctly, so I get what you say. I have only M series fifties, so will propably keep 1.4, 1.7 & 4 as they have different strengths and there's not much money. For f2 there's just no use as it's basically weaker version of 1.7, so it can go after I have shot SIC month in FF with it. I have sold my DA50 as I find rendering of M50/1.7 far superior to it and didn't feel the need for AF.

10-04-2018, 08:54 AM	#6935
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	I'm not good at manual focusing even when I use my film camera with its split-prism focusing screen that is quite good in and of itself. Back-focusing seems to be one of my other useless super powers. I'm a lot better at manual focusing with the film camera than my digital, though.

10-04-2018, 10:02 AM	#6936
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by iheiramo I'm starting to get the feeling that this is the wide open and portrait fifty and 1.7 is the stopped down landscape lens. 4 for by its nature is The Macro and 2 is the no go fifty That is a beautiful pair of subjects in that portrait session.

10-04-2018, 10:45 AM	#6937
iheiramo Unoriginal Poster Join Date: Nov 2016 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 3,182	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies That is a beautiful pair of subjects in that portrait session. Thanks, my wife and our horse.

10-04-2018, 01:41 PM - 5 Likes	#6938
Piotrek K Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,384	M 75-150/4 at 150/f11 with SMC Close-up lens S 56 (645 close-up lens - 58 filter). While not the best photo it shows the quality of the setup quite well.

10-05-2018, 12:02 AM	#6939
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,059	Originally posted by pres589 I'm not good at manual focusing even when I use my film camera with its split-prism focusing screen that is quite good in and of itself. Back-focusing seems to be one of my other useless super powers. I'm a lot better at manual focusing with the film camera than my digital, though. It's possible that the mirror needs to be adjusted in your film camera (that's how focusing was calibrated in pre-AF days). It sure needed adjustment in the MX I used to shoot long ago.

10-05-2018, 12:59 AM	#6940
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	Originally posted by pres589 Yes, the 1.7 is better for travel, and focuses nicely. I've been wanting to figure out how much of a step-down ring I could use as a hood like the DA 40 Ltd's (which I use on my M 40) which would also help protect the front element while not protruding much from the lens barrel. Interesting comment about the 1.4's poorer performance when focused to infinity. I do get what you're saying about "delicate renderings" with that lens and bokeh etc. I just don't think I would reach for the 1.4 if I had a 1.7 and a 1.2 50mm pair of lenses on the shelf. And then I've also got a DA 50 1.8 for my digital camera as well. And an F 50 1.7 I need to sell... Very nice results and a good job of focusing. Originally posted by iheiramo I'm starting to get the feeling that this is the wide open and portrait fifty and 1.7 is the stopped down landscape lens. 4 for by its nature is The Macro and 2 is the no go fifty I remember another user stating that a 49mm to 37mm (I think) step-down ring worked well as a hood on the M 50/1.4 and vastly improved it's performance wide open. I haven't tried it myself as I haven't been able to find a single step-down ring from 49 to 37 but I'm sure with a couple of rings it could be done. I agree there's very little between the M 50/1.7 and the /1.4 overall. I've had good results with both but the 1.7 gets used more often as it's smaller and lighter and therefore good for travelling with as a standard prime for film and short fast tele on digital.

10-05-2018, 08:43 AM	#6941
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	B&H has step down rings available that go from 49mm to 37mm. Maybe there's someone selling them that's a bit more local to you. Thanks for the info on the sizing.

10-05-2018, 09:16 AM	#6942
CharLac Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Ottawa Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,419	Originally posted by Brian Mould K3ii and M200 f/4 A good friend of mine, Mike Burke (RIP), used to race Vintage at Mosport Down a ways....#227 Gallery –

10-05-2018, 09:35 AM	#6943
CharLac Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Ottawa Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,419	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac The 28mm f/3.5 shift is a K, though it was made right through the time of the M, A, F and into FA epoch. Okay, please, what is the difference between an M and a K? Thanks

10-05-2018, 12:01 PM	#6944
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,268	Originally posted by CharLac Okay, please, what is the difference between an M and a K? Thanks A quick and dirty answer is the M-series came after the K's. They are generally smaller than the K's and with slightly different optical formulas in most cases. I'll let the more knowledgeable folks elaborate.

10-05-2018, 12:10 PM - 1 Like	#6945
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The M-series lenses say M on them. The K-'s don't say that, they're just labeled SMC. Agreed that they were made to match the smaller M-series cameras (think MX as an example) vs. older K-series cameras like the K2 or K1000. Sometimes all new focal length & max aperture pairings were created to get there, like with the M 85mm f2, sometimes they went with all new optical designs like how the K 35mm f2 is different from the M 35mm f2. Functionally they're equivalent; k-mount, aperture ring required to control aperture vs. in-body control option like the A, F, and FA series lenses. Manual focus like the K's save for the ME-F's auto-focusing weirdo zoom that is a one-off oddity. Often the M-series is thought to perform worse, optically, than the K-series counterparts that came before them. Not always the case and really they should be evaluated on their own merits. Some wonderful lenses in the M-series; I really like my M 85 f2, M 40 f2.8, and M 28 f2.8 (second gen).