Soft image when using M-50mm f/2 on K-01

mythguy9 · 02-11-2013, 01:24 AM

Hi guys, I borrowed my friend's K-01 and shot it with my own Pentax-M 50mm f/2 on it. But the results are duller and softer compared to his 40mm pancake kit. I just want to know if any of you also have the same result (i.e. generally duller and softer images)? As you can see the sand in the below image lacks details (although still acceptable for me).

Shot on K-01 with M-50mm f/2:

I plan to use old lenses on my future DSLR (prob buying K5), so I want to know the general image quality when pairing up older lenses. I saw a lot of images online but some have used sharpening so I doubt the accuracy if I compare.

p/s: The depth of field is also shallower than expected (I know it's a 75mm-equivalent but I stopped down to f/8, I'm also sure there is not hand shake). Maybe it's just my lack of experience...

Adam · 02-11-2013, 01:30 AM

This doesn't seem too great for F8, but keep in mind that the F2 version of the 50mm lens is the cheapest one, and thus also the least sharp. The 40mm should be much, much sharper, as should the 50mm F1.7.

elliott · 02-11-2013, 01:52 AM

What mode were you shooting in?

ihasa · 02-11-2013, 02:19 AM - **1 Like**

Looks like it didn't stop down. Maybe shot the lens in Av / Auto?

mythguy9 · 02-11-2013, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by elliott

What mode were you shooting in?

I was shooting in Av mode. I also doubt that it didn't stop down, because the EXIF says the shutter speed was 1/4000 @ ISO100, too impossible for a f/8 on cloudy day. Should I shoot on full manual mode?

Jonathan Mac · 02-11-2013, 02:44 AM

When I first got my first manual lens, an M 50mm f/1.7, for a while I thought I was shooting it stopped down when I really wasn't. I set the aperture and put the camera in Av mode, as seemed very logical (and which works on non-crippled K-mount bodies). The 50mm f/2 lenses are not known for their sharpness or contrast, at least wide open, but should be better stopped down to f/8. The pile of sand does look sharper than the background, which suggests to me the narrower depth of field of using the lens wide open.

In order to stop down you need the camera in M mode. You can then meter using the green button.

mythguy9 · 02-11-2013, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

When I first got my first manual lens, an M 50mm f/1.7, for a while I thought I was shooting it stopped down when I really wasn't. I set the aperture and put the camera in Av mode, as seemed very logical (and which works on non-crippled K-mount bodies). The 50mm f/2 lenses are not known for their sharpness or contrast, at least wide open, but should be better stopped down to f/8. The pile of sand does look sharper than the background, which suggests to me the narrower depth of field of using the lens wide open.

In order to stop down you need the camera in M mode. You can then meter using the green button.

Thank you Jonathan! That explains everything now. So I did NOT stop down to f/8 when I think I did. I checked online info and indeed I should have used M mode, meter with green button, and then set shutter speed accordingly. Thank you very much.

I'd call this and question solved. Thank you for everyone's answer!

For green button instruction, read this https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/110657-how-use-meter...k-x-k-7-a.html

Last edited by mythguy9; 02-11-2013 at 03:02 AM. Reason: add link for easy reading

**RKKS08** · 02-11-2013, 07:14 AM - **1 Like**

@Adam and others

I can't agree with the M 2.0/50 bashing you can find all over this forum. I have a feeling many posters are just repeating what they have read elsewhere.

From 1981 till 1985, I used that lens (with a ME Super) as a standard for shooting at party events every week. All photos with flash and F5.6. I had loads of tack sharp images, many of them sold as 60x40cm, and still very sharp.

When I got the then new Super A with the SMC-A 1.4/50, I saw the better resolution at F2-F2.8, but nothing visible in real life shots at F5.6-F8.

One should also not forget, that the 2.0 (M and A type) has the same outside dimensions as the 1.7, but less glass -> less prone to flare. Adding to this is the fact, that the front lens is sitting deeper inside the tubes, so, compared with the 1.7 and 1.4, it has more of a kind of built-in lens hood.

**paulh** · 02-11-2013, 07:41 AM

I'm glad the OP discovered the problem & can use his lens correctly now. The M50/2 was my introduction to manual lenses, and I still use it a lot. As RKKS08 says, the lens gets an undeserved bad rap. Yes, the bokeh at wide apertures can be weird and busy-looking sometimes. But stopped down, it's tack sharp with beautiful color rendering and contrast. Some of my best photos were taken with this lens, mostly outdoor portraits, street scenes & some landscapes. For the low prices they are going for, its a lot of lens for little cash

altopiet · 02-11-2013, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by mythguy9

As you can see the sand in the below image lacks details (although still acceptable for me).

Sand? I only see two pebbles, they seem nicely in focus although a bit soft.... At f2 this lens is not the sharpest 50 around, but for that kind of image, I think it's sharp enough!

Adam · 02-11-2013, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by RKKS08

@Adam and others

I can't agree with the M 2.0/50 bashing you can find all over this forum. I have a feeling many posters are just repeating what they have read elsewhere.

From 1981 till 1985, I used that lens (with a ME Super) as a standard for shooting at party events every week. All photos with flash and F5.6. I had loads of tack sharp images, many of them sold as 60x40cm, and still very sharp.

When I got the then new Super A with the SMC-A 1.4/50, I saw the better resolution at F2-F2.8, but nothing visible in real life shots at F5.6-F8.

One should also not forget, that the 2.0 (M and A type) has the same outside dimensions as the 1.7, but less glass -> less prone to flare. Adding to this is the fact, that the front lens is sitting deeper inside the tubes, so, compared with the 1.7 and 1.4, it has more of a kind of built-in lens hood.

If a lens was "good enough" for film it might not be good enough for digital- remember that back in the day, we didn't pixel-peep like we do today.

mrNewt · 02-11-2013, 10:42 AM

NM ... didn't read all the posts carefully

wombat2go · 02-11-2013, 10:52 AM

I just updated the K-01 firmware and followed advice of another thread for focussing in manual by zoom with SR off.
Here is the Pentax-M 1:2 50mm (32 years old) at f/8
I focussed on Spiderman saying "Don't"
On the Eizo the image is sharp up to 140% screen zoom.
(3MB camera jpg)
https://www.box.com/s/mz3phpxqe5x3ajuku023
edit: new link

vonBaloney · 02-11-2013, 11:01 AM

Many M50/2s are downright soft wide-open -- I thought so back in the 80s on film. I even did a special project one time using only that lens wide-open for long exposure night photography (the long-exposure tended to make it even software with slight blur from vibrations added) because it gave everything a special cartoonish miniature look. Stopped down it is fine like most lenses, but noticably soft wide open...

wombat2go · 02-11-2013, 11:34 AM

I just tried M 50mm wide open f/2 at about 2 metre ( 5 ft)
The lens is not as sharp as at f/8, however the DOF at f/2 is only about 100mm ( 4 inch).
In the sharp plane, the detail is still quite good.
We should not confuse softness with small DOF

Sorry my links ( above) to box.com are not working today.

02-11-2013, 01:24 AM	#1
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276	Soft image when using M-50mm f/2 on K-01 Hi guys, I borrowed my friend's K-01 and shot it with my own Pentax-M 50mm f/2 on it. But the results are duller and softer compared to his 40mm pancake kit. I just want to know if any of you also have the same result (i.e. generally duller and softer images)? As you can see the sand in the below image lacks details (although still acceptable for me). Shot on K-01 with M-50mm f/2: I plan to use old lenses on my future DSLR (prob buying K5), so I want to know the general image quality when pairing up older lenses. I saw a lot of images online but some have used sharpening so I doubt the accuracy if I compare. p/s: The depth of field is also shallower than expected (I know it's a 75mm-equivalent but I stopped down to f/8, I'm also sure there is not hand shake). Maybe it's just my lack of experience...

02-11-2013, 01:30 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	This doesn't seem too great for F8, but keep in mind that the F2 version of the 50mm lens is the cheapest one, and thus also the least sharp. The 40mm should be much, much sharper, as should the 50mm F1.7. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-11-2013, 10:32 AM	#11
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Originally posted by RKKS08 @Adam and others I can't agree with the M 2.0/50 bashing you can find all over this forum. I have a feeling many posters are just repeating what they have read elsewhere. From 1981 till 1985, I used that lens (with a ME Super) as a standard for shooting at party events every week. All photos with flash and F5.6. I had loads of tack sharp images, many of them sold as 60x40cm, and still very sharp. When I got the then new Super A with the SMC-A 1.4/50, I saw the better resolution at F2-F2.8, but nothing visible in real life shots at F5.6-F8. One should also not forget, that the 2.0 (M and A type) has the same outside dimensions as the 1.7, but less glass -> less prone to flare. Adding to this is the fact, that the front lens is sitting deeper inside the tubes, so, compared with the 1.7 and 1.4, it has more of a kind of built-in lens hood. If a lens was "good enough" for film it might not be good enough for digital- remember that back in the day, we didn't pixel-peep like we do today. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-11-2013, 10:52 AM	#13
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	I just updated the K-01 firmware and followed advice of another thread for focussing in manual by zoom with SR off. Here is the Pentax-M 1:2 50mm (32 years old) at f/8 I focussed on Spiderman saying "Don't" On the Eizo the image is sharp up to 140% screen zoom. (3MB camera jpg) https://www.box.com/s/mz3phpxqe5x3ajuku023 edit: new link Last edited by wombat2go; 02-11-2013 at 12:24 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Metering using M Lenses on K-01	Codazzle	Pentax K-01	20	03-15-2013 04:35 PM
A problem occured when turning on k-01...	atkwf41h	Pentax K-01	5	01-12-2013 07:28 PM
Shutter fires when using 50mm 1.4 Pentax M on KR	gridzero85	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	09-25-2012 05:53 PM
Image over-exposure using Av on a K-m	woodyneale	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	05-30-2011 06:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC 85mm f/2.2 Soft, SMC-M 50mm f/4 Macro, SMC-M 135 3.5, SMC-M 85mm 2, SMC-M	jgmankos	Sold Items	3	06-14-2010 06:48 PM

02-11-2013, 01:52 AM	#3
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	What mode were you shooting in?

02-11-2013, 02:19 AM - 1 Like	#4
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	Looks like it didn't stop down. Maybe shot the lens in Av / Auto?

02-11-2013, 02:42 AM	#5
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276 Original Poster	Originally posted by elliott What mode were you shooting in? I was shooting in Av mode. I also doubt that it didn't stop down, because the EXIF says the shutter speed was 1/4000 @ ISO100, too impossible for a f/8 on cloudy day. Should I shoot on full manual mode?

02-11-2013, 02:44 AM	#6
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,887	When I first got my first manual lens, an M 50mm f/1.7, for a while I thought I was shooting it stopped down when I really wasn't. I set the aperture and put the camera in Av mode, as seemed very logical (and which works on non-crippled K-mount bodies). The 50mm f/2 lenses are not known for their sharpness or contrast, at least wide open, but should be better stopped down to f/8. The pile of sand does look sharper than the background, which suggests to me the narrower depth of field of using the lens wide open. In order to stop down you need the camera in M mode. You can then meter using the green button.

02-11-2013, 02:57 AM	#7
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac When I first got my first manual lens, an M 50mm f/1.7, for a while I thought I was shooting it stopped down when I really wasn't. I set the aperture and put the camera in Av mode, as seemed very logical (and which works on non-crippled K-mount bodies). The 50mm f/2 lenses are not known for their sharpness or contrast, at least wide open, but should be better stopped down to f/8. The pile of sand does look sharper than the background, which suggests to me the narrower depth of field of using the lens wide open. In order to stop down you need the camera in M mode. You can then meter using the green button. Thank you Jonathan! That explains everything now. So I did NOT stop down to f/8 when I think I did. I checked online info and indeed I should have used M mode, meter with green button, and then set shutter speed accordingly. Thank you very much. I'd call this and question solved. Thank you for everyone's answer! For green button instruction, read this https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/110657-how-use-meter...k-x-k-7-a.html Last edited by mythguy9; 02-11-2013 at 03:02 AM. Reason: add link for easy reading

02-11-2013, 07:14 AM - 1 Like	#8
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	@Adam and others I can't agree with the M 2.0/50 bashing you can find all over this forum. I have a feeling many posters are just repeating what they have read elsewhere. From 1981 till 1985, I used that lens (with a ME Super) as a standard for shooting at party events every week. All photos with flash and F5.6. I had loads of tack sharp images, many of them sold as 60x40cm, and still very sharp. When I got the then new Super A with the SMC-A 1.4/50, I saw the better resolution at F2-F2.8, but nothing visible in real life shots at F5.6-F8. One should also not forget, that the 2.0 (M and A type) has the same outside dimensions as the 1.7, but less glass -> less prone to flare. Adding to this is the fact, that the front lens is sitting deeper inside the tubes, so, compared with the 1.7 and 1.4, it has more of a kind of built-in lens hood.

02-11-2013, 07:41 AM	#9
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,251	I'm glad the OP discovered the problem & can use his lens correctly now. The M50/2 was my introduction to manual lenses, and I still use it a lot. As RKKS08 says, the lens gets an undeserved bad rap. Yes, the bokeh at wide apertures can be weird and busy-looking sometimes. But stopped down, it's tack sharp with beautiful color rendering and contrast. Some of my best photos were taken with this lens, mostly outdoor portraits, street scenes & some landscapes. For the low prices they are going for, its a lot of lens for little cash

02-11-2013, 07:41 AM	#10
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307	Originally posted by mythguy9 As you can see the sand in the below image lacks details (although still acceptable for me). Sand? I only see two pebbles, they seem nicely in focus although a bit soft.... At f2 this lens is not the sharpest 50 around, but for that kind of image, I think it's sharp enough!

02-11-2013, 10:42 AM	#12
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	NM ... didn't read all the posts carefully

02-11-2013, 11:01 AM	#14
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Many M50/2s are downright soft wide-open -- I thought so back in the 80s on film. I even did a special project one time using only that lens wide-open for long exposure night photography (the long-exposure tended to make it even software with slight blur from vibrations added) because it gave everything a special cartoonish miniature look. Stopped down it is fine like most lenses, but noticably soft wide open...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2013, 11:34 AM	#15
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	I just tried M 50mm wide open f/2 at about 2 metre ( 5 ft) The lens is not as sharp as at f/8, however the DOF at f/2 is only about 100mm ( 4 inch). In the sharp plane, the detail is still quite good. We should not confuse softness with small DOF Sorry my links ( above) to box.com are not working today.