[dlacouture]

It's closer to a 35mm 1.8. But that wasn't really the point here.

I nearly changed to f/1.7 at the time I wrote it, but felt too lazy given the importance of my post

[thibs]

It's closer to a 35mm 1.8. But that wasn't really the point here.

Indeed but my point wasn't about DOF, but shutter speed allowed by getting better high ISO.
The DOF issue isn't fixed by using high ISO obviously.

[gazonk]

Indeed but my point wasn't about DOF, but shutter speed allowed by getting better high ISO.
The DOF issue isn't fixed by using high ISO obviously.

I think we agree, but MY point about DOF was the opposite: That in the film days the 1.4-2.8 aperture range was not really as useful as many may think - because the DoF was too thin. I almost always stopped down to 2.8 when shooting our babies in low indoor light, because 1.7-2.0 shots simply had too little DoF. You had to choose between bothering the babies with flash, risking motion blur, getting too little DoF or getting extreme grain with 800 or 1600 film

Btw I recently scanned a nice photo of my grandma, shot indoors in available light with Kodachrome 64 (I think) at the age of 15 with my first SLR, a Topcon Unirex with a 2.0 lens. I think I shot it at f/2.0, and in today's pixel-peeping world I would have deemed it as OOF. But at 10x15cm print size back then it was more than sharp enough...

[Blue]

I'm never going to promote a plastic mount prime lens for a ~ $10 savings. If a lens comes out with a plasti mount and has fewer elements, it will be heavily criticized if it can't hang with the FA 35mm f2 optically. It would be the subject of an ONION Commercial like the Sony's G-D-F-POS one they did.

[Blue]

. . .
Btw I recently scanned a nice photo of my grandma, shot indoors in available light with Kodachrome 64 (I think) at the age of 15 with my first SLR, a Topcon Unirex with a 2.0 lens. I think I shot it at f/2.0, and in today's pixel-peeping world I would have deemed it as OOF. But at 10x15cm print size back then it was more than sharp enough...

Enlarge any image enough and it will be out of focus, grainy/pixelated etc.

[thibs]

I think we agree, but MY point about DOF was the opposite: That in the film days the 1.4-2.8 aperture range was not really as useful as many may think - because the DoF was too thin. I almost always stopped down to 2.8 when shooting our babies in low indoor light, because 1.7-2.0 shots simply had too little DoF. You had to choose between bothering the babies with flash, risking motion blur, getting too little DoF or getting extreme grain with 800 or 1600 film

Btw I recently scanned a nice photo of my grandma, shot indoors in available light with Kodachrome 64 (I think) at the age of 15 with my first SLR, a Topcon Unirex with a 2.0 lens. I think I shot it at f/2.0, and in today's pixel-peeping world I would have deemed it as OOF. But at 10x15cm print size back then it was more than sharp enough...

Understood and agreed, happened to me as well, and still does when doing Video with the K-7: quality is night and day compared to my LX3 (both 720p though) but it is often hard to nail focus, specially on a screen (opposed to EVF where light isn't in the way).

[awo425]

Price says everything. If it stays under 300$, and has the optical quality Pentax is used to provide, i bet it would be another nobrainer must have, like FA50/1.4 was or EF50/1.8 s for Canon.

EF50/1.8 is like $80 street price

[Blue]

EF50/1.8 is like $80 street price

The problem that you guys continually ignore is that the bench mark for Pentaxians is the FA 50mm f1.4 and FA 35mm f2. Anything less is a paper weight which is what that Canon p.o.s is.

Edit: The EF f1.8 II lens is an aps-c lens test.


EF 50mm f1.8 II



FA 50mm f1.4



Those mtf charts are from photozone http://www.photozone.de/pentax/126-pentax-smc-fa-50mm-f14-review--lab-test-report?start=1

Edit edit: Go over to flickr and search for examples from both lenses. Look for the 20 best of each can find the 5 worst for each. Look at similar sizing.

Edit: Edit: Edit: The Canon APS-c sensor was 8mp and the Pentax was the K10d.

[thibs]

T

Edit: The EF f1.8 II lens is an aps-c lens.

APS-C lens? It means EF-S, not EF. Strange...

[Blue]

APS-C lens? It means EF-S, not EF. Strange...

If you don't like Photozone' terminology, take it up with them. It is an EF lens. However, while they tested it on full frame, the FA 50mm was tested on the k10d.

[ytterbium]

What's the point?
Both of them reach in the excellent level. Canon is even more consistent across frame and aperture values. But it has dull and pale image characteristics, boring bokeh and unreliable AF.

Both are 50mm's. We are talinkg about 3x mm. I was just mentioning as a posetive example for a lens that does the job without being luxury.

As for the F number. Indeed an F1.7 would be needed to reproduce the dof of something like F2.8..3.5 50mm lens. Only my 30/1.4 had somewhat FF/Film looking dof and feeling of depth in it's images, at this focal length (i've tried m28/2.8, 30/3.5, 35/2, 18-55~F4 at those FL and probably some more).

FA 35/2 might cut it, but since it is rarely in production it's price is inadequate, for a reasonable normal prime. If your'e crazy enough about photography to afford it 35/2.8, F2.8 dosn't cut it, especially in macro lens design, where DOF is greater than normal.
If the Sigma 30/1.4 didnt had raped AF system (it native HSM for other brands) it might be an option.

Btw:
EF - full frame (Canon's FA/D-FA)
EF-S - cropped format (Like DA)
Did you mean that you took the APS-C test results?

[Blue]

What's the point?
Both of them reach in the excellent level. Canon is even more consistent across frame and aperture values. But it has dull and pale image characteristics, boring bokeh and unreliable AF.

Both are 50mm's. We are talinkg about 3x mm. I was just mentioning as a posetive example for a lens that does the job without being luxury.

As for the F number. Indeed an F1.7 would be needed to reproduce the dof of something like F2.8..3.5 50mm lens. Only my 30/1.4 had somewhat 35mm looking dof and feeling of depth in it's images, at this focal length (i've tried m28/2.8, 30/3.5, 35/2, 18-55~F4 at those FL and probably some more).

Btw:
EF - full frame (Canon's FA/D-FA)
EF-S - cropped format (Like DA)
Did you mean that you took the APS-C test results?

I know what EF-S means. I didn't bring up EF-S Thibs did trying to be coy. It is obvious that the K10d is an aps-c sensor so why the hell would I use the full frame test?

As far as the point, every when in these "give us a piece of shit plastic mount 50 & 35mm" threads likes to bring up this Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II that was released in 1990. The FA 50mm f1.4 was released in 1991. THAT WAS MY POINT.

The 50s got brought into the discussion, so deal with it. There is no point in bringing in a lesser lens than the FA 35mm f2. What do you propose, the bring out the FA 35mm f2 with a plasti-mount for $10 less than the regular version? As I stated in an earlier post, the FA 50 and 35 will be the bench mark and anything less would be a failure.

Edit: BTW, you forgot to go pull up the best 20 images you could find from both and the 5 worst excluding full-frame. Another comparison could be done on film. I have one of the 1st EOS 10s bodies that hit the market and my standard lens is the EF 50mm f2.5 macro.

[Blue]

Price says everything. If it stays under 300$, and has the optical quality Pentax is used to provide, i bet it would be another nobrainer must have, like FA50/1.4 was or EF50/1.8 s for Canon.

See, you were talking about the 50s back on post 9 long before I pointed out the tests at photozone. Furthermore, the EF 50mm f1.8 II was released in 1990 and the FA 50mm f1.4 was released in 1991.

[thibs]

Huh I have a question and you react like a child forbidden to eat his last candy.
You're unnecessary rude (not the first time) and closedminded.
Hopefully Ignore list exists.

[Blue]

Huh I have a question and you react like a child forbidden to eat his last candy.
You're unnecessary rude (not the first time) and closedminded.
Hopefully Ignore list exists.

This wasn't much of a question. It was an utterance. Show me another time I've been rude to you? You like to dish crap out but get made when some one hands you a crap sandwich.

APS-C lens? It means EF-S, not EF. Strange...

That EF lens was released for filmlong before anyone thought about a dSLR.

Edit: Like I care about your ignore list.