[NS_Sailor]

It's a bit ironic that the local photo club I belong to has put out a similar challenge for members to use only a 50mm lens on July 1st Canada Day.

So to prepare for the event, to go along with my F2 100% Manual and F2 Auto Aperture Manual focus lenses which I knew would perform well on the K1ii. I began experimenting with my DA 50 1.8 (Plastic Fantastic) on the K1ii in Full Frame mode and was pleasantly surprised with the results with respect to vignettes at the wider aperture settings

[MSL]

I shoot with a LUMIX G9, but use an array of Pentax lenses. Most of my shooting is with the old manual Pentax lenses on my G9. So instead of focusing on (pun intended) Pentax & RICOH cameras, would you consider sponsoring a contest that showcased just the Pentax glass. I would love to show off some of the photos I’ve made with Pentax glass. I am a true believer in Pentax products and they have helped me make a few images that I am very proud of. Color, contrast, bokeh, and some stunning sharpness that is equal to any other manufacturer out there; Pentax lenses are a marvel.

It is a good thought and something I could consider if I run a second series next year. I'll try to remember this when I survey the membership later this year.

[MossyRocks]

I'm also disappointed you didn't include the 50/2.0

I did actually since there are the open apertures from 1.7 to 2 on a number of 50s. I've found them all to be very good and apart from the 50 macros I own at least one 50 at each aperture.

[MSL]

I did actually since there are the open apertures from 1.7 to 2 on a number of 50s. I've found them all to be very good and apart from the 50 macros I own at least one 50 at each aperture.

So you did. I guess I see people (including myself) treat the 1.7 and 2.0 different, since there is some truth that the former are useful wide open, while the latter are best used stopped down (for the M/A variations, although the Takumar 50 are a different story)

[MossyRocks]

So you did. I guess I see people (including myself) treat the 1.7 and 2.0 different, since there is some truth that the former are useful wide open, while the latter are best used stopped down (for the M/A variations, although the Takumar 50 are a different story)

Having 1.4s and a 1.2 means that my 1.7 and 2.0 don't get used and basically are just body caps for cameras. I did try the 1.7 and 2.0 for astro and while not as good as the 1.4s or 1.2s it is still useable but the 2.0 not so much, especially considering that for $30 to $40 one can get a good condition 50/1.4 that will be better than either the 1.7 or 2.0 for astro.

[DAZ]

I wanted to take a relatively long exposer night photo of the Seattle skyline. For this I would need both high resolution and very low internal lens reflections. My Pentax M 50MM 1.7 lens seemed perfect for this. The resulting photo is a stitch of 2 separate exposures on a Pentax K20 ISO 100, 15 seconds and I believe f8. I liked this photo so much I had it printed on 2 three-foot wide aluminum panels that take up over 6 feet of wall space.


https://live.staticflickr.com/4042/5183474388_3e02e6d35b_o_d.jpg

[MossyRocks]

I liked this photo so much I had it printed on 2 three-foot wide aluminum panels that take up over 6 feet of wall space.

That is a nice shot

[Apet-Sure]

Here's a sample of what my Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 can do. This was taken with the K-5IIs, but I get lovely results on the KP as well.
K-5IIs 4586 PFcrop - Apet-Sure's Album: Nature-K5IIs - PentaxForums.com

[jmcsys]

Here's a sample of what my Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 can do. This was taken with the K-5IIs, but I get lovely results on the KP as well.
K-5IIs 4586 PFcrop - Apet-Sure's Album: Nature-K5IIs - PentaxForums.com

Your 1.7 lens is phenomenal. I hear others slight it in favor of 1.2 & 1.4. Are those lens really much better? If so, I really like to try one.
Otherwise, your use of the 1.7 is fabulous. The lens/camera/subject/photographer-artist here, is a combination that is hard to argue with.

[MossyRocks]

I hear others slight it in favor of 1.2 & 1.4. Are those lens really much better?

I think it really depends on what you are after. The 1.2 and 1.4 are both really soft wide open and the 1.2s are fairly glowy in the right conditions. Also the wider apertures smoosh the background to a bokeh pudding more. Once one starts stopping them down the differences between them and the 1.7 become less apparent. In punishing shooting conditions like astro shooting where you want to have as open aperture as possible the 1.2 get best soonest (f/2.5) then the 1.4 (f/2.8)and then the 1.7 however once one gets past about f/3.5 (where I find the 1.7 gets best for astro) all of the lenses would be basically the same with the only differences in how the render and starbursts so it would become a matter of preference. However if one is running full frame I would expect different results since I did my testing with my K-3ii on an equatorial.

[Apet-Sure]

Your 1.7 lens is phenomenal.

And it was the 'kit' lens that came with my ME Super! I didn't record the f-stop I used for this shot, but I hardly ever shoot wide open. I probably stopped it down a few clicks for DOF.

Thank you for your kind comments.

[Smolk]

Pentax KX, SMC-M 1.7/50mm, Ektar 100

[jmcsys]

I think it really depends on what you are after. The 1.2 and 1.4 are both really soft wide open and the 1.2s are fairly glowy in the right conditions. Also the wider apertures smoosh the background to a bokeh pudding more. Once one starts stopping them down the differences between them and the 1.7 become less apparent. In punishing shooting conditions like astro shooting where you want to have as open aperture as possible the 1.2 get best soonest (f/2.5) then the 1.4 (f/2.8)and then the 1.7 however once one gets past about f/3.5 (where I find the 1.7 gets best for astro) all of the lenses would be basically the same with the only differences in how the render and starbursts so it would become a matter of preference. However if one is running full frame I would expect different results since I did my testing with my K-3ii on an equatorial.

Thanks for the comparison. From my read of your comments, the only real differences are the apps where the lenses start operating optimally. And the larger apps do that sooner. Makes perfect sense. I love my SMC M 1.7. I also love my A Macro 2.8. Both are fabulous 50mm lenses. The 2.8 is scary sharp at times. Still, I’d love to play with 1.2 or 1.4.

[MossyRocks]

Thanks for the comparison. From my read of your comments, the only real differences are the apps where the lenses start operating optimally. And the larger apps do that sooner. Makes perfect sense. I love my SMC M 1.7. I also love my A Macro 2.8. Both are fabulous 50mm lenses. The 2.8 is scary sharp at times. Still, I’d love to play with 1.2 or 1.4.

There are rendering differences as well but those are more of a matter of personal taste. The 1.7 is nice and crisp, almost clinical, the 1.2 renders a lot like the 77ltd which is why I like it, the 1.4 is sharp and good but I've never found anything particularly interesting with how it renders. The 2.0 I've only used a couple of times and then ignored. I would much rather run the 1.2 or 1.4. For a macro I would expect nothing less than crazy sharp and the super narrow depth of field one gets when really pressing in.

Playing with a 1.4 is a cheap option if you are willing to get a manual focus one. I can buy them all day near me at a local shop for $30 to $60.

[othar]

I nominate the SMC Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 lens.
The somewhat clunky aperture ring is considered as a weaknes of this lens, but the convenient A setting makes using the aperture ring unnecessary on a DSLR anyway and it allows the lens to be operated in all shooting modes.

It is small, light, sharp, reasonable flare resistant and fast, therefore the perfect companion for every occasion, no matter whether it's day or night.