Nifty Fifty?

Capslock118 · 01-24-2011, 08:24 AM

You can find the 1.7 for less than $100 on ebay

Ira · 01-24-2011, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Capslock118

Of those lenses, we have a the 50 1.7 and 50 1.4

I don't really use the 1.7 in the dslr, obviously, why would I when I have the 1.4?

They have different characteristics, and I have the same habit that I have to break:

I have to shoot more with my Super Tak 55 1.8, because it's capable of great photos and simply different than my Super Tak 50 1.4. I would even go so far as to say that the 1.8 is crisper.

Don't want to say sharper, because some people may beat me up for claiming that, but I believe others believe this as well.

Andi Lo · 01-24-2011, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Leana

Here's my dilemma...SMC Pentax A 50 mm f/2 for $60 US or Pentax M 50mm 1.4 for $85 US. Both are used and in good condition. Which would you buy?

I sold my A50 here for $35-$35, so that copy is overpriced unless it's mint in box etc etc, but even then the 1.4 is way more potent, so either you save for it or wait for a better deal to come along. My first 50 was the takumar 50/1.4. paid $100 for it (super good condition) and it's my best 50. Didn't regret the price.

**twilhelm** · 01-24-2011, 09:02 AM

I have a nearly mint copy of the A50 f1.2 that I picked up 3 years ago when I got my K10d. It was attached to a P30t and cost me $30. I did enjoy the lens. About 9 months later I bought an M55 f1.8 ($18 again attached to a camera) beat up and looking like it went through a war zone.
Since I bought the M55, the A50 has not been coupled to my camera. Do I think the A lens is bad? Absolutely not, I just like the pictures from the M55 that much more.

Leana · 01-24-2011, 09:10 AM

Nifty Fifty: The Benefits of a Fixed 50mm Lens

I found this article and I am definately thinking of getting a used prime lens. I will keep my eye out for one on ebay. Thanks for all the informative posts!

Mike Cash · 01-24-2011, 11:10 AM

A 50/1.2 for $30 is more rare than unicorns. I think you mean a 50/2.

clockwork247 · 01-24-2011, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

A 50/1.2 for $30 is more rare than unicorns. I think you mean a 50/2.

for real lol

spystyle · 01-24-2011, 01:43 PM

I wonder how many guys order boxes of dusty lenses off eBay because it was listed as 1.2 (f/1.2) ...

Only to discover it was "1:2" (f/2) and a bunch of Minolta lenses.

Don't ask me how I know ....

Balog · 01-24-2011, 01:55 PM

So, if I have an A 50mm 1:2 would it be worthwhile to buy a 1:1.7 or 1:1.4? I generally adjust the aperture myself, but with the scroll wheel. I suppose doing it on the lens body wouldn't be that bad, but I'd have to bring the camera down from my eye which seems like it'd slow things down...

JeffJS · 01-24-2011, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Balog

So, if I have an A 50mm 1:2 would it be worthwhile to buy a 1:1.7 or 1:1.4? I generally adjust the aperture myself, but with the scroll wheel. I suppose doing it on the lens body wouldn't be that bad, but I'd have to bring the camera down from my eye which seems like it'd slow things down...

What's the rush? If you're using a manual focus lens, it's going to slow things down Anyway.

If you see yourself using the focal length, then definitely worth having the faster lens. Otherwise, it's a want to have sort of thing.

erkie · 01-24-2011, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Ira

They have different characteristics, and I have the same habit that I have to break:

I have to shoot more with my Super Tak 55 1.8, because it's capable of great photos and simply different than my Super Tak 55 1.4. I would even go so far as to say that the 1.8 is crisper.

Don't want to say sharper, because some people may beat me up for claiming that, but I believe others believe this as well.

I'm a believer Ira ! An entirely different rendering. Not smooth like the 1.4 but certainly pleasent. And usually sharper but that may be due to the slight advantage in DOF wide open.

Eric

VaughnA · 01-24-2011, 02:23 PM

I've got a M 1.7 and I love it. But that being said, the A50 F2 isn't really as bad as you'd think by reading this thread. Stop it down a stop or two and hit the focus and it's a surprisingly sharp lens. Much better than the kit lens or many mid-range zooms IMHO. If you can find one for 20-25 bucks it is a great way to see if you like shooting with manual primes before dishing out a lot of money. And you can often find it with a K1000 attached which is great to have around when you want to play with film.

Balog · 01-24-2011, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

What's the rush? If you're using a manual focus lens, it's going to slow things down Anyway.

If you see yourself using the focal length, then definitely worth having the faster lens. Otherwise, it's a want to have sort of thing.

Well, my thinking is that the majority of the shots I take are inside at night casual pics of my wife/friends/dog etc. I have no other lens as suited to that application. I usually set it to 2.0 or 2.4 and turn up the iso a bit so I can get a fast enough shutter speed to shoot sharp handheld candids. But I hear turning it up a stop improves clarity, so if I had a 1.7 (or 1.4/1.2) I could go up a stop and still be close to what I use now. Or so is my thinking. I was just wondering if the improvement would be enough to justify the cost, or if I should use it to get a split focus screen/ 135mm 2.8 or some other bit of gear I've been wanting.

JeffJS · 01-24-2011, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Balog

Well, my thinking is that the majority of the shots I take are inside at night casual pics of my wife/friends/dog etc. I have no other lens as suited to that application. I usually set it to 2.0 or 2.4 and turn up the iso a bit so I can get a fast enough shutter speed to shoot sharp handheld candids. But I hear turning it up a stop improves clarity, so if I had a 1.7 (or 1.4/1.2) I could go up a stop and still be close to what I use now. Or so is my thinking. I was just wondering if the improvement would be enough to justify the cost, or if I should use it to get a split focus screen/ 135mm 2.8 or some other bit of gear I've been wanting.

Take this for whatever you think it's worth... It is after all, just my opinion.

I personally don't think very highly of the 50mm f2.0. I'll give that it is compact, faster than the kit lenses, and simple to use, especially if you have the A version. In my experience with them however, they don't become sharp until you are at least at about f4 or slower. To replace your kit lens (assuming you have one) with a 50 f2.0 is a bit of a waste.

You can go back as long as I've been here. If anyone asks Which 50 to buy, my answer is almost Always the M or A 50 f1:1.7. They are the best of all compromises (in K mount) and won't break the new guy. With some patience, they can be found for less than $50. It's quite sharp wide open and at f2 - f2.8 it's one of the best out there. What the f1:1.4 will buy you is a thinner DOF and an extra stop over the f2.0. It is also very sharp stopped down to f2.0.

If you want to compare some of these lenses at Infinity,

Index of /Photos/50mmShootout

The first file in each directory is wide open, the last is fully stopped down (you'll see when you look).

Another worth considering if you want a fast 50 manual focus is the SMC 55mm f1.8, which is a K lens (predecessor to the M series). I would at the very least put it up there with the M50 f1:1.7 but it's more expensive due to the cult following of the K series primes.

As to a focus screen, depends on which camera you are using. I found them useful on the K10 and K20 cameras but with the K7 and now the K5, I find I don't need it as much. Especially with the Live View on those cameras.

135. completely different animal. It'll certainly increase your reach. Before purchasing and mounting one however, be sure to study the Ricoh Pin threads (so you're bargain 135 doesn't get stuck on the camera).

Balog · 01-24-2011, 04:28 PM

JeffJS: thank you so much, that's all very helpful. I do not, in fact, have a kit lens. Second hand K20. I also have fairly poor eyesight, and trying to see when things are in focus (especially in poor light) is just beyond me. I may get a 1.7, sell the f2 and use that $ to get a split screen.

I've heard of using the screens from old film bodies, and that would certainly be more economical. What film body is best suited for this?

01-24-2011, 08:33 AM	#32
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by Capslock118 Of those lenses, we have a the 50 1.7 and 50 1.4 I don't really use the 1.7 in the dslr, obviously, why would I when I have the 1.4? They have different characteristics, and I have the same habit that I have to break: I have to shoot more with my Super Tak 55 1.8, because it's capable of great photos and simply different than my Super Tak 50 1.4. I would even go so far as to say that the 1.8 is crisper. Don't want to say sharper, because some people may beat me up for claiming that, but I believe others believe this as well. Last edited by Ira; 01-25-2011 at 03:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Testing the nifty fifty ;)	Ramomar	Post Your Photos!	6	01-23-2011 03:14 PM
Travel Devizes with a nifty fifty	rob1234	Post Your Photos!	2	08-20-2010 12:20 AM
Streets Nifty Fifty in Cork	rparmar	Post Your Photos!	7	06-22-2010 07:08 AM
Next Lens? Nifty fifty?	ckusnierek	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	05-03-2010 06:28 AM
Which Nifty Fifty??	nitrox28	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	12-25-2009 12:18 PM

01-24-2011, 08:24 AM	#31
Capslock118 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Haven, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 173	You can find the 1.7 for less than $100 on ebay

01-24-2011, 08:38 AM	#33
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Leana Here's my dilemma...SMC Pentax A 50 mm f/2 for $60 US or Pentax M 50mm 1.4 for $85 US. Both are used and in good condition. Which would you buy? I sold my A50 here for $35-$35, so that copy is overpriced unless it's mint in box etc etc, but even then the 1.4 is way more potent, so either you save for it or wait for a better deal to come along. My first 50 was the takumar 50/1.4. paid $100 for it (super good condition) and it's my best 50. Didn't regret the price.

01-24-2011, 09:02 AM	#34
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	I have a nearly mint copy of the A50 f1.2 that I picked up 3 years ago when I got my K10d. It was attached to a P30t and cost me $30. I did enjoy the lens. About 9 months later I bought an M55 f1.8 ($18 again attached to a camera) beat up and looking like it went through a war zone. Since I bought the M55, the A50 has not been coupled to my camera. Do I think the A lens is bad? Absolutely not, I just like the pictures from the M55 that much more.

01-24-2011, 09:10 AM	#35
Leana Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 67 Original Poster	Nifty Fifty: The Benefits of a Fixed 50mm Lens I found this article and I am definately thinking of getting a used prime lens. I will keep my eye out for one on ebay. Thanks for all the informative posts!

01-24-2011, 11:10 AM	#36
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	A 50/1.2 for $30 is more rare than unicorns. I think you mean a 50/2.

01-24-2011, 11:24 AM	#37
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Mike Cash A 50/1.2 for $30 is more rare than unicorns. I think you mean a 50/2. for real lol

01-24-2011, 01:43 PM	#38
spystyle Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 424	I wonder how many guys order boxes of dusty lenses off eBay because it was listed as 1.2 (f/1.2) ... Only to discover it was "1:2" (f/2) and a bunch of Minolta lenses. Don't ask me how I know ....

01-24-2011, 01:55 PM	#39
Balog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 103	So, if I have an A 50mm 1:2 would it be worthwhile to buy a 1:1.7 or 1:1.4? I generally adjust the aperture myself, but with the scroll wheel. I suppose doing it on the lens body wouldn't be that bad, but I'd have to bring the camera down from my eye which seems like it'd slow things down...

01-24-2011, 01:59 PM	#40
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Balog So, if I have an A 50mm 1:2 would it be worthwhile to buy a 1:1.7 or 1:1.4? I generally adjust the aperture myself, but with the scroll wheel. I suppose doing it on the lens body wouldn't be that bad, but I'd have to bring the camera down from my eye which seems like it'd slow things down... What's the rush? If you're using a manual focus lens, it's going to slow things down Anyway. If you see yourself using the focal length, then definitely worth having the faster lens. Otherwise, it's a want to have sort of thing.

01-24-2011, 02:16 PM	#41
erkie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 407	Originally posted by Ira They have different characteristics, and I have the same habit that I have to break: I have to shoot more with my Super Tak 55 1.8, because it's capable of great photos and simply different than my Super Tak 55 1.4. I would even go so far as to say that the 1.8 is crisper. Don't want to say sharper, because some people may beat me up for claiming that, but I believe others believe this as well. I'm a believer Ira ! An entirely different rendering. Not smooth like the 1.4 but certainly pleasent. And usually sharper but that may be due to the slight advantage in DOF wide open. Eric

01-24-2011, 02:23 PM	#42
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	I've got a M 1.7 and I love it. But that being said, the A50 F2 isn't really as bad as you'd think by reading this thread. Stop it down a stop or two and hit the focus and it's a surprisingly sharp lens. Much better than the kit lens or many mid-range zooms IMHO. If you can find one for 20-25 bucks it is a great way to see if you like shooting with manual primes before dishing out a lot of money. And you can often find it with a K1000 attached which is great to have around when you want to play with film.

01-24-2011, 03:04 PM	#43
Balog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 103	Originally posted by JeffJS What's the rush? If you're using a manual focus lens, it's going to slow things down Anyway. If you see yourself using the focal length, then definitely worth having the faster lens. Otherwise, it's a want to have sort of thing. Well, my thinking is that the majority of the shots I take are inside at night casual pics of my wife/friends/dog etc. I have no other lens as suited to that application. I usually set it to 2.0 or 2.4 and turn up the iso a bit so I can get a fast enough shutter speed to shoot sharp handheld candids. But I hear turning it up a stop improves clarity, so if I had a 1.7 (or 1.4/1.2) I could go up a stop and still be close to what I use now. Or so is my thinking. I was just wondering if the improvement would be enough to justify the cost, or if I should use it to get a split focus screen/ 135mm 2.8 or some other bit of gear I've been wanting.

01-24-2011, 03:59 PM	#44
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Balog Well, my thinking is that the majority of the shots I take are inside at night casual pics of my wife/friends/dog etc. I have no other lens as suited to that application. I usually set it to 2.0 or 2.4 and turn up the iso a bit so I can get a fast enough shutter speed to shoot sharp handheld candids. But I hear turning it up a stop improves clarity, so if I had a 1.7 (or 1.4/1.2) I could go up a stop and still be close to what I use now. Or so is my thinking. I was just wondering if the improvement would be enough to justify the cost, or if I should use it to get a split focus screen/ 135mm 2.8 or some other bit of gear I've been wanting. Take this for whatever you think it's worth... It is after all, just my opinion. I personally don't think very highly of the 50mm f2.0. I'll give that it is compact, faster than the kit lenses, and simple to use, especially if you have the A version. In my experience with them however, they don't become sharp until you are at least at about f4 or slower. To replace your kit lens (assuming you have one) with a 50 f2.0 is a bit of a waste. You can go back as long as I've been here. If anyone asks Which 50 to buy, my answer is almost Always the M or A 50 f1:1.7. They are the best of all compromises (in K mount) and won't break the new guy. With some patience, they can be found for less than $50. It's quite sharp wide open and at f2 - f2.8 it's one of the best out there. What the f1:1.4 will buy you is a thinner DOF and an extra stop over the f2.0. It is also very sharp stopped down to f2.0. If you want to compare some of these lenses at Infinity, Index of /Photos/50mmShootout The first file in each directory is wide open, the last is fully stopped down (you'll see when you look). Another worth considering if you want a fast 50 manual focus is the SMC 55mm f1.8, which is a K lens (predecessor to the M series). I would at the very least put it up there with the M50 f1:1.7 but it's more expensive due to the cult following of the K series primes. As to a focus screen, depends on which camera you are using. I found them useful on the K10 and K20 cameras but with the K7 and now the K5, I find I don't need it as much. Especially with the Live View on those cameras. 135. completely different animal. It'll certainly increase your reach. Before purchasing and mounting one however, be sure to study the Ricoh Pin threads (so you're bargain 135 doesn't get stuck on the camera).

01-24-2011, 04:28 PM	#45
Balog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 103	JeffJS: thank you so much, that's all very helpful. I do not, in fact, have a kit lens. Second hand K20. I also have fairly poor eyesight, and trying to see when things are in focus (especially in poor light) is just beyond me. I may get a 1.7, sell the f2 and use that $ to get a split screen. I've heard of using the screens from old film bodies, and that would certainly be more economical. What film body is best suited for this?