Hoping this is not too stupid a question

RioRico · 02-14-2011, 10:51 PM

Well said, noblepa. Sometimes we want total sharpness, and sometimes we don't, and either can be achieved with lenses selection and careful use of focus and DOF. Using a lens at its soft spot is rather like using a cheap tele or a flawed lens with notable character -- the content is more important than the resolution and details. I don't use my FA50/1.4 or Tomioka 55/1.4 or Tak-B 135/2.5 or various other glass wide open when I want maximum detail -- I use them when I want the subject to leap from the frame.

And that is why I use all sorts of non-camera lenses (enlarger, projector, meniscus, etc) on bellows, because I can obtain effects that aren't obtainable otherwise. Something I just found today: Take a Raynox DCR-250, which is a +8 dioptre. Put a +2 dioptre 49mm screw-in on its front threads. Put a 42-43mm step ring on its base; mount that on an M42 bellows; mount that on a dSLR. Hey, now it's a soft 100/2.5 lens! The centre is somewhat sharp, all else is soft and lucent, a nice setup for dreamy romantic portraits. And I don't even have to pull up a Pastel filter in PP!

Lenses in the f/1.4 neighborhood, no matter the focal length, are sophisticated tools. A bit of training and practice are needed to master them. Oh Goddess, not another learning experience!

NicoleAu · 02-15-2011, 12:42 AM

lol @ the not another learning experience! I totally feel that. There's just sooo much to learn about photography which is both for me, a blessing and a curse.

I'm glad I asked this question though as it has brought a wealth of information and opinions which has been great for me. Thank you.

**Ash** · 02-15-2011, 03:56 AM

Nic, the FA 50/1.4, like all other fast fifties are decent lenses but don't have the best numbers in wide open tests done on them. But we don't shoot with these lenses in labs, we shoot them in real world situations, and for these they don't do too badly wide open.

DoF is one thing, but the lenses are certainly useable wide open - results such as these with the FA 50/1.4 (pertinent to your intended use of the lens) at or very near wide open may help to show that the sharpness is quite acceptable:

NicoleAu · 02-15-2011, 01:47 PM

What beautiful wide eyed children! Thanks for showing me those Ash, it does show me how good they are wide open. Can't wait to actually pik mine up on Satruday, I'll be off to do some shooting with it

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-15-2011, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by NicoleAu

lol @ the not another learning experience! I totally feel that. There's just sooo much to learn about photography which is both for me, a blessing and a curse.

I'm glad I asked this question though as it has brought a wealth of information and opinions which has been great for me. Thank you.

There was a period of time when I was like a teenager: I figured I already knew all there was to know about photography. The Internet and digital SLRs sure changed that in a hurry.

epqwerty · 02-16-2011, 12:11 PM

Some more evidence that wide open is still usable.

Sorry for the frog but I think its a good example.

NicoleAu · 02-16-2011, 05:34 PM

I like frogs, so don't be sorry. The sharpness isn't too bad at all.

newarts · 02-17-2011, 05:10 AM

The diameter of a lens' opening plays a big role in the sharpness of its image. Here's a schematic diagram from Carl Zeiss showing a natural lens defect called "spherical aberration":

The light rays going through the edges of the lens don't focus at the same point as those coming through the middle. Clearly the image will be sharper if an aperture is used to cut off those edge rays.

If the shape of the lens is ground differently, then those edge rays can be brought to focus at the same place as the center rays - but this is expensive to do, and can't be done perfectly. Each correction made causes another problem - much like life in general.

That's basically why fast lenses cost more and are softer when wide open.

Dave

brownargus · 02-17-2011, 09:17 AM

Most of the answers fail to remember that these "faster" lenses were generally introduced at the time when film speeds (ISO settings) were generally much lower. We are now used to being able to dial in high ISO settings on our digital cameras if necessary and it is quite common to standardise in general shooting at 200 or even 400 ISO or more. When I started colour photography, Kodak had just brought out a new version of Kodachrome with a massive speed of 10 ISO (up from 8 ISO) and it was to be another nearly 10 years before this was increased to 25 ISO. There were films such as Agfa CT18 with a speed of 50 ISO and Ektachrome had a film at 32 and then 64 ISO before they brought out "High Speed Ektachrome" at 160 ISO in about 1966. Even prior to switching to digital 7 years ago, my normal film was either 100 ISO or 200 ISO and of course once the film was in the camera you couldn't change it! To get back to the "faster" lenses, these were purchased mainly to enable higher shutter speeds to be used, and they generally gave acceptable results when used wide open, hence their high cost! My early shots with 10 ISO on a Kodak Retinette on a bright summer's day were normally at best around f5.6 at 1/30 second - it was hopeless if it was dull!

John

Stratman · 02-19-2011, 12:24 PM

Here are a few wide open shots with the SMC-M 50mm F1.4, I'd say they are usable. Not sharp as a tack, but definitely usable...

Framed · 02-19-2011, 01:04 PM

It is a very sharp lens. I think you will really enjoy it. I rarely take it off my k10d. I have found 2.5 to be my sweet spot on the 50 1.4. At 1.4 the boken is a bit choppy and really hard to nail with a moving subject.
Well done Ash and beautiful subjects.

NicoleAu · 02-19-2011, 09:09 PM

I have it and have been playing with it. I had it at 1.8 and I'm guessing the subject was too far away as the soft it really really soft

But from about 2.2 and up it's looking great

**Ash** · 02-19-2011, 10:21 PM

Nic, the best results with this lens wide open (or near wide open, to about f/2) are with subjects that are not too close and not too far away from the subject. Stratmen's examples are good to illustrate this as in #1, the subject is mid-range and decently sharp, whereas in #2 and #3 the subject is pretty close and makes depth of field *really* thin, which some can mistake as softness.

In my examples, the subjects are about 1-1.5m from the lens which has a desired thin DoF without being soft in the important parts of the portrait. Of course, it also helps to ensure the plane of the subject (face) is as near to perpendicular to the lens as possible for the sharpness to be appreciable throughout the subject matter.

RioRico · 02-20-2011, 10:38 AM

Think of it this way: We don't use a superfast 50 wide open if we want supreme sharpness; we use it to get otherwise-impossible shots. For edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, use an enlarger or macro lens stopped down to f/8. To get a dramatic candle-lit scene, use a wide-open 55/1.4 or something of that sort. For excellent sharpness, stop that one down to f/8. Many sins are washed away at f/8, eh?

reeftool · 02-20-2011, 11:39 AM

A lot of good replies. While the DOF is small wide open on these lenses, it is very useful at times. It's really a question of "Why are you buying it if you aren't going to use it"? Actually, there aren't a lot of choices today for a 50. Way back in the day, there were 50-55 mm lenses sold that were f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2. Most of us bought cameras with the f/1.7,f/1.8, or f/2 as a kit, depending on when you bought it. You paid extra $$$ for the faster ones. Today it seems the f/1.4 is the only model made other than the f/2.8 macro. You do get the benefit of a very bright f/1.4 viewfinder even if you aren't shooting wide open.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A stupid question	kyricom	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	03-17-2010 06:09 PM
Stupid Question	eccs19	General Talk	6	02-26-2009 09:14 AM
Another Stupid Question Perhaps	shutterpuppy	Photographic Technique	18	02-11-2009 05:23 PM
Really Stupid Question	jct us101	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	02-09-2009 06:38 PM
Stupid question. Looking for stupid answer.	dws1117	General Talk	22	11-05-2008 09:51 AM

02-14-2011, 10:51 PM	#16
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Well said, noblepa. Sometimes we want total sharpness, and sometimes we don't, and either can be achieved with lenses selection and careful use of focus and DOF. Using a lens at its soft spot is rather like using a cheap tele or a flawed lens with notable character -- the content is more important than the resolution and details. I don't use my FA50/1.4 or Tomioka 55/1.4 or Tak-B 135/2.5 or various other glass wide open when I want maximum detail -- I use them when I want the subject to leap from the frame. And that is why I use all sorts of non-camera lenses (enlarger, projector, meniscus, etc) on bellows, because I can obtain effects that aren't obtainable otherwise. Something I just found today: Take a Raynox DCR-250, which is a +8 dioptre. Put a +2 dioptre 49mm screw-in on its front threads. Put a 42-43mm step ring on its base; mount that on an M42 bellows; mount that on a dSLR. Hey, now it's a soft 100/2.5 lens! The centre is somewhat sharp, all else is soft and lucent, a nice setup for dreamy romantic portraits. And I don't even have to pull up a Pastel filter in PP! Lenses in the f/1.4 neighborhood, no matter the focal length, are sophisticated tools. A bit of training and practice are needed to master them. Oh Goddess, not another learning experience!

02-15-2011, 12:42 AM	#17
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539 Original Poster	lol @ the not another learning experience! I totally feel that. There's just sooo much to learn about photography which is both for me, a blessing and a curse. I'm glad I asked this question though as it has brought a wealth of information and opinions which has been great for me. Thank you.

02-15-2011, 03:56 AM	#18
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Nic, the FA 50/1.4, like all other fast fifties are decent lenses but don't have the best numbers in wide open tests done on them. But we don't shoot with these lenses in labs, we shoot them in real world situations, and for these they don't do too badly wide open. DoF is one thing, but the lenses are certainly useable wide open - results such as these with the FA 50/1.4 (pertinent to your intended use of the lens) at or very near wide open may help to show that the sharpness is quite acceptable:

02-15-2011, 01:47 PM	#19
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539 Original Poster	What beautiful wide eyed children! Thanks for showing me those Ash, it does show me how good they are wide open. Can't wait to actually pik mine up on Satruday, I'll be off to do some shooting with it

02-15-2011, 03:04 PM	#20
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by NicoleAu lol @ the not another learning experience! I totally feel that. There's just sooo much to learn about photography which is both for me, a blessing and a curse. I'm glad I asked this question though as it has brought a wealth of information and opinions which has been great for me. Thank you. There was a period of time when I was like a teenager: I figured I already knew all there was to know about photography. The Internet and digital SLRs sure changed that in a hurry.

02-16-2011, 05:34 PM	#22
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539 Original Poster	I like frogs, so don't be sorry. The sharpness isn't too bad at all.

02-17-2011, 05:10 AM	#23
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	The diameter of a lens' opening plays a big role in the sharpness of its image. Here's a schematic diagram from Carl Zeiss showing a natural lens defect called "spherical aberration": The light rays going through the edges of the lens don't focus at the same point as those coming through the middle. Clearly the image will be sharper if an aperture is used to cut off those edge rays. If the shape of the lens is ground differently, then those edge rays can be brought to focus at the same place as the center rays - but this is expensive to do, and can't be done perfectly. Each correction made causes another problem - much like life in general. That's basically why fast lenses cost more and are softer when wide open. Dave

02-17-2011, 09:17 AM	#24
brownargus Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire, UK Posts: 55	Most of the answers fail to remember that these "faster" lenses were generally introduced at the time when film speeds (ISO settings) were generally much lower. We are now used to being able to dial in high ISO settings on our digital cameras if necessary and it is quite common to standardise in general shooting at 200 or even 400 ISO or more. When I started colour photography, Kodak had just brought out a new version of Kodachrome with a massive speed of 10 ISO (up from 8 ISO) and it was to be another nearly 10 years before this was increased to 25 ISO. There were films such as Agfa CT18 with a speed of 50 ISO and Ektachrome had a film at 32 and then 64 ISO before they brought out "High Speed Ektachrome" at 160 ISO in about 1966. Even prior to switching to digital 7 years ago, my normal film was either 100 ISO or 200 ISO and of course once the film was in the camera you couldn't change it! To get back to the "faster" lenses, these were purchased mainly to enable higher shutter speeds to be used, and they generally gave acceptable results when used wide open, hence their high cost! My early shots with 10 ISO on a Kodak Retinette on a bright summer's day were normally at best around f5.6 at 1/30 second - it was hopeless if it was dull! John

02-19-2011, 12:24 PM	#25
Stratman Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,464	Here are a few wide open shots with the SMC-M 50mm F1.4, I'd say they are usable. Not sharp as a tack, but definitely usable...

02-19-2011, 01:04 PM	#26
Framed Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: KC Posts: 45	It is a very sharp lens. I think you will really enjoy it. I rarely take it off my k10d. I have found 2.5 to be my sweet spot on the 50 1.4. At 1.4 the boken is a bit choppy and really hard to nail with a moving subject. Well done Ash and beautiful subjects.

02-19-2011, 09:09 PM	#27
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539 Original Poster	I have it and have been playing with it. I had it at 1.8 and I'm guessing the subject was too far away as the soft it really really soft But from about 2.2 and up it's looking great

02-19-2011, 10:21 PM	#28
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Nic, the best results with this lens wide open (or near wide open, to about f/2) are with subjects that are not too close and not too far away from the subject. Stratmen's examples are good to illustrate this as in #1, the subject is mid-range and decently sharp, whereas in #2 and #3 the subject is pretty close and makes depth of field really thin, which some can mistake as softness. In my examples, the subjects are about 1-1.5m from the lens which has a desired thin DoF without being soft in the important parts of the portrait. Of course, it also helps to ensure the plane of the subject (face) is as near to perpendicular to the lens as possible for the sharpness to be appreciable throughout the subject matter.

02-20-2011, 10:38 AM	#29
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Think of it this way: We don't use a superfast 50 wide open if we want supreme sharpness; we use it to get otherwise-impossible shots. For edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, use an enlarger or macro lens stopped down to f/8. To get a dramatic candle-lit scene, use a wide-open 55/1.4 or something of that sort. For excellent sharpness, stop that one down to f/8. Many sins are washed away at f/8, eh?

02-20-2011, 11:39 AM	#30
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	A lot of good replies. While the DOF is small wide open on these lenses, it is very useful at times. It's really a question of "Why are you buying it if you aren't going to use it"? Actually, there aren't a lot of choices today for a 50. Way back in the day, there were 50-55 mm lenses sold that were f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2. Most of us bought cameras with the f/1.7,f/1.8, or f/2 as a kit, depending on when you bought it. You paid extra $$$ for the faster ones. Today it seems the f/1.4 is the only model made other than the f/2.8 macro. You do get the benefit of a very bright f/1.4 viewfinder even if you aren't shooting wide open.