Pentax primes 40mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.4

fevbusch · 02-03-2007, 02:57 AM

Thanks for your comments, guys. Since nobody has the 50 1.7 (or the 40mm or 28-105, for that matter) in stock I think I'll just have to wait for the 50 1.7 autofocus and when the family comes around I'll probably just use the 18-55 kit lens, which is really a pretty good lens in the living room. Freddy

regken · 02-03-2007, 04:14 AM

is what gets me more than the speed. There is a quality to the images that I find hard to describe. The same with my old 28mm f3.5. Is there something in the 16 to 20 range that acts the same way?

Thanks,

ericc · 02-03-2007, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by fevbusch

What do you mean exactly when you say a lens is "too long" for around the house. Are you saying that it can't shoot at a wide enough angle to cover a family sitting on a couch, for example.

Exactly. We have active kids, a dog, the neighbor kids, etc. in our house all the time and it's joyous mayhem. With the 40 attached, I can't really get all the action in the frame, even standing 15 feet away. Plus, at f2.8, it's a little slow for natural light shots in our living room.

I'm thinking my next two lens purchases will be the 16-45 and the DA21, unless a "cheap" FA* 80-200/2.8 comes my way.

As for finding a 1.7, they pop up on eBay often enough and end up around $175 or more. The FA 50/1.4 goes in and out of stock at various online retailers, but I've seen it in camera stores and at Fry's, so if you get out and beat the pavement a bit, I'll bet you can find one.

-E

Xgear · 02-04-2007, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by fevbusch

I want the prime to be able to shoot landscapes, flowers up close, my family in the living room and all around outdoor shooting.
Since the currently rebated 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 are close in price I would like an opinion about which one would better suit my particular needs.
Will appreciate any comments. thank you, Freddy

From the description of pictures, that sounds like the DA 21mm F3.2 to me.
or is it too wide?

fevbusch · 02-04-2007, 09:55 AM

No, Xgear. It's too expensive for me. Have you heard anything about the Sigma 50mm 2.8 ex macro lens. I read very good consumer reviews about it.
Will appreciate any feedback from you. Thanks, Freddy

02-03-2007, 04:14 AM	#17
regken Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bangor, Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,377	The "Look" of the 43 is what gets me more than the speed. There is a quality to the images that I find hard to describe. The same with my old 28mm f3.5. Is there something in the 16 to 20 range that acts the same way? Thanks,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 2 Pentax Primes - M 50mm f1.7 and M 100mm f4 Macro (US)	GregK8	Sold Items	7	09-08-2010 09:19 PM
DA 40mm vs M 50mm and similar primes	Wired	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-17-2010 12:09 PM
regarding Pentax 50MM Primes	Pentaxor	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	05-27-2009 10:41 PM

02-03-2007, 02:57 AM	#16
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064 Original Poster	Thanks for your comments, guys. Since nobody has the 50 1.7 (or the 40mm or 28-105, for that matter) in stock I think I'll just have to wait for the 50 1.7 autofocus and when the family comes around I'll probably just use the 18-55 kit lens, which is really a pretty good lens in the living room. Freddy

02-03-2007, 11:18 AM	#18
ericc Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Western Oklahoma Posts: 412	Originally posted by fevbusch What do you mean exactly when you say a lens is "too long" for around the house. Are you saying that it can't shoot at a wide enough angle to cover a family sitting on a couch, for example. Exactly. We have active kids, a dog, the neighbor kids, etc. in our house all the time and it's joyous mayhem. With the 40 attached, I can't really get all the action in the frame, even standing 15 feet away. Plus, at f2.8, it's a little slow for natural light shots in our living room. I'm thinking my next two lens purchases will be the 16-45 and the DA21, unless a "cheap" FA* 80-200/2.8 comes my way. As for finding a 1.7, they pop up on eBay often enough and end up around $175 or more. The FA 50/1.4 goes in and out of stock at various online retailers, but I've seen it in camera stores and at Fry's, so if you get out and beat the pavement a bit, I'll bet you can find one. -E

02-04-2007, 09:24 AM	#19
Xgear Guest	Originally posted by fevbusch I want the prime to be able to shoot landscapes, flowers up close, my family in the living room and all around outdoor shooting. Since the currently rebated 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 are close in price I would like an opinion about which one would better suit my particular needs. Will appreciate any comments. thank you, Freddy From the description of pictures, that sounds like the DA 21mm F3.2 to me. or is it too wide?

02-04-2007, 09:55 AM	#20
fevbusch Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,064 Original Poster	No, Xgear. It's too expensive for me. Have you heard anything about the Sigma 50mm 2.8 ex macro lens. I read very good consumer reviews about it. Will appreciate any feedback from you. Thanks, Freddy