|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-12-2017, 01:07 PM
|
| |
There are long-standing debates regarding the 50/1.4 vs. the slower 55/1.8 and 50/1.7 Pentax lenses. Conventional wisdom is that the f/1.4 models are softer at comparable apertures down to about f/8 and then only manage parity. This trend is fairly consistent across brands. If you already own or want to purchase a 50/1.4, go for it, though I can guaranty that the extra money spent and the extra weight/bulk* will not pay any dividend in outright optical quality over the f/1.7 models unless one is particularly bothered by six-sided aperture blade shadows.
As for FF quality of the A 50/1.4, it shares design with the M, F, and FA versions, all of which were designed for FF 35mm film.
Pentax-M 50/1.7 or Pentax-K 55/1.8...both might be had for less than $50 USD.
Steve
* One may not fully appreciate the bulk/weight of the average f/1.4 50mm until compared directly with the same maker's f/1.7 or f/1.8 model.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-11-2017, 05:18 PM
|
| |
It is hard to say regarding your Sears lens. The XR Rikenon 50/2 is always metal and is pretty heavy. Later models (XR Rikenon S, XR Rikenon L, etc.) may be plastic. I don't know whether they are equivalent optically. No Rikenon has the Pentax "A" contacts, though the Rikenon-P lenses offer the equivalent of the Pentax "A" setting when paired with a supporting Ricoh SLR.
Edit: Should probably have added the Rikenon P 50/2 to the list as well. It is more compact and plastic build, but admirably sharp. A word of caution is appropriate for the Rikenon P 50/2. It has a form of the dreaded "Ricoh Pin". My copy has the spring-loaded ball type and is safe on my K-3. A similar lens with the pin type might be difficult or virtually impossible to free from a Pentax AF camera.
Veined Decay
Pentax K10D, Rikenon P 50/2
Veined Decay (full resolution crop)
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-11-2017, 10:47 AM
|
| |
I only have one 50mm lens on my shelf that cost more than $50 and all but the expensive one* are decent for landscape. Yes, one may pay as much as $75 for a Pentax-M 50/1.7 (KEH has one EX with caps at that price point), but a price under $50 is much more common, usually with a functional camera body attached.
Steve
* My Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro is not very good for landscape, despite being a floating element design. I did not buy it for that purpose so it doesn't bother me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-11-2017, 10:10 AM
|
| |
My question as well. While just about any focal length has been used for landscape work with the 24x36mm format, greater utility tends to be had at 35mm and shorter. That being said, many of us learned and shot for years with a 50mm "normal" lens attached to the front of our camera and for most of us, landscapes were part of the mix.
What is the "best" lens for landscape? The only criteria are reasonably sharpness across the field with good contrast. The choices run into the hundreds, but these I can recommend...- Super/S-M-C/SMC Takumar 55/1.8
- Pentax-K 55/1.8
- Pentax-M/A/F/FA 50/1.7 (with possible exception of the "A" 50/1.7 due to pervasive aperture ring problems)
- XR Rikenon 50/2 (PF Reviews...note that reviews complaining of plastic build are not this lens. I need to update the example links on my review :o)
- Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 Tessar (M42 with long product run...PF Reviews)
Steve
|
