Reading mode: Light Dark

50mm 1.4 dilemma - advice please

Go to last post
Sinnettc

Sinnettc

Senior Member
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
55
Location
Albany, US
I've decided I've got to have one of the 50mm 1.4 primes but I can't decide whether to buy a used A 1.4 or a new FA 1.4. With the $50 rebate on the FA the price is comparable to a used A in good condition from KEH or B&H.

What do you think? Are they comparable or is one noticeably better than the other?

Thanks,

--
Chris
=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.pbase.com/sinnettc
 
Optically identical, the only advantage the A eould have over the FA, would be ease of manual focus...

Go the FA :)
--
'No sir, I don't like it!'
-Mr Horse, The Ren & Stimpy Show

GMT +9.5
 
I have the FA 50 f/1.4. I use it more than any other lens. I bought it because I felt the need for a Autofocus 50mm (I have a 50mm M-Series lens) and the A is non-AF. Optically they're the same.
 
I would recommend the FA version since the digital viewfinders lack the focusing aids that the older MF cameras used to have. It makes a big difference when you want to shoot children, pets, etc.
--
Ahmet
Istanbul +2GMT
 
Can't you still use the green focus hexagon as you could with the mef?
I use mine on a m50/1.7 on the DL2
--
Capturing Creation
 
You will find both lenses opticaly the same and again it depends on the way you use your camera. I use manual focus more then Auto mainly because most of my glass is older m and A lenses (I stick with quality older glass because of budget) but the FA is a very quality lens also and If I had the money I guess i would have the FA (and the A and the M. OH dear LBA is showing) I just aquirred a 50mm f1.7 A lens which I find to be a great lens and Yesterday from Cameta I bought teh A 50mm f1.4 for $39.00 in mint condition. I find buying from them a pleasure. I have never gotten anything less then what they advertised. When they say mint You can't tell if it's ever been used.
example.





--
Photography now is the footprint of the future
 
Hehe - I find the oposite: the old manual focus lenses have far too much throw to them - my fine motor skills are good enough to move the shorter throw AF lenses accurately and the greater speed of the transition from out of focus to in focus with an AF lense makes getting good focus far more easy...I remember Godfrey saying he felt similarly.

In fact I get many more OOF pics with my A 50 than I do manually focussing using my AF 18-125mm - by far.

I'd swap my A 50mm f/1.4 for an FA any day, even though I'd probably still use it in manual focus!

My 2c....

Dave
Cideway said:
Optically identical, the only advantage the A eould have over the
FA, would be ease of manual focus...

Go the FA :)
--
'No sir, I don't like it!'
-Mr Horse, The Ren & Stimpy Show

GMT +9.5
Click to expand...
--
GMT +9:30
http://www.colourpixels.net
Click on Dave on the menu

 
I must say, your experience surprises me. For most of us, the more you have to rotate the lens, the more precisely it will focus. But only if those rotations occur at the focusing distances you need.

Some people buy a 50 or 55mm macro lens over a non-macro, or a 90, 100, or 105mm macro lens over a standard 85, figuring that focusing must be extra precise; after all, look how many rotations it takes to rack out the lens from 1:1 macro to infinity!

But most of that travel is in the 1:1 to 1:4 range. Once you reach, say, 1.5 meters, infinity is just a quarter-turn away.

The Pentax 85/2 takes forever to achieve the focusing distance you want, but boy is it precise.

Nikon = snappy manual focus (short throw) = photojournalist.
Zeiss = precise manual focus (long throw) = a non-urgent shooting style.

--
Paul S. in Maryland
 
I have the Pentax 18-55mm which came with my *ist DL kit. Would it be silly and redundant to purchase a 50mm f1.4 FA prime? Is there any advantage to having this prime as opposed to another? Someone else recommended a 35mm/2 but it is more pricey. Thanks.
 
Nope - not silly or redundant. Different usage model, thats all.

I like the prime when I need the more wide open aperature for low light, or just want a better bokeh. It's also a lot of fun to shoot with - 1 focal length, no zoom, and very fast, and very very sharp.

Really depends on what you want to shoot, and how you want to shoot it. There are times when both are needed.

Like having the 18-55 and 50-200 - they both hit 50mm, but that, along with a 50mm prime all will give slightly different results @ 50mm (depending on aperature as well)
 
Sinnettc said:
I've decided I've got to have one of the 50mm 1.4 primes but I
can't decide whether to buy a used A 1.4 or a new FA 1.4. With the
$50 rebate on the FA the price is comparable to a used A in good
condition from KEH or B&H.

What do you think? Are they comparable or is one noticeably better
than the other?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
You can have a brand new lens with 12-month warrantee, or a second-hand one of unknown history with 6-month warrantee for the same price. Both have the same optical quality (assuming the second-hand one is undamaged ), whereas the brand-new version has features which the second-hand one doesn't (ie. AF), will have a higher resale value and will automatically work with the SR on the new series of Pentax bodies about to be released. The second-had one will still work with with SR but will need to have it's focal length manually entered each time if you want to use this function

Hum... brand new or second-hand... second-hand or brand new... humm... and they're both the same price...

Not a terribly difficult choice here, I feel ;-)

Regards!

PS. I actually have the A50/1.4 myself and like it very much - if you really like MF and they were both new and the same price then it might be worth considering... as it is... well...
 
Having both, I can strongly recommend the FA 50mm f1.4 (autofocus version.) Maybe it's my eyes, but my in-focus shot count trippled when I bought the autofocus version.

I still mount the manual focus version from time to time because I love the look and feel of it, but I never get quite the results I do with the FA version.

--
A camera is just a tool - no matter how much one loves it.
 
ozdean said:
Can't you still use the green focus hexagon as you could with the mef?
I use mine on a m50/1.7 on the DL2
--
Capturing Creation
Click to expand...
The green focus hexagon tells you the camera has locked focus on something. It does not tell you what that something is. I have been fooled many a time thinking I had perfect focus only to find out that I did, just not on what I thought I was focusing on.

When focus is critical, do it manually. IMHO.

Be well,

AZ
--

'There is an art, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.'Douglas Adams'



Its a start: http://www.pbase.com/frumsimchasphoto
 
Cpt Galant said:
Having both, I can strongly recommend the FA 50mm f1.4 (autofocus
version.) Maybe it's my eyes, but my in-focus shot count trippled
when I bought the autofocus version.
Click to expand...
To clarify: You're using the FA 50/1.4 in Autofocus mode, right? I have no doubt that a modern AF system can focus more precisely than I can. I was addressing the suggestion that an AF lens can be easier to manually focus.

--
Paul S. in Maryland
 
Thanks all, for your comments & views. Since the image quality is essentially the same I've decided to go with the FA as I sometimes have focus problems with my MF lenses (in spite of the focus indicator) and the warranty's a good thing too.

LBA post to follow in a few weeks . . .

Chris
=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.pbase.com/sinnettc
 
paul613 said:
To clarify: You're using the FA 50/1.4 in Autofocus mode, right? I
have no doubt that a modern AF system can focus more precisely than
I can. I was addressing the suggestion that an AF lens can be
easier to manually focus.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything in your original post to suggest you were refering to manual focus only, even for the AF lens. However, given this new clarification, then I would suggest that the manual focus A50mm f1.4 would offer smoother focusing, a larger focus ring for an easier grip, better dampening and offers as good a performance (optically) as the newer version.

However, should you ever decide to use the camera's auto focus, you might later regret not spending a little more on the AF version. However, I'm not you and you may never care about AF in the future.

Optically, the lenses are the same. Go with what offers the better feel or versitality. A version feels better. FA version is more versitle. Your call.

--
A camera is just a tool - no matter how much one loves it.
 
Tonyuab, you need to check on your rebate. I have sent in two and they take 7- 8 weeks to return. I know many others have similar experience. Yours could be lost in the mail or something. Hopefully you made copies of every thing before sending it off.
thanks
--
barondla
 
I wasn't really refering to slow shots in the macro range, but I understand your point completely. I meant for normal everyday shots where I have second or 2 at most to take the pic (but it also applies to ones where I have a little more time too).

However, as I can move the lense in very small increments at speed and make judgements with ease - and the fact that this then makes transitions from OOF to "sharp" more rapid makes it very easy to see "sharp" from "not sharp" for me. I agree that a fine gradation of focus distance makes it "more precise", but the way my eyes and hands work I achieve better results with a short throw. As I said, Godfrey has commented simialrly (so I dont feel like a complete freak hehe).

With the long throw I keep second guessing myself..."is it there yet, maybe, oh no, nearly, oh no, finally!" Short throw for me is "Yep, done!" I guess its just how my brain-eyes-hands are wired and "talk".

As always horses for courses :)

Dave
paul613 said:
I must say, your experience surprises me. For most of us, the more
you have to rotate the lens, the more precisely it will focus. But
only if those rotations occur at the focusing distances you need.

Some people buy a 50 or 55mm macro lens over a non-macro, or a 90,
100, or 105mm macro lens over a standard 85, figuring that focusing
must be extra precise; after all, look how many rotations it takes
to rack out the lens from 1:1 macro to infinity!

But most of that travel is in the 1:1 to 1:4 range. Once you reach,
say, 1.5 meters, infinity is just a quarter-turn away.

The Pentax 85/2 takes forever to achieve the focusing distance you
want, but boy is it precise.

Nikon = snappy manual focus (short throw) = photojournalist.
Zeiss = precise manual focus (long throw) = a non-urgent shooting
style.

--
Paul S. in Maryland
Click to expand...
--
GMT +9:30
http://www.colourpixels.net
Click on Dave on the menu

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top