Best affordable f1.4 lens?

Started Aug 13, 2010 | Discussions thread
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,052
Re: Ther are many comparable choices

peppermonkey wrote:

The Pentax SMC-M 50mm F2 is a decent lens. Well built.
Go to http://www dot pentaxforums.com and you can see reviews for it.

i spend lot of time there at that forum.

If you notice on this page

http://www . pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-SMC-Pentax-M-Lenses.html

people rate it 7.79 out of ten , all the other 50s are scored above 9.

Some of the comments from that review page about 50mm F2

http://www . pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-50mm-F2-Lens.html

"

Cons: Poor performance wide open and doesn't pick up until stopped down to at least f/5.6. Double ugly bokeh.

Cons: could be sharper.

Cons: It's pretty soft when wide open.

Cons: Nowhere close to the 50mm f1.4 in quality

Cons: sharpness wide open, there are faster alternatives

Cons: Slightly soft at widest aperture. This makes it great for soft focus portraits.

Cons: Soft, hard to get focus

Cons: Slightly soft wide open, coating shows the mark of time

Cons: soft at wide aperture

Cons: Soft wide open

Cons: Not too sharp

Cons: My copy is quite soft wide open

Cons: unacceptable near edges unless stopped down a lot

Cons: very soft at f2 and quite soft from 2.8 until f5.6 (camera jpeg) , manual focus can be a problem for a few

Cons: soft at f2
"

So you see it is hard to call this lense a decent lense when every second person list its wide open performance as CON.

It is dirt cheap but i would avoid it even if someone gave me for free.

It may not compare with others but considering it's dirt cheap (you can find mint ones separately for

That said, SMC-M 50mm f1.4 or f1.7 and the Super Takumar M42 55mm f1.8 are much much better. Course they are also multiples of times more expensive (though still cheap).

zxaar wrote:

fermy wrote:

Canon FD 1.4 and 1.8 are good lenses. Minolta MDs 1.4 and 1.7 are exactly on the same level. Yashica ML 1.7 is a very good lens, my copy is actually very slightly better than Minolta 1.7 and FD 1.8, but very slightly worse than FD and MD 1.4. I assume that ML 1.4 should also be great.

The difference in sharpness between all of these is negligible in practice. It seems that it's impossible to buy a bad 50mm lens. I have 7 of them (including a Minolta macro and Canon FL 1.8) from 3 different manufacturers and all of them are very closely matched, with minor variations in contrast at large apertures. The biggest difference by far is color rendition.

The only bad 50 i can think of is pentax 50mm f2 . It has got bad rep.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

-- hide signature --

Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, recently fixed (I think) Minolta Hi-Matic 7s, broken Konica Auto S2(couldn't fix, who the heck GLUES screws in??), K1000 and my wife's old K110D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
AG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow