What are the uses of a high quality 50mm lens?

I'm examining the question "what use could I make of the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 lens?"

I'm seeking the experiences of others who use 50mm prime lenses, and who think they will benefit further from the extra quality of this particular lens. (I'm aware of the reduced depth of field from a wide aperture, and the resulting separation of foreground and background).

Over the decades, I've evolved my photography, as a result of new interests, new opportunities, and new equipment. Often this has been a result of discussions and demonstrations from others. What I do in future is likely to be different from what I've done in the past.

I don't think I have ever done so much analysis for a single lens. I bought all the other FF lenses released by Pentax since the start of 2015, because I knew I needed them as I switched to FF. (I would have preferred a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens than the D FA 15-30mm f/2.8, but that was what was available).

This is the first time I've had doubts. The comment for this lens in my (comprehensive) gear list is: "I don't NEED this. But I do fancy it!" I'm very concerned with image quality in my results, and i'm sure the image quality of this lens is far better than all the others I've bought. But I'm not convinced I would want to be shooting at 50mm for long enough periods to make it worth having with me.

The field of view is about the same as a 35mm lens on APS-C. So I've looked back over much of the last decade to see how much I've used 35mm on APS-C, and how much I've used 50mm on FF. Not a lot, and typically not for long periods.

My eventual answer to "what would I use this for?" is mainly "people, not things, and outside, not in the studio". I'm not seeing much experience from others posting here to challenge that view. That means at most a few days a year over the last decade!

Here are the focal lengths I've used in 2018 on K-1-series cameras for the two zooms I have that include 50mm:

D FA 24-70mm f/2.8

D FA 28-105mm

(Using the Pentax 1.4x Converter with a 105mm lens gives 147mm).

Looking at your numbers it appears  you like it a little wide to normal range.Little wide more so. On film a 35mm lens was my 'Normal'. I liked the wider perspective. This has followed me into APS-C and M 4/3, with a 28mm on APS-C and 19mm on M4/3. IMHO, I'd put those lens on 50mm and see if it works for you. You can also zoom and widen with your feet

I prefer the head shots. 50mm to 100mm is the range to my daily use.

The D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 is fairly sharp @50mm.   So I would see a 50/1.4 as superfluous if you don't find yourself shooting wide open.   you may want to look at the aperture used with this lens, if you are always shooting at 2.8, you may benefit from a faster lens.

I have a smc-Pentax A 50/1.4 ( manual focus ) which I still use on both K-5 and K-1 usually in close quarters.  It is a fraction of the size and weight.   At 2.8 is is very sharp.   At 1.4 its, well, not.   So I would like to see what the new 50/1.4 can do.  However it is a great portrait lens, though I tend to use the Takumar 85/1.8 ( which is similar DoF wise ) for portraiture, especially on the K-1.

But other than the slowness, the 24-70 is a fine lens.

BobORama wrote:

The D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 is fairly sharp @50mm. So I would see a 50/1.4 as superfluous if you don't find yourself shooting wide open. you may want to look at the aperture used with this lens, if you are always shooting at 2.8, you may benefit from a faster lens.

f1.4 does help with AF in low light if that is important.

Doug

It's for those who want:
1. High quality at maximum aperture;
2. The best quality attainable from the camera sensor;

It will probably make a great studio, event and wedding lens alongside the upcoming 85mm. I know a few wedding photographers who use the 50mm focal length extensively. A similar quality 35mm and 24mm would compete a very nice set, and looking at the lens roadmap that just might be their plan.

Dana F wrote:

Looking at your numbers it appears you like it a little wide to normal range.Little wide more so. On film a 35mm lens was my 'Normal'. I liked the wider perspective. This has followed me into APS-C and M 4/3, with a 28mm on APS-C and 19mm on M4/3. IMHO, I'd put those lens on 50mm and see if it works for you. You can also zoom and widen with your feet

I think this metadata may be relevant. It takes into account all lenses I've used in 2018, not just those which include 50mm in their range.

The vast majority of my photos are taken at long focal lengths, for example 450mm.

It appears that, whatever zoom lens I'm using, I tend to use it more at the extremes than at the middle. Hence the peaks at 15mm, (24mm a little), 28mm, 105mm, 150mm, and especially 450mm.

(450mm in combination with the Pentax 1.4x Converter = 630mm).

I'm not sure what message I'm getting from this!

BobORama wrote:

The D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 is fairly sharp @50mm. So I would see a 50/1.4 as superfluous if you don't find yourself shooting wide open. you may want to look at the aperture used with this lens, if you are always shooting at 2.8, you may benefit from a faster lens.

Good thinking!

I just examined the metadata for the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 for 2018.

It appears that I am not a "shoot at wide aperture" person.

I appear to follow the prescription, (perhaps from Weegee):

f/8 and be there

Barry Pearson wrote:

The vast majority of my photos are taken at long focal lengths, for example 450mm.

It appears that, whatever zoom lens I'm using, I tend to use it more at the extremes than at the middle. Hence the peaks at 15mm, (24mm a little), 28mm, 105mm, 150mm, and especially 450mm.

Every zoom I own shows this pattern of use.  I would call it a "universal truth"

Doug

I think this lens is not as much about focal length and max aperture as it is about rendition. If the rendition is superior, I think you will find many uses for it that you probably would not have thought of beforehand.

mxx wrote:

I think this lens is not as much about focal length and max aperture as it is about rendition. If the rendition is superior, I think you will find many uses for it that you probably would not have thought of beforehand.

I agree - and to date the sample images from the new 50mm are making me wish I could afford it and I dont shoot 50mm. C'mon guys - do you not "see" the IQ of this lens - I cant wait to see more images from it

cheers

Brett

DougOB wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

The vast majority of my photos are taken at long focal lengths, for example 450mm.

It appears that, whatever zoom lens I'm using, I tend to use it more at the extremes than at the middle. Hence the peaks at 15mm, (24mm a little), 28mm, 105mm, 150mm, and especially 450mm.

Every zoom I own shows this pattern of use. I would call it a "universal truth"

Interesting!

I suspect there is another "universal truth", which is particularly relevant to this thread:

"When you have a prime lens on the camera, you seek subjects that exploit that lens".

That is why I intend to hire the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 lens for a few days. My guess is that I'll end up with photos that I may not have seen or even thought about when I have a zoom lens on the camera.

I've started to look afresh at the photos around 50mm that people post in this forum, wondering "is that something I should try?"

mxx wrote:

I think this lens is not as much about focal length and max aperture as it is about rendition. If the rendition is superior, I think you will find many uses for it that you probably would not have thought of beforehand.

So far, I think "bokeh" and related rendition aspects may turn out to be the deciding factor for whether I buy this lens. It is probably the hardest result to achieve by other means.

It is one thing I'll pay particular attention to when I hire it for a few days.

This guy has some reasons for the 50 mm lens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgLDxAF2GI4

You can't compare a zoom based gear with a primes based gear - and if you look at primes the 50 mm lens is a centre point in your equipment - the most versatile focal length.

Best regards

Holger

"High quality" is a always a dangerous term because it is a euphemism for expensive and various other things. Early in my working career I was  a company which had embraced Japanese-style quality philosophy and we got taught that "Quality is meeting the customers needs".  The product which the customer can't afford doesn't meet their needs.

Some customers need a lens which is robustly manufactured and endure the pounding the professionals give their equipment and not fail. Some need to extend that to working in extremes of temperature, moisture, dust etc.

Some prefer small and beautifully engineered (like the 3 amigos) to large lenses even if it means accepting compromises in image characteristics. [I'm in this camp]

Wide aperture is not "quality" of itself but if you work in low light conditions and or you shoot a lot of portraits where you want to separate the sitter from the background, an extra 3 stops makes the big difference in whether it meets your needs or not.

The same is true of AF, speed and noise may be irrelevant or may make the difference between meeting your needs and not meeting them.

There a plenty of people who like the way old lenses render, though the colour accuracy and sharpness leave something to desired. Others want the ultimate in detail. I bought and returned the 15-30 because I couldn't live with its mass; the arguments on here of late show that I can't think in the mindset of those who would carry a lot more bulk to get the last tiny bit of detail / sharpness (what is the delta between my mid-range tripod and one which weights another 25lb / 10KG ?) and they can't see why someone would compromise on image quality to save a bit of weight. If we're going to get along we'll need to accept the validity of p.o.v we don't share or even understand. Initial sales reports of D-FA * 50 suggest there are a lot more people who prioritize that extra quality than I first thought.

Then you have the question of what focal length; and what I have come to think of as the zoom fallacy. A prime is lighter than a zoom (doh!) and only an expensive , heavy zoom gives a wide aperture. (I've never seen a zoom wider than f/2, you can get an f/2.8 which is equivalent to 28mm f/2.8 prime or a 135mm f/2.8 prime). A prime might well offer better image characteristics.  But a zoom saves having to change lenses in adverse conditions, and might save carrying half a dozen primes so gives a lighter camera bag.

But here's a question  a 28-105 is a 28 , a 29, a 30 ... a 104 and a 105 all in one, you can always you the optimal focal length. But your 28-105 stats (and mine) show more than half the pictures are taken at the two extreme focal lengths (you'd use longer or wider if you had them) So a 28, a 135 and a 43 or 50 or 77 might be a better solution

Perhaps the results from another 50mm brand which is also a fast lens could possibly inspire you .

50mm fast lens

The possibility of usage is always endless when you have an artistic imagination and execute that into reality in such a way others appreciate your work.

Bye,

R.Raghu

Holger Bargen wrote:

This guy has some reasons for the 50 mm lens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgLDxAF2GI4

You can't compare a zoom based gear with a primes based gear - and if you look at primes the 50 mm lens is a centre point in your equipment - the most versatile focal length.

When I first used Pentax SLRs, I started with an 85mm f/1.9 lens. (I didn't find 50mm useful). Then I added a 35mm lens.

(I had a 50mm lens on my non-interchangeable-lens camera before that. I think that experience is what put me off 50mm).

James O'Neill wrote:

"High quality" is a always a dangerous term because it is a euphemism for expensive and various other things.

The first line of my original post was:

I'm examining the question "what use could I make of the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 lens?"

So I'm specifically interested in the special attributes of that lens.

Early in my working career I was a company which had embraced Japanese-style quality philosophy and we got taught that "Quality is meeting the customers needs". The product which the customer can't afford doesn't meet their needs.

I worked for a company (ICL) that adopted Crosby's principles. That is number 1.

....

But here's a question a 28-105 is a 28 , a 29, a 30 ... a 104 and a 105 all in one, you can always you the optimal focal length. But your 28-105 stats (and mine) show more than half the pictures are taken at the two extreme focal lengths (you'd use longer or wider if you had them) So a 28, a 135 and a 43 or 50 or 77 might be a better solution

There's often not enough time to change lenses.