PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm Review

For the provided lens PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm many thanks Mark molot.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm. increase.

Navigation

  1. In short
  2. Main Specifications
  3. Assembly
  4. Focusing
  5. Image quality
  6. Sample Photos
  7. My experience
  8. Price
  9. Results
  10. User Comments
  11. Add your review or question on the lens

In this review, I will refer to the PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm lens in abbreviated form as Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

In short

The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA is an old autofocus fast prime lens for film cameras. Works great on modern Pentax DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Very popular model... The potential of such a high-aperture fifty-kopeck lens (a lens with a focal length of about 50 mm) is very, very large.

The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA is interesting for its low aftermarket price, nice bokeh and a maximum aperture ratio of 1: 1.4.

Among the shortcomings - the standard optical problems inherent in such old and inexpensive high-aperture optics, first of all - the poor resolution at F / 1.4.

Asahi Opt. Co. Takumar / Pentax have vast experience in creating such lenses, many of which have legendary status (you can, for example, remember at least 'Planar killer'). Extensive experience in creating such fifty dollars was reflected in this Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA. In general, the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA is the last representative in the line, built on the classic 7/5 optical scheme.

All major versions of similar lenses Asahi Opt. Co., Takumar / Pentax:

1.2/50

  1. SMC PENTAX 1: 1.2 / 50 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (7/6, 20947, 1975-1984)
  2. SMC PENTAX-A 1: 1.2 50mm + black / silver 'SPECIAL' (7/6, 20987, 1984-2004)

1.4/50

  1. Super takumar 1: 1.4 / 50 Asahi Opt. Co., Lens made in Japan (8/6, 358, 1964-1966)
  2. Super takumar 1: 1.4 / 50 Asahi Opt. Co. Lens made in japan (7/6, 37800, 1965-1971)
  3. Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1: 1.4 / 50 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (7/6, 37902, 1971-1972)
  4. SMC TAKUMAR 1: 1.4 / 50 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (7/6, 37908, 1972-1975)
  5. SMC PENTAX 1: 1.4 / 50 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (7/6, 20847, 1975-1977)
  6. SMC PENTAX-M 1: 1.4 50mm ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (7/6, 20867, 1977-1984)
  7. SMC PENTAX-A 1: 1.4 50mm (7/6, 20887, 1984-1989)
  8. SMC PENTAX-F 1: 1.4 50mm (7/6, 20827, 1987-1991)
  9. SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm (7/6, 20817, 1991-2018[?])
  10. HD PENTAX-D FA * 1: 1.4 50mm SDM AW (15/9, 21260, 2018->)

1.4/55

  1. SMC PENTAX-DA * 1: 1.4 55mm SDM (-, 9/8, 21790, 2008->)

1.7/50

  1. SMC PENTAX-M 1: 1.7 50mm ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (6/5, 20877, 1977-1984)
  2. SMC PENTAX-A 1: 1.7 50mm (6/5, 20897, 1984-1989)
  3. SMC PENTAX-F 1: 1.7 50mm (6/5, 20837, 1987-1991)
  4. SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.7 50mm (6/5, 20907, 1991-2004)

1.8/50

  1. SMC PENTAX-DA 1: 1.8 50mm (6/5, 22177, 2012->)

2/50

  1. SMC PENTAX-M 1:2 50mm ASAHI OPTICAL CO. (5/5, 20677, 1979-1985)
  2. SMC PENTAX-A 1: 2 50mm (5/5, 20697, 1985-1998)

1.8/55

  1. Auto-takumar 1: 1.8 / 55 ASAHI OPT. CO. Lens made in japan (6/5, 1958-1962)
  2. Super takumar 1: 1.8 / 55 Asahi Opt. Co. Lens made in japan (6/5, 37106, 1965-1971)
  3. Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1: 1.8 / 55 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (6/5, 37104, 1971-1972)
  4. SMC TAKUMAR 1: 1.8 / 55 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (6/5, 37108, 1972-1975)

2/55

  1. Auto-takumar 1: 2 f = 55mm Asahi Opt. Co., Japan (6/5, 34100, 1958-1959)
  2. Super takumar 1: 2 / 55 Asahi Opt. Co. Lens made in japan (6/5, 37103, 1962-1973)
  3. SMC TAKUMAR 1: 2 / 55 ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN (6/5, 37109, 1973-1975)

black-silver 2/58, 2.4/58, 1.9/55, 2.2/55:

  1. takumar 1: 2 f = 58mm (6/4, 1957-1958, M42)
  2. takumar 1: 2.4 f = 58mm (5/3, 1957-1958, M42)
  3. Auto-takumar 1: 1.9 f = 55mm (6/5, 1958-1959, M42)
  4. Auto-takumar 1:2.2/55 (6/5, 1961-1963, M42)

The names of the lenses in this list correspond exactly to the inscription with the lens name near the front lens (except for the serial number).

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Main technical characteristics of PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Review Instance Name On the case: PENTAX 50 + SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm + serial number
Basic properties
  • FA - a line of Pentax lenses for autofocus film cameras
  • The lens uses a Pentax K mount
  • Auto focus
  • SMC (Super Multi Coated) - multi-coated optics
Front Filter Diameter 49 mm
Focal length 50 mm (EGF for Pentax cameras with APS-C sensor is 75 mm)
Zoom ratio 1 X (this is a fixed lens, it does not have a zoom)
Designed by For film cameras
Number of aperture blades 8 rounded petals
Tags
  • bayonet mount mark (red dot on the bayonet side)
  • window with a scale of focusing distances in meters and feet
  • depth of field scale for f / 8, 11, 16
  • aperture scale on aperture ring
  • 'A' mark for automatic iris control from the camera
  • infrared mark (red dot near the depth of field scale)
Diaphragm f / 1.4 to f / 22, controlled by aperture control ring or automatically
MDF 0.45 meters, maximum magnification ratio approx. 1: 6.7 (0.15X)
The weight
  • 220 grams (according to the official site)
  • 226 grams (lens only, measured)
Optical design 7 elements in 6 groups, a type of Planar type scheme

Optical design PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mmOptical design clickable to enlarge

Lens hood Must be screwed into the thread of the front filter, models PH-SA49, PH-RA49, RH-RC49
Manufacturer country JAPAN (Made in Japan)
Period Since 1991.In 2018 supplemented with a lens HD PENTAX-D FA * 1: 1.4 50mm SDM AW/. Also in 2008 added a lens for cropped cameras with APS-C sensor SMC Pentax-DA * 55mm 1: 1.4 SDM.
Price

The creative potential of such a fifty dollars is difficult to overestimate. It is suitable for a wide range of photo tasks. Photo enthusiasts often use it as a portrait lens. Many just want a fast fix, in addition to their whale lens. So, f / 1.4 aperture four steps wider aperture of f / 5.6, which is used in 'dark' kit lenses at the long end. Each stage gives a twofold increase in aperture ratio: 1.4 -> 2 -> 2.8 -> 4 -> 5.6. In numerical terms, this means that the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA 16 times brighterthan, for example, a regular SMC Pentax-DA 1: 3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL, which at 50-55 mm focal length uses a maximum aperture equal to only 1: 5.6. The calculation in the difference in the relative aperture (count the luminosity) is carried out in an elementary way: (5.6 * 5.6) / (1.4 * 1.4) = 16.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Assembly

In general, the lens is assembled well, but in the hands it feels like an inexpensive product. The main reason is the abundance of plastic. The diaphragm control ring is also plastic, which is unpleasant to handle.

The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA has a metal bayonet mount. The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA weighs just over 200 grams and is very compact in itself. The filter diameter is only 49 mm. In general, there is a tendency towards compact lens sizes, inherited from their predecessors.

The diaphragm consists of 8 blades and forms a round aperture at F / 1.4-F / 4, octagons can already be traced on more closed diaphragms.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Focusing

Auto focus speed for Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA highcomfortable for most photo tasks.

During focusing, the front lens, together with the lens trunk and the thread for light filters, goes forward, but does not rotate. During focusing, the entire lens unit moves.

Focus ring rotates 135 degrees. The movement of the ring is not very smooth. The minimum focusing distance is 0.45 meters. The maximum magnification ratio is about 1: 6.7.

When used on a camera Pentax K200D the lens behaves well, rarely fails in focusing.

Focus Features:

  1. Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA does not have a focus mode switch... To switch the lens to manual focus mode, use the focus mode switch located near the camera mount.
  2. During auto focus focus ring rotates and cannot be touched.
  3. Focus ring is very narrow and uncomfortable... Working with the lens in manual focusing mode is inconvenient. The focusing ring is rubberized.
  4. The focusing speed may differ slightly depending on the camera used.
  5. During focusing, the lens and camera make a lot of noise... For autofocus, the lens uses a focusing motor built into the camera.
  6. There is a strong 'Focus Breathing' effect (changing the angle of view during focusing). When focusing towards the MDF, the angle of view decreases
  7. The lens has a scale with a focusing distance in meters and feet, made in the form of a window. There are labels for infinity, 10, 3, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.8, 0.6 and 0.5 meters.
  8. Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA does not have hard stop (hard infinity mechanical stop) which allows you to accurately and quickly focus the lens at infinity under any external conditions.
  9. There is a depth of field scale for F / 8, F / 16, F / 22 and a notch for working in the infrared spectrum

Attention: the lens has a manual aperture ring. To be able to control the value aperture from camera or for automatic installation aperture on modern CZK, you need to turn the control ring to the 'A' value, press a special button and fix it. The lock button is located to the left of the labels aperture. Ring aperture rotates with clicks, it contains the values ​​of F / 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, you can set one intermediate value between each pair of numbers (however, you cannot set an intermediate value between F / 1.4 -> F2, F / 11-> F / 16 and F / 16-F / 22).

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Image quality

After working with a new HD PENTAX-D FA * 1: 1.4 50mm SDM AW I don't want to talk about the quality of the image obtained with the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA. Nevertheless, it is worth noting the excellent resolution at closed apertures after f / 2.8. At open apertures, the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA resembles many similar lenses from the early era of autofocus optics. By today's standards, especially when working on small-pixel cameras, the lens's f / 1.4 aperture is weak.

The classic 7/5 optical design gives a recognizable, often pleasing picture, but has serious problems with chromatic aberrations.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Sample Photos

All photos in the review are shown without processing. All photos are on-camera JPEG. Pictures from the camera Pentax K200D (10 MP, CCD sensor). The photographer helped me to prepare sample photos Natalya romanenko (instagram).

Original JPEG images can be view and / or download from this link (40 files, gallery on Google Drive).

For the gallery below, a camera was used. Sony a3500 (Sony Exmor APS-C HD CMOS sensor 20 MP) with a simple adapter Pentax K - Sony E. All photos - on-camera JPEG.

My original RAW images (Sony '.ARW) can be view and / or download from this link (14 files, gallery on Google Drive). Original JPEG images can be view and / or download from this link (33 files, gallery on Google Drive).

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

My experience

Such fifty dollars have already become legendary.

I was a little disappointed with the build quality of the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA, especially when compared to the older Takumars. But at the same time high aperture and the characteristic pattern will continue to maintain interest in this lens for a long time to come.

For cropped Pentax cameras (of which the vast majority) there is a pretty SMC Pentax-DA * 55mm 1: 1.4 SDM.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Price

A used Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA costs around $ 200. This lens is most often bought in a used condition, but it can also be found new, for example, on E-Catalog.

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

Results

The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA is a timeless classic that will live forever. The Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA had a very long life cycle from 1991 to 2018 (27 years!) Until it was replaced by the modern 'titanium' HD PENTAX-D FA * 1: 1.4 50mm SDM AW.

10 main advantages

  1. light weight and compact size
  2. very high aperture (aperture ratio 1: 1.4, for Pentax autofocus optics this value is the limit)
  3. low cost in the secondary market
  4. front filter diameter only 49 mm
  5. fast auto focus
  6. window with focusing distance in meters and feet
  7. diaphragm with 8 rounded blades
  8. depth of field scale and label for working in the infrared spectrum
  9. on heavily covered diaphragms you can easily get 8-star effect
  10. pretty nice bokeh

10 main disadvantages

  1. awkward focus ring
  2. awkward aperture control ring
  3. the lens feels flimsy to the touch, primarily due to the plastic focusing ring
  4. noise from the focus motor
  5. strong 'Focus Breathing' effect (changes in viewing angle during focusing)
  6. Unsharp discs at apertures from F / 4 to F / 22 are in the form of regular polygons
  7. a hood that is screwed into the thread of the front filter must be used
  8. the optical scheme is not updated, it is used from the older SMC Pentax-F 50mm 1: 1.4 (1987-1991), and the one from the SMC Pentax-A 50mm 1: 1.4 (1984-1987), and the one from the SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1: 1.4 (1977-1984), and the one from SMC Pentax 50mm 1: 1.4 (1975-1977), and he took it from the Takumars
  9. no original full-frame alternatives between the Pentax 50 / 1.4 FA (1991) and the new HD PENTAX-D FA * 1: 1.4 50mm SDM AW (2018) [SMC Pentax-DA * 55mm 1: 1.4 SDM option for APS-C only]
  10. optical flaws inherent in such old solutions, primarily tangible chromatic aberration and poor resolution at f / 1.4
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. A wide variety of photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress, The Amazon и B&H Photo.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 49, on the topic: Review of the PENTAX 50 SMC PENTAX-FA 1: 1.4 50mm

  • Rodion

    Class 50 / 1.4 Asahi fifty dollars since Thorium Takumar have been pretty good. At least in comparison with other similar glasses, thorium takumar had much better correction of coma and CA. After giving up thorium, of course, miracles did not happen. But it is clear that this lens is also at least not garbage in general. For example, the Minolts and Canons of the 1980s are definitely not better.

  • Novel

    Regularly laughing with people looking for COLOR. Until Pentax skips in the review. Obviously, this is not the direction to look for.

  • Michael

    “Which use at 50-55 mm focal length” - in the text we are talking only about one lens 18-55

  • UstasFritZZZ

    “Works great on modern Pentax DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as well.”

    The joke about mirrorless cameras from Pentax has come!)))

    • Michael

      In fact, they had a misunderstanding of K-01. So, this is not a joke

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Pentax K-01 with a Pentax K mount, you don't even need an adapter.
      Well, of course, there were still quite children
      Pentax Q
      Pentax Q10
      Pentax Q7
      Pentax Q-s1

      • UstasFritZZZ

        Well, they are all old, the key word is "modern"

      • koba

        I have a K-01, ghuj, tu e; t gjxnb 300000, it works like new, nothing is even scratched, and I just used it sparingly. It has certain features that DSLRs do not have, there is a focus picking, a matrix stub, which works perfectly, is inexpensive. There is also a slow but accurate contrast autofocus, and a very slow RAW frame rate. You can pick up a lot of different lenses to it, and old manual pentaxes, the stub works with them just fine.

  • Alex

    A classic portrait lens of the late 90s, ringing sharpness is not part of his task. The shitty problem with this lens is that it's almost impossible to use at full aperture.

    1. Bright light - more than 2-2.8 aperture cannot be opened due to light exposure.
    2. Bad light - autofocus crawls back and forth, if it is fixed, it smears, which is critical at a small depth of field with a fully open aperture.

    • Valentine

      I have discussed this topic more than once. The Japanese have a 9/10 open diaphragm fully working, but the Filipinos or the Vietnamese have exactly the opposite, with the focus the same situation. I had those and those (and not an aqueous copy).

    • Jea reth

      Why constantly justify the weaknesses of optics with strange concepts like “he is portrait - so he is not sharp”? Why should a portrait lens (if it exists at all) should not include good optical indicators such as sharpness and contrast? Don't need sharp lenses for portraits?
      And why is a multi-purpose system fifty-kopeck piece with a decent luminosity at once a portrait one? Maybe I shoot landscapes at 50mm, and nothing else will work for me. How then can weak optics be justified?

      I have always wondered why many people come up with such strange conventions for themselves?

      The lens is a tool. And its main property is, first of all, the focal length. Because it is it that determines the nature of the transmission of perspective. Aperture and optical features such as distortion and vignetting are somewhat secondary. About bokeh and its character, I generally keep quiet in this vein. The focal length is selected for each specific scene. Or, only a certain character of perspective transfer is used - if there is only one lens, there is no zoom and you really like it.
      Where do portrait or landscape lenses come from at all?

      • Novel

        When you take pictures of old fat bapps, and you don't know how to use Photoshop, because it's not Orthodox, they really like it. The conditional name is "female portrait". Here is such a blurry fifty dollars - this is about the same as smoothing the face with a neural mesh on the phone. My mother-in-law, when she opened this function, clicks herself ten times a day and almost pees with happiness. -10 years in one fell swoop and do not care, which looks disgusting and it is immediately clear what is processed by the filter.

      • Mark molot

        Interesting approach ...
        This is exactly this tool, only its concept is somewhat broader.
        The subjects of the shooting are different, let's take, for example, a female portrait in a high key. The lens can either emphasize the tenderness and femininity of the image (if it is a softly drawing planar) or cross it out (if it is a hard tessar)
        At the same time, the latter will perfectly emphasize the masculinity of a brutal bearded man.
        Well, this is the lyrics (although this is just one of the important components of photography), now a little routine.
        An overly sharp lens with “dermatological” detailing will doom you for a long time to “putty” all skin artifacts. Do you need it?
        It's even easier with landscape ones.
        It is no secret that most lenses demonstrate the best sharpness and detail when focusing on MDF.
        We are interested in distances from hyperfocal to infinity.
        In addition, we need to cover the diaphragm a lot.
        And then it turns out that the diaphragm blades of our high-aperture lens after 5.6 form a “nut”, and the sharpness begins to fall due to diffraction ...
        So yes, the lens is a tool.
        Each task has its own tool, so each genre / subject has its own lens.

        • Rodion

          The Tessars, you know, are much softer on equal holes than planars.

        • Novel

          The whole set of stereotypes of the owner of five old Soviet-German lenses, stuck in his Wishlist in the early 90s. Planar, Tessar, dermatology, bearded man, female portrait.

          People who do shoot female portraits in a high key stopped doing it in Tessars and Planars many years ago. It will be some kind of zoom like 70-200 / 2.8 (or even 24-105 / 4), a normal model with normal skin and normal makeup. High key - that's what the high key is for, so that with a soft light, a huge source directed at the face, drown out skin irregularities and not turn them into gouges. Although the same femininity can be conveyed in a low key. Appearance, posture, light, wardrobe. Not a lens.

          You wear these lenses like a 50-year-old fat woman with a wrinkle cream, hoping that it will make her young again and help her lose forty kilograms.

        • Novel

          What if I need to film a brutal man and a young girl in a high key? And if the same, but low? And convey this contrast. Should I shoot half a frame and then glue it? And if this is a young guy and a tough athlete? Is there some kind of plate for all occasions with a plot - lens comparison?

          • Mark molot

            You have clear and obvious problems with 50 year old fats. Let's take them on the profile forum.
            Everyone has their own “plate” of whom to shoot what, depending on the meaningful experience.
            You voiced a misunderstanding - I tried to explain it, without ridicule and insults.
            The lens is as much a tool as light, posture and wardrobe.
            But, as they say, to each - his own.
            If you only see the focal length and do not recognize the existence of other parameters ... let it be so for you :)

            • Novel

              If we take two lenses with the same focal length, then the contribution of the ceteris paribus lens is so negligible (provided that it is not some frankly defective or non-standard lens with unique optical characteristics) that it can be neglected in 99.9% of cases. We can talk about the price and weight of the glass, the tenacity of autofocus and the number of misses, the quality of the stabilizer and the build quality. In a series of photographs, you can talk about which lens is more or less afraid of flare, who has better or worse angles, if it is shirik, who is soft or who is better at coping with aberrations (for modern lenses, these conversations are mostly empty). But in all seriousness it is methodical to hammer the optical characteristics for years, compare the planar drawing and the Tessar drawing and their suitability for abstract female portraits in a vacuum ... If specifically, YOUR photograph taken under the same conditions on the Tessar and on the Planar radically loses or wins depending on the type lens, and this happens all the time, so you are not doing photography, you are shooting the optical characteristics of the lens. And this is very sad.

              • Rodion

                Well, by the way, not so categorically. For example, if you take a Tessar 1939 75 / 2.8 without enlightenment, then the photographs obtained from it look good if they are taken only and only in soft light (roughly speaking, cloudy weather). Thus, taking the newer Tessar 1949 80 / 2.8, the old Tessar and a sunny day - we get an excellent result on the first and unacceptable on the second. But this only really works in the case of optically low-quality lenses.

              • Novel

                Rodion, you understand me perfectly. Retro lenses are a thing in themselves, requiring an infinite number of reservations and referring to the real world “photography as work” in almost no way. From weddings to fashion magazines and even videographers. The best photography tutorials are those that are not tied to either a camera or a specific lens, and you can see why.

              • Rodion

                Well, in general, that's the way it is.

              • Mark molot

                That is, you can talk about the price and weight of the glass, about the tenacity of autofocus and the number of misses, about the quality of the stabilizer and the quality of the assembly, but not about the drawing? Seriously?)))

                The Spherical Planar and the Vacuum Tessar, as well as the plots, were given as an illustrative example.
                Do not overuse deduction - there will be less reasons for sadness;)

              • Novel

                You can talk about drawing, you cannot speak ONLY about drawing, interspersed all this with rare sobs about color.

                Spherical Planar and Vacuum Tessar are examples of imperfect lenses. In which some shortcomings were eliminated at the expense of others. They were head and shoulders above many of their contemporaries, but much inferior to their great-grandchildren. All of which, plus or minus, converge at one point. You take these lenses with flaws and start talking about them breathlessly, dividing into categories what to shoot with.

                And it would be fine if it happened like this - you found a location or rented a studio, took a model, came up with an image for her, put makeup on the model, you have a plot, post-processing is thought out and now, to all this there is some kind of haze, some kind of glare, what non-standard bokeh successfully complemented the frame and contributed to an already good photo.

                But no. In the midst of a booze, a dusty camera is removed from the shelf, the gaze is focused on the object. ABOUT! A portrait of a woman, Planar is needed, Tessar will not fit - warts and a mustache above the lip will be visible. And all this falls out with a proud postscript: “Without processing, we can repeat, filmed with a trophy Planar, see what color the old matrix gives out, here are fifty photos of the camera itself and the lens”.

              • Mark molot

                Where did I even say a word about color?

            • Novel

              This reminds of the arguments of pensioners who once graduated from music school about the quality of Soviet pianos - which sounds better - “Red October” or “Estonia” with periodic sobs that “I have Ukraine and it will tear your Bosendorffers”! It has nothing to do with real performing arts. For a musician who records albums, especially if the composition requires it, a frustrated pimp will suit him.

              • Vasya

                You cruelly walked around Rodion

              • Novel

                Why suddenly? Rodion has a unique hobby and is impartial as a techie. And a normal techie, treating the lens as an instrument, dances from the task, not from the instrument. That is, he thinks about how to solve the problem with the tools, and not how to find a model for the conditional Tessar.

              • Vasya

                In fact - the site is still designed for amateurs, and for them old glass is just that. If seriously, what amateur can afford to buy a 70-200 2.8? Right! no!

              • Novel

                An amateur can afford to learn how to photograph and process the footage. An amateur is a person who does not make money with photography, and does not try to convince himself and others that an unsharp fifty dollar is the right thing to do, suitable for a woman's portrait.

              • Victor

                "Right! no!"

                Wrong. That's right - any amateur who is interested in a 70-200 photography just as much as it is necessary to buy a 70-200.

                And you forget that lovers are different, with different incomes.

              • Vasya

                An amateur is a person who, by filming shit, tries to convince himself that this is the way it should be. Astara shit and not shit at all, but a kind of creative lens. This applies not only to old-fashioned glasses. Look at how Arkady stumbled upon an expensive new nikon 58 1.4.

              • Vasya

                In fact, the rich Pinocchio does not count. You still remember the Russian president Medvedev. There is such an amateur. He pours on the watering can. Those who have the money to buy all these joys are not amateurs but professionals. And amateurs are those who have bad money, but want to take a picture

              • Rodion

                Hmm, Vasily. Your ideas are very strange. I didn't think professionalism was measured by money spent on technology.

              • Jea reth

                To VASYA
                I am an amateur photographer. And I shoot with 17-40L and 70-200L, which I bought for full price from a Canon dealer. Am I a fucking professional now?)

        • Jea reth

          Why are all sorts of planars and tesars recalled again, and as always erroneously? Who needs this antediluvian nonsense?
          You know, my sister, while studying at the university, dangled on all sorts of photo shoots. Model appearance, shooting fashionable clothes, all the cases. And she herself, too, does not live far from photography, is fond of and practices. Do you know how often she saw your notorious soft planars there?
          Never.
          And all because nobody needs these far-fetched conventions for nothing. Especially where people make money. People have a modern zoom on their cameras. Which from edge to edge at any focal length produces a sharp and contrasting picture, at any aperture. And they just choose the focal point that suits them. They shoot a pre-developed plot and do not worry about post-processing - everything is already thought out there. But they are professionals, you say.
          Why are lovers worse? And the fact that they themselves often deny elementary progress.
          Instead of simply and easily taking pictures using excellent optics and a sea of ​​automation, crowds of “photographers” rush around with these tessars / planars / zonnars / etc in the hope that today the very plot that they conceived 18 years ago will appear. when they bought the unfortunate heritage of history with M42 carvings ...
          After all, where did all these myths about bad whales like 18-55 from amateur cameras and such heresy come from? All from here, from this ubiquitous nonsense around the artistry of outdated lenses on all fronts. And after all, the darkness of newcomers really believe that their "whale is not very good" and begin to look for the very zonnar or planar, on which he will once (and most likely not) shoot a magnificent portrait. Instead of rejoicing in the possession of a modern lens, which is head and shoulders above any iron junk from the era of kodachrom.
          In the meantime, even regular plastic whales have long been giving awesome results just on their knees. I took pictures with a huge number of different optics of different classes.

          I just don't understand one thing. Can you shed some light on this secret for me?
          Now any modern lens, even a standard plastic kit from a crop, without straining on your part, produces a rich, sharp and contrasting picture in 99% of situations. Any camera with a matrix not like the fly smartphone allows you to shoot with these glasses in bursts from the belly in any lighting conditions without any problems.
          Why all these difficulties with the search, as it was said below, spherical planars in a vacuum? Why is it necessary to look for something, select, and then put up with the blatant stupidity of this something against the background of modern things, which are now plugged from the factory every bayonet?

          • Novel

            Silver bullet. Everything else requires constant practice and skill development. And so we envy those who have a normal technique, because we consider it to be the reason for success and are trying to find a replacement, which is definitely not worse.

            • Jea reth

              I have one thought here, from the category of myth destroyers ...
              I am now planning to buy some EOS 550D for carrying light on the slabs, so that it does not pull my shoulder cleanly and it’s not a pity to kill. Their failed photographers are often pushed with the 18-55 IS whales. In general, a good lens, which everyone considers bad, as always, and even gets almost one hundred percent in the load.
              So I think, if I manage to get a day off without part-time jobs, then I'll get out somewhere, but I'll make the same pictures from my 17-40L, from this whale, if it breaks off into an appendage. And for the purity of the experiment, take also MIR-1V and Industar-50 as the property of the Soviet-German highly artistic photographic industry.

              I understand perfectly well that it is absolutely possible to shoot with a whale. And he himself, I bet he will show himself against the elki not as badly as they used to think of him. And if I get similar results, I will have to post them here. Purely out of interest to see the reaction of others)

              • Victor

                >> yes I will make the same pictures from my 17-40L, from this whale

                What's the point?

              • Novel

                If you still cut the EXIF, you can learn a lot of interesting things.

              • Victor

                Why cut? You can just swap places :-)

          • twm

            In general, I don’t mind, but: maybe I was stuck in the zero-tenths, but the dark whales of Canon da Sonya never made me happy. Never. And any glass with a constant focal length, whether ancient manual or already autofocus, was able to reveal the possibilities of a carcass. It is, but not the complete zoom.

            Of course, with all sorts of tricks it was possible to get a decent picture out of the whale, but ... “I take an inconspicuous fifty dollar - and am amazed at the difference: semitones, clarity - everything is manifested” - I remember this from myself. Yes, even if at least a "modern" Pentax: take a plastic DA fifty kopeck 1.8 - and you won't want to go back to the complete zoom. With not the worst quality.

            Good optics inspire learning. Do you agree?
            Unfortunately, this is not about mass whales. With rare exceptions.

            • Novel

              The EF-S 18-55 IS STM is a very decent lens. In principle, already from the first IS. The EF-S 55-250 too, in the hands of a professional is very comparable to the 70-200 / 4L. It's just that usually the level of shooting corresponds to the lens that the photographer has. Therefore, we are trying to attribute his skills to the lens. Expensive lenses can shoot poorly. Very much.

              • twm

                To appeal to the hands - for God's sake, if there is a desire. Let me outline my point of view: it is easier to get a technically high-quality picture (portrait / landscape / street) from ancient manuals than with dark Canon zooms. Exactly what is _simple_. Would have written it in Italian if I could.

                I will not undertake to talk about telephoto. But whale 18-55 / 28-80 from Canon - alas, for me they do not "work".

                > Expensive lenses can shoot poorly.
                Nowhere above have I tried to object to this. More: expensive glass in the hands of a photographer who has mastered the technical part + composition - it will both inspire and allow more successful shots to be taken out of the session.

  • Alexey

    I use this glass with Pentax K-5. For amateur photography, it suits me perfectly. For the money, this is the best autofocus lens for a Pentax system. Another interesting review of its neighbor, the first version of the FA 35/2.

  • Vasya

    What a beautiful model Kiprida has! The pictures are wonderful! Toko is not entirely clear why Cypride needed to switch to the analogue of d200 from the pentax. The pictures are beautiful, of course, but I still don't understand.

    • B. R. P.

      Why do you have to “go over”?

    • Victor

      I wanted to write about the fact that the model is beautiful, and the color is shnyaga (the gray-green skin does not fit everyone), then I saw that the miniatures in the post were just crookedly converted from a-rgb to srgb, if you first download a photo from Yandex- disk, and then open it on a PC, there the color is more or less normal.

      • Vasya

        The model is the bomb! You just can't take your eyes off! And the color is good from the Sonia matrix. The same on d200 is also worth it.

  • nadeevsanya

    Perhaps this is one of the best creative lenses I've come across)))

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2021/05/pentax-50-smc-pentax-fa-1-4-50mm/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2021/05/pentax-50-smc-pentax-fa-1-4-50mm/