That's two uses of the word "superb" in one sentence. One may conclude that you like the lens <LOL>
I think the FA and the A have the same optical formula. However, I don't think there's a bad Pentax 50mm lens. A few years ago Keppler did a comparison between a Pentax 50 (don't recall which one) and a Leica Summicron, long considered the standard for 50mm lenses. I also did a comparo of my 50's with my Summicron. It's hard to tell them apart until prints get past 16X enlargement. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist < > My favorite was the K 50/1.4. Until I tried the FA 50/1.4. The FA, with > superb resolution and a crisp, contrasty rendering, is superb. > On Apr 16, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Hi Marcus, > > > > I've a few Pentax 50mm lenses here - K55/1.8, K50/1.4, M50/1.4, > > M50/1.7, > > A50/1.4 - and I like them all. The M50/1.4 can be pretty sharp and > > quite > > good wide open, but the A is better, and so is the K, by a small > > margin, at > > least wrt light fall-off, contrast, and sharpness. However, these > > differences don't manifest themselves clearly until a large sized > > print is > > made - say about 16X magnification. In some cases processing choices > > can > > obscure the differences in sharpness and contrast, IOW's, they are > > quite > > close and can almost be used interchangeably. > > > > There are some slight differences in fingerprints, but really, not > > enough > > to make a big deal about with normal sized prints. The K55/1.8 is, in > > many > > ways, the worst of these lenses, but sometimes I prefer it over all the > > others because of it's somewhat lower contrast and finer resolving of > > small > > details. > > > > If I were to recommend only one of these lenses, I'd have to go with > > either > > the A or the K, and would suggest the A as it can be used to its > > fullest > > potential with a greater number of cameras. If, however, use with > > newer > > cameras is not a consideration, the K would probably be my choice for > > general photography. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Marcus Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: 4/16/2006 10:10:24 AM > >> Subject: K 50mm f1.4: My first post in 5 years! > >> > >> I have just picked up a nice MX and need to put a 50 on it. My old kit > > was a Spotmatic and an SMC 50/1.4, now stolen. I use this mostly to > > supplement my Leica M outfit, filling in the gaps between it's > > shortcomings, and as a backup. I'm interested in the early "K" 50/1.4 > > because it appears to be the nearest replacement to the lens I've been > > used > > to. > >> > >> The lens spends most of it's time wide open, close up, occasionally > >> with > > a short extension tube. Ultimate sharpness is not my main concern. > >> > >> I'm interested to know what people think of the differances between > >> the K > > lens and the M version, especially regarding overall wide open > > rendition. I > > remember some discussion in the past about this, but the archives don't > > seem to offer much help. I recall many people regarding these lenses as > > virtually identical, but a look at the cross sections would seem to > > tell a > > different story. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > > > >
