I came to the same conclusion about the m-series and a-series 50mm f1.7 and the k-series 55mm f1.8 as you did. The 55mm May well be the SMC-Takumar 55mm reconfigured without the thoriated glass. It’s a great design. Beyond that, look at the 43mm f1.9 and the 50mm macro f4. Sweet spot apertures will be between f5.6 and f11. I want the 50mm f1.2 at some point.
As the owner of the SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 (m42), M/50/2, M/50/1.7, M/50/1.4 A/50/f1.7, and the A/50/1.4 also, I couldn't agree with you more about the 55mm f1.8 being special. The M/50mm f1.7 is on my Z5, and the A/50mm f1.7 is on my K3. Sadly, I think I might sell my K3. Might sell everything on this list except the M/50/1.7 and try to find the K/55/1.8 again. That was a mistake to sell that lens.
I'm testing in these days a new 50mm 1.4. I will do some test on film and on a KF I just received to test... I hope to have soon a K1 mkII in my hands. I'm curious to see if the poor results of the 1.4 were just caused by my specific lens. More I use the 55mm 1.8 and more I find it spectacular!
It also depends on camera/medium you use. For example SMC FA50/1.4 was excellent lens on 6Mpix K100D perfectly usable right from F1.4. With resolution increased to 10Mpix on K10D it started to show some weakness when wide open and needed to stop down a bit to improve output. F1.8-F2 was OK. Then with 14.6Mpix K20D it was already obvious, that F2 is minimum to reach usable resolving ability of that lens. K5 with 16Mpix really needed F2-2.8 at least to feed the sensor. Well and with 24Mpix K3 it seems to be weak even at F2.8-F3.5 and matches sensor resolution around F4-F5.6 which is a bit disappointing, because things like zoom Sigma 17-50/2.8 can do better in most cases. And those are only APS-C cameras. On FF everything but central part is poor until F3.5-F4. And if one day Ricoh decide to use some 60Mpix FF, edges/borders will need F5.6+ to provide enough resolution. Now when you have KF, you can do this test again and maybe add DFA*50/1.4, If I'm not mistaken, something like that lens was visible on your table during KF initial impression video :) Film medium is more forgiving than digital sensor as grain can absorb even light that is coming from greater angle and resolution of most films are not as fine as current digital sensors, so even weaker lenses tend to perform well. Interesting channel btw!
Thanks. I agree on what you say. Yes, I'm going to do a test of all my lenses on the KF. A lens that was never a disappointment, also on a 40Mpx camera was the HAsselblad 80mm.
I see the difficulty of the SMC FA50/1,4 in a different way: Prior the K5II no Pentax DSLR had the f2,8 AF sensors. They just couldn't focus precise in low light. The K5II was the first one, followed by the K-S2, K3 and K70. If a FA50/1,4 was inferior with higher resolution sensors, then something wasn't quite right with the lens, would need adjustment. That just is my experience with the Sigma 50/1,4 HSM, the FA50/1,4 and the DA*55/1,4 as AF lenses.
The Takumar (M42) 55mm/f1,8 and the 55/2 are as good as the K55/1,8. The 55/2 is the same but mechanically limited to f2 so they could offer it cheaper then. But of course all real Takumars need the M42 adapter. Amazing and stunning is the earliest 8-Element Takumar 50/1,4 but also the later 7-Element versions are great. I agree that often the difference between the Pentax 50/1,4 and 50/1,7 lenses seems not worth the extra price but often it is a question of how well aligned a lens is! The DOF of a 1.4 is more difficult to handle but if one knows how to it gives special results. The DA*55/1,4 SDM is a great example as well but sometimes prone for SDM failure.
I agree that the 55mm f1.8 is astonishingly good. All of those lenses are capable of strong results. I would say that the 50mm f2 is good outdoors at moderate to longer distances. The glow on the close books looked annoying. It should have good micro contrast with its 5 element structure. Worth showing what the lenses do with picture taking, sections of an image might not be a good way of seeing the way that the lenses render a scene.
The problem of the entire scene is that has no meaning on youtube. At RUclips resolution, with all the RUclips compression, there is basically no differnece at all. So I chose to not show the full scene but just enlarged details. In a large prints the full scene has more sense than the details.
Thank you! More videos on manual Pentax lenses please! I'm pretty new to this, and I'm not a photographer. But for some reason I've got 3 Pentax K mount 50mm lenses. Fist the M 50 f2. I don't use this one, because I prefer the other ones. The M 50mm f1,4 is probably my favourite so far. Love the size and feel of it. It's also pretty small, and takes the same filters as most other M lenses. I was surprised how bad your results were on this lens. I would almost think there must be something wrong with your copy..? (But I'm not the expert). I have not tried the 1.7 versions, so your results might be correct. The K f1.2 I got recently. I have not developed any analog pictures from it yet. But looks good on digital. I think I will have problems hitting focus at f1.2 on analog.. (I've got the MX, and love everything about it!). Also, it is quite a bit bigger, heavier, and different filter size. So, time will show it becomes my new favourite 50mm. More videos like this please! Test pictures in colour would also be interesting. Have you seen the videos from "Red Dot Forum" on youtube? They talk for 2 hours only about 50mm Leica M lenses (as an example). Love those videos. My digital camera is a Leica M240, so I use my K mount lenses on that too.
Thank you. I will do a test comparing a different f1.4 with mine. I was surprised too. I'm looking for a f1.2... not easy to find them at a decent price...and if the price goes up I think about it and at the end I go with medium format lenses ;) I will try to do more videos like this. They require time and money so I have to limit myself until I'm at least monetized on RUclips... but I will try! Will check Red Dot Forum, thanks for the suggestion.
I wonder if it's just your copy of the 1.4 that is the issue. I use this lens in my Sony A7RII and it's the sharpest 50 I have next to the Nikkor 50 F2 (which is amazingly sharp). Love the videos ✌️
Thanks. I'm wondering the same. That's why I already got another one to test. I remembered that lens as a sharp lens from the old days... but visually there is nothing wrong with it.
@@LuigiBarbano Maybe you can try the 50mm F1.2 as well? I borrowed one from a friend of mine and it is very impressive on digital 👌 Apparently much sharper than comparable f1.2 competitors.
@@LuigiBarbano I don't know what a decent price is, but the older K version seems to be about half the price, compared to the A version. A is probably better but..
@@howardtarragon1645 not worry about that, used to manually focus film all my career and never had problems. When I test I always chose subjects with different depths (for example the library) so I can check easily if the focus was wrong.
Dear Luigi, thanks for the work You put in to make those videos available for us. But, this comparison was done wrong: it is obvious that negative of books shot of M 1.7 was not scanned properly - You can see there is no focus on the grain of the negative. Ant then the same happened with outside shot with A 1.7, again - no focus on the grain. It is very obvious even on the RUclips, so...
Will check it out on the original file. I noticed that on RUclips but not on the original. I have o check if wan not inserted while putting the slices together. The scanner is usually very precise... Will check and let you know, thanks.
I came to the same conclusion about the m-series and a-series 50mm f1.7 and the k-series 55mm f1.8 as you did. The 55mm May well be the SMC-Takumar 55mm reconfigured without the thoriated glass. It’s a great design. Beyond that, look at the 43mm f1.9 and the 50mm macro f4. Sweet spot apertures will be between f5.6 and f11. I want the 50mm f1.2 at some point.
yep... I dream the 1.2 :) 50 macro I'm looking for one,
As the owner of the SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 (m42), M/50/2, M/50/1.7, M/50/1.4 A/50/f1.7, and the A/50/1.4 also, I couldn't agree with you more about the 55mm f1.8 being special. The M/50mm f1.7 is on my Z5, and the A/50mm f1.7 is on my K3.
Sadly, I think I might sell my K3. Might sell everything on this list except the M/50/1.7 and try to find the K/55/1.8 again. That was a mistake to sell that lens.
I'm testing in these days a new 50mm 1.4. I will do some test on film and on a KF I just received to test... I hope to have soon a K1 mkII in my hands.
I'm curious to see if the poor results of the 1.4 were just caused by my specific lens.
More I use the 55mm 1.8 and more I find it spectacular!
It also depends on camera/medium you use. For example SMC FA50/1.4 was excellent lens on 6Mpix K100D perfectly usable right from F1.4. With resolution increased to 10Mpix on K10D it started to show some weakness when wide open and needed to stop down a bit to improve output. F1.8-F2 was OK. Then with 14.6Mpix K20D it was already obvious, that F2 is minimum to reach usable resolving ability of that lens. K5 with 16Mpix really needed F2-2.8 at least to feed the sensor. Well and with 24Mpix K3 it seems to be weak even at F2.8-F3.5 and matches sensor resolution around F4-F5.6 which is a bit disappointing, because things like zoom Sigma 17-50/2.8 can do better in most cases. And those are only APS-C cameras. On FF everything but central part is poor until F3.5-F4. And if one day Ricoh decide to use some 60Mpix FF, edges/borders will need F5.6+ to provide enough resolution.
Now when you have KF, you can do this test again and maybe add DFA*50/1.4, If I'm not mistaken, something like that lens was visible on your table during KF initial impression video :)
Film medium is more forgiving than digital sensor as grain can absorb even light that is coming from greater angle and resolution of most films are not as fine as current digital sensors, so even weaker lenses tend to perform well.
Interesting channel btw!
Thanks.
I agree on what you say.
Yes, I'm going to do a test of all my lenses on the KF.
A lens that was never a disappointment, also on a 40Mpx camera was the HAsselblad 80mm.
I see the difficulty of the SMC FA50/1,4 in a different way: Prior the K5II no Pentax DSLR had the f2,8 AF sensors. They just couldn't focus precise in low light. The K5II was the first one, followed by the K-S2, K3 and K70. If a FA50/1,4 was inferior with higher resolution sensors, then something wasn't quite right with the lens, would need adjustment. That just is my experience with the Sigma 50/1,4 HSM, the FA50/1,4 and the DA*55/1,4 as AF lenses.
The Takumar (M42) 55mm/f1,8 and the 55/2 are as good as the K55/1,8. The 55/2 is the same but mechanically limited to f2 so they could offer it cheaper then. But of course all real Takumars need the M42 adapter. Amazing and stunning is the earliest 8-Element Takumar 50/1,4 but also the later 7-Element versions are great.
I agree that often the difference between the Pentax 50/1,4 and 50/1,7 lenses seems not worth the extra price but often it is a question of how well aligned a lens is! The DOF of a 1.4 is more difficult to handle but if one knows how to it gives special results. The DA*55/1,4 SDM is a great example as well but sometimes prone for SDM failure.
Just doing another test on the KF... I really think my original 50 1.4 needs some fixing....
I agree that the 55mm f1.8 is astonishingly good. All of those lenses are capable of strong results. I would say that the 50mm f2 is good outdoors at moderate to longer distances. The glow on the close books looked annoying. It should have good micro contrast with its 5 element structure. Worth showing what the lenses do with picture taking, sections of an image might not be a good way of seeing the way that the lenses render a scene.
The problem of the entire scene is that has no meaning on youtube. At RUclips resolution, with all the RUclips compression, there is basically no differnece at all. So I chose to not show the full scene but just enlarged details.
In a large prints the full scene has more sense than the details.
Thank you! More videos on manual Pentax lenses please! I'm pretty new to this, and I'm not a photographer. But for some reason I've got 3 Pentax K mount 50mm lenses. Fist the M 50 f2. I don't use this one, because I prefer the other ones. The M 50mm f1,4 is probably my favourite so far. Love the size and feel of it. It's also pretty small, and takes the same filters as most other M lenses. I was surprised how bad your results were on this lens. I would almost think there must be something wrong with your copy..? (But I'm not the expert). I have not tried the 1.7 versions, so your results might be correct.
The K f1.2 I got recently. I have not developed any analog pictures from it yet. But looks good on digital. I think I will have problems hitting focus at f1.2 on analog.. (I've got the MX, and love everything about it!). Also, it is quite a bit bigger, heavier, and different filter size. So, time will show it becomes my new favourite 50mm.
More videos like this please! Test pictures in colour would also be interesting.
Have you seen the videos from "Red Dot Forum" on youtube? They talk for 2 hours only about 50mm Leica M lenses (as an example). Love those videos. My digital camera is a Leica M240, so I use my K mount lenses on that too.
Thank you.
I will do a test comparing a different f1.4 with mine. I was surprised too.
I'm looking for a f1.2... not easy to find them at a decent price...and if the price goes up I think about it and at the end I go with medium format lenses ;)
I will try to do more videos like this. They require time and money so I have to limit myself until I'm at least monetized on RUclips... but I will try!
Will check Red Dot Forum, thanks for the suggestion.
I wonder if it's just your copy of the 1.4 that is the issue. I use this lens in my Sony A7RII and it's the sharpest 50 I have next to the Nikkor 50 F2 (which is amazingly sharp).
Love the videos ✌️
Thanks.
I'm wondering the same. That's why I already got another one to test.
I remembered that lens as a sharp lens from the old days... but visually there is nothing wrong with it.
@@LuigiBarbano Maybe you can try the 50mm F1.2 as well? I borrowed one from a friend of mine and it is very impressive on digital 👌
Apparently much sharper than comparable f1.2 competitors.
@@DVisser14 I would love... if I can find one. Not an easy lens to get at a decent price.
@@LuigiBarbano I don't know what a decent price is, but the older K version seems to be about half the price, compared to the A version. A is probably better but..
@@morgankane4115 I was just looking on Ebay ;)
Some lenses are very sharp atheir maximum aperture, but most need to be stopped down by a stop to have maximum sharpness,
yes, but my 1.4 does not get very sharp also stopped down. I'm actually testing another one to see if it's my specific lens having problems.
@@LuigiBarbano Focusing at 1.4, 1.8, even at 2.0 can be tricky at close distancesi.e movement, focus point, etc.
@@howardtarragon1645 not worry about that, used to manually focus film all my career and never had problems.
When I test I always chose subjects with different depths (for example the library) so I can check easily if the focus was wrong.
Dear Luigi, thanks for the work You put in to make those videos available for us. But, this comparison was done wrong: it is obvious that negative of books shot of M 1.7 was not scanned properly - You can see there is no focus on the grain of the negative. Ant then the same happened with outside shot with A 1.7, again - no focus on the grain. It is very obvious even on the RUclips, so...
Will check it out on the original file. I noticed that on RUclips but not on the original. I have o check if wan not inserted while putting the slices together. The scanner is usually very precise...
Will check and let you know, thanks.