This is hands down my favorite lens I’ve worked with, it always delivers. It completely changed my approach to photography. I actually just finished writing a script for a video about my experience with this lens in hopes of dipping my toes into the RUclips waters. Thanks for the great video on a great lens David!
Thank you! I also really like this lens. It was my favorite Pentax lens of this size and spec until, well, the one that kicked it into second place will be reviewed on August 22. :D This one, however, is probably the nicest to use because the grip is great and really wide and comfortable.
My number one lens. Early Takumar M42 version with 8 glass elements. Later had 7. The best. Just like sonnar 135mm by zeiss jena. Im so sad, that I moved from pentax to nikon - no easy way to use it anymore. Pentax mount was better.
@@DavidHancockI had it and sold it, I wasn’t using it that much…overall the bokeh has character but stopped down it’s just a vintage lens with a lower contrast rendering and more natural tones compared to the 7 elements due the lack of thorium. I prefer the M50/1.4 since I like more modern rendering and i print in the darkroom not pixel peeping…in terms of sharpness I can’t see differences…I think the 8 element is a bit an overrated lens
I have used SMC Pentax 55 1.8 and SMC-M 50 1.7 - these lenses usually cost about half of 1.4 variants and still deliver outstanding performance. I do not think (personally) that Pentax 1.4 lenses have something "special" that might warrant that price increase.
In terms of sharpness, definitely yes. The slower lenses tended to be a bit to a good deal sharper than the faster lenses of the era. That was even more true for f/1.2 lenses.
@@DavidHancock well at the very least you do get the benifit of a brighter viewfinder image when using film cameras. I just like 1.4 from other companies more than pentax in this particular case of 50mm focal lenght.
I have a general lens question. I have a 240mm Schneider lens for exakta, sometimes I get this washed look in the center of my photos, I thought maybe its haze, but now I notice the same thing happens with my 35mm F mount shift lens, some of the photos have that haze in the center.
@@monsieurgolem3392 that's called a lens hot spot. Basically, excess unfocused light comes to test in the center of the image circle. A lens hood might help, but not always.
@@monsieurgolem3392 I've not heard that and I've seen it on some films that should not be IR-sensitive, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Digital sensors definitely amplify the issue, though. So that may be the case and it's something I'll look into.
Hi Dave, got another question for you. Do you know why Hasselblad made their 645 landscape oriented?, I just got one and was expecting the portrait layout.
IIRC, the 645 portrait-oriented cameras were folding cameras. I think that all 645 SLRs are landscape oriented. I would imagine they did that for the same reason as 35mm SLRs having landscape-oriented framing. Does the Hasselblad have a rotating back?
@@DavidHancock no rotating back. I was thinking the same thing regarding the comparison with SLRs; my Fuji GS645 is portrait but its a rangefinder. I was under the impression all 645s were portrait according to the dimensions 6x42.
@@monsieurgolem3392 Ah, got it on the Fuji. Yeah, the rangefinder shape would make that portrait. 645 was originally a half-frame format on 6x9 cameras, so that would make sense for the Fuji for sure.
@@monsieurgolem3392 12 frames is 6x6, not 645. Whoever have you that answer much have used Google AI for it because it assumes that the 645b portrait framing would waste a ton of film space for each frame. If you'd like, you can prove that response wrong by shooting every frame on your Hasselblad in portrait orientation.
K - refers to K-Mount, not simply the K bodies. K, K-M(anual), K-A(utomatic), K-AF (guess,....) The 50 1.4 is nice, fun and artsy, but the 1.7 is sharper in most uses.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes concur. The SMC bodies before the M series arrived with the K bodies, so they're often called the SMC-K series as an indicator of chronology as wheel as mount.
@@DavidHancock SMC existed before either K lenses or K bodies, first ones were Takumar SMC's, available in M42 mount and then K mount. I have a small M42 Tak SMC 120mm, it's absolutely amazing. Your upcoming test, you should find the Yashica very close to the KM. The CY lenses came after Zeiss and Pentax had their tech share moment, with Zeiss then going on to work with Yashica, applying the coating knowledge they got from Pentax. Zeiss's cinema glass has benefited from the same ever since.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes nerd alert! nerd alert! 🤓 The first release of K mount lenses are universally called "K-Series", just like late Olympus Zuiko lenses are called NMC even though there arent any NMC written on them. You can just use such terminology universally within the community and you will be understood.
Not directly and because of flange distances the Pentax lenses will only be macro lenses on a Nikon without a correcting adapter (one with a glass element in it) and those often change lens performance.
great review 👍
This is hands down my favorite lens I’ve worked with, it always delivers. It completely changed my approach to photography. I actually just finished writing a script for a video about my experience with this lens in hopes of dipping my toes into the RUclips waters. Thanks for the great video on a great lens David!
Thank you! I also really like this lens. It was my favorite Pentax lens of this size and spec until, well, the one that kicked it into second place will be reviewed on August 22. :D This one, however, is probably the nicest to use because the grip is great and really wide and comfortable.
Dave knows every lens.
My number one lens. Early Takumar M42 version with 8 glass elements. Later had 7. The best. Just like sonnar 135mm by zeiss jena. Im so sad, that I moved from pentax to nikon - no easy way to use it anymore. Pentax mount was better.
I do really want to get that 8-element lens at some point to add to this series.
@@DavidHancockI had it and sold it, I wasn’t using it that much…overall the bokeh has character but stopped down it’s just a vintage lens with a lower contrast rendering and more natural tones compared to the 7 elements due the lack of thorium.
I prefer the M50/1.4 since I like more modern rendering and i print in the darkroom not pixel peeping…in terms of sharpness I can’t see differences…I think the 8 element is a bit an overrated lens
I have used SMC Pentax 55 1.8 and SMC-M 50 1.7 - these lenses usually cost about half of 1.4 variants and still deliver outstanding performance. I do not think (personally) that Pentax 1.4 lenses have something "special" that might warrant that price increase.
In terms of sharpness, definitely yes. The slower lenses tended to be a bit to a good deal sharper than the faster lenses of the era. That was even more true for f/1.2 lenses.
@@DavidHancock well at the very least you do get the benifit of a brighter viewfinder image when using film cameras. I just like 1.4 from other companies more than pentax in this particular case of 50mm focal lenght.
@@bwellington3001 You might really like the 50mm f/1.4 12-lens showdown that I'm releasing on Thursday.
@@DavidHancock definitely would watch.
I
I have a general lens question. I have a 240mm Schneider lens for exakta, sometimes I get this washed look in the center of my photos, I thought maybe its haze, but now I notice the same thing happens with my 35mm F mount shift lens, some of the photos have that haze in the center.
@@monsieurgolem3392 that's called a lens hot spot. Basically, excess unfocused light comes to test in the center of the image circle. A lens hood might help, but not always.
@@DavidHancock damn, ok, worth a shot, it is annoying, thanks.
@@DavidHancock I read its infared light, would a filter help it?
@@monsieurgolem3392 I've not heard that and I've seen it on some films that should not be IR-sensitive, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Digital sensors definitely amplify the issue, though. So that may be the case and it's something I'll look into.
@@DavidHancock I get it on both digital and film; one more thing to worry about.
Hi Dave, got another question for you. Do you know why Hasselblad made their 645 landscape oriented?, I just got one and was expecting the portrait layout.
IIRC, the 645 portrait-oriented cameras were folding cameras. I think that all 645 SLRs are landscape oriented. I would imagine they did that for the same reason as 35mm SLRs having landscape-oriented framing. Does the Hasselblad have a rotating back?
@@DavidHancock no rotating back. I was thinking the same thing regarding the comparison with SLRs; my Fuji GS645 is portrait but its a rangefinder. I was under the impression all 645s were portrait according to the dimensions 6x42.
@@monsieurgolem3392 Ah, got it on the Fuji. Yeah, the rangefinder shape would make that portrait. 645 was originally a half-frame format on 6x9 cameras, so that would make sense for the Fuji for sure.
@@DavidHancock I got an answer, I was told Hasselblad made it that way because if it were portrait you would only get 12 and not the 16 frames.
@@monsieurgolem3392 12 frames is 6x6, not 645. Whoever have you that answer much have used Google AI for it because it assumes that the 645b portrait framing would waste a ton of film space for each frame. If you'd like, you can prove that response wrong by shooting every frame on your Hasselblad in portrait orientation.
K - refers to K-Mount, not simply the K bodies. K, K-M(anual), K-A(utomatic), K-AF (guess,....)
The 50 1.4 is nice, fun and artsy, but the 1.7 is sharper in most uses.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes concur. The SMC bodies before the M series arrived with the K bodies, so they're often called the SMC-K series as an indicator of chronology as wheel as mount.
@@DavidHancock SMC existed before either K lenses or K bodies, first ones were Takumar SMC's, available in M42 mount and then K mount. I have a small M42 Tak SMC 120mm, it's absolutely amazing.
Your upcoming test, you should find the Yashica very close to the KM. The CY lenses came after Zeiss and Pentax had their tech share moment, with Zeiss then going on to work with Yashica, applying the coating knowledge they got from Pentax. Zeiss's cinema glass has benefited from the same ever since.
@@PiDsPagePrototypes nerd alert! nerd alert! 🤓 The first release of K mount lenses are universally called "K-Series", just like late Olympus Zuiko lenses are called NMC even though there arent any NMC written on them. You can just use such terminology universally within the community and you will be understood.
@@bwellington3001 a 'K-Series', is an engine, not a Pentax lens.
Can it be fitted to a Nikon F5?
Only with an adaptor. The Nikon 50mm f1.4D lens is about the same price.
Not directly and because of flange distances the Pentax lenses will only be macro lenses on a Nikon without a correcting adapter (one with a glass element in it) and those often change lens performance.