Want auto focus 50mm pentax lens

[southernoise]

I guess the DA series will somehow have a better autofocus performance. All my FA lens hunts a bit more compared to my DA lens.

 

[airconvent]

I guess the DA series will somehow have a better autofocus performance. All my FA lens hunts a bit more compared to my DA lens.

This is an evening of new acquisitions..he heh

I finally gotten myself the FA50 but reading your thread, I was wondering if I was better off buying the DA50 instead. I did notice for some low light targets, my K100D did hunt a little. But overall, the f/1.4 really allow me to get my desired bokeh effect. Its pricey but the image quality is not bad.

I have problem getting razor sharp images even though I held my hand steady. Any special technique you all use ?

One thing I did notice is I miss the ability to frame my images by adjusting the zoom! With the 50mm, I notice I am always too close to the subject and need to physically move back. I guess that's the disadvantage of prime lenses.

 

[dnaxe]

This is an evening of new acquisitions..he heh

I finally gotten myself the FA50 but reading your thread, I was wondering if I was better off buying the DA50 instead. I did notice for some low light targets, my K100D did hunt a little. But overall, the f/1.4 really allow me to get my desired bokeh effect. Its pricey but the image quality is not bad.

I have problem getting razor sharp images even though I held my hand steady. Any special technique you all use ?

One thing I did notice is I miss the ability to frame my images by adjusting the zoom! With the 50mm, I notice I am always too close to the subject and need to physically move back. I guess that's the disadvantage of prime lenses.

yay.

Strange about the sharp images. is it back or front focussing?

 

[TrailSeeker]

Guys.. I would like to ask.. if a DA50 f2.8 lens is just
good enough for low light scences.. like indoor shots?

 

[dnaxe]

Guys.. I would like to ask.. if a DA50 f2.8 lens is just
good enough for low light scences.. like indoor shots?

Less ideal, possibly doable, but not great. 2.8 is only about a half a stop faster than 3.5, and I don't think 3.5 (kit lens at 18) is that great...

See: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm

Also, I would personally get the sigma 18-50 2.8 instead of the DA50 2.8.

 

[TrailSeeker]

Do you know what is the cheepest fast lens available here in singapore?

 

[fengwei]

Do you know what is the cheepest fast lens available here in singapore?

Probably a second hand manual 50mm lens

If wanna buy new, the fastest one would be the FA43/1.9. Not cheap, but it's the cheapest FA Ltd lens

 

[airconvent]

yay.

Strange about the sharp images. is it back or front focussing?

Hi
can you elaborate what you mean by back or front focussing?:dunno:
Is that when I either focus on the foreground or background for effect?
cheers...

 

[airconvent]

Guys.. I would like to ask.. if a DA50 f2.8 lens is just
good enough for low light scences.. like indoor shots?

amazingly, this lens is even more expensive than the f1.4. I always thought it was difficult to design a fast lens, hence the faster it is, the more expensive it gets...
I could have gone for the sigma 2.8 instead but in the end held out for a 1.4 because the bokeh effect is unbeatable!

 

[dnaxe]

amazingly, this lens is even more expensive than the f1.4. I always thought it was difficult to design a fast lens, hence the faster it is, the more expensive it gets...
I could have gone for the sigma 2.8 instead but in the end held out for a 1.4 because the bokeh effect is unbeatable!

The 50mm 2.8 is expensive because it's also a (true -i.e. can get you to 1:1 magnification) macro lens...

 

[airconvent]

The 50mm 2.8 is expensive because it's also a (true -i.e. can get you to 1:1 magnification) macro lens...

mm..is macro really such a great deal? on the pc and when printing, the issue becomes moot, right?

 

[dnaxe]

mm..is macro really such a great deal? on the pc and when printing, the issue becomes moot, right?

Hm.

not really.

I think something like:

http://picasaweb.google.com/alexander.yap/2006RandomTestShots/photo#4992457843363086354

would be hard to take without a macro lens.

(although the lens I used for that wasn't even actually a macro - it was the sigma apo)

(and. caveat: I don't think it's that great a photo. It's just interesting in terms of demonstrating macro capability )

 

[airconvent]

Hm.

not really.

I think something like:

http://picasaweb.google.com/alexander.yap/2006RandomTestShots/photo#4992457843363086354

would be hard to take without a macro lens.

(although the lens I used for that wasn't even actually a macro - it was the sigma apo)

(and. caveat: I don't think it's that great a photo. It's just interesting in terms of demonstrating macro capability )

Hi
Can't access your shots as need to log in.
I installed picassa previously as you recommended but can't get past the "server" problems, so have since deleted it and now trying photobucket instead....not too bad so far...

 

[dnaxe]

Hi
Can't access your shots as need to log in.
I installed picassa previously as you recommended but can't get past the "server" problems, so have since deleted it and now trying photobucket instead....not too bad so far...

strange.

I don't need to log in to view that (i specifically logged out to check.)

uh.

 

[airconvent]

thanks...but couldn't a close up filter achieve the same effect?

 

[dnaxe]

thanks...but couldn't a close up filter achieve the same effect?

Generally yes - to get magnification similar to that photo it's probably possible, but to get true 1:1 magnification it's slightly harder.

 

[phantasmal]

Just a poll.
Who are those interested in ordering FA50 F1.4?
Est shld be $355-365.

 

[zoomzoomzoom]

I dun mind having one...

 

[timo]

This is an evening of new acquisitions..he heh

I finally gotten myself the FA50 ... f/1.4 ....

I have problem getting razor sharp images even though I held my hand steady. Any special technique you all use ?]

What aperture were you shooting at? I find my 50 1.4 is really quite soft fully open. You have to get up to 2.8 and onwards before you can really say it is sharp as a razor ... Also at 1.4 your margin for error focusing-wise is tiny: a few millimetres forward or back and you're out of focus on a flower pic or the like ...]

[quote - One thing I did notice is I miss the ability to frame my images by adjusting the zoom! With the 50mm, .... :]

In fact I find shooting with my FA28 2.8 prime much more comfortable. In most situations everything's a bit too 'in your face' with a 50 ...


Tim