Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 test shots.

[smoke665]

I'm at the age where I sometimes forget things. Digging through my gear and found my Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 that I had forgotten I had. Decided to try it out on some Gardenia blooms that just came out.

This first shot is at f1.4, ISO 100, 1/800. There's some fringing going on, unfortunately LR doesn't offer a profile to fix it and I was to lazy to try manual. The OOF background seems a little jittery to me, but over all it's not bad.
gardenia20250519_0260.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

Here's the same shot at f/1.6, ISO 100, 1/400. The fringing seems just slightly better, and the OOF no quite as jittery.
gardenia20250519_0262.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

Over all the IQ isn't bad, need to put this one at the top of the bag and use it some more.

 

[cgw]

My experience with old/newer MF Nikkors led me to audition 'em personally rather than take online stuff as gospel. Stars and dogs aren't always as advertised.

 

[smoke665]

My experience with old/newer MF Nikkors led me to audition 'em personally rather than take online stuff as gospel. Stars and dogs aren't always as advertised.

Prior to 1999 CA was a problem at wide open apertures. In 1999 Pentax introduced the Limited series which address much of the problem, then in 2006 they added in camera steps to minimize CA. So most the newer lenses out now CA is no longer an issue, however, it came with a cost as IMO the newer lenses don't have the OOF IQ of the legacy glass.

 

[21limited]

Prior to 1999 CA was a problem at wide open apertures. In 1999 Pentax introduced the Limited series which address much of the problem, then in 2006 they added in camera steps to minimize CA. So most the newer lenses out now CA is no longer an issue, however, it came with a cost as IMO the newer lenses don't have the OOF IQ of the legacy glass.

Two answers, DA*55 1.4 and DFA* 50 1.4. The DFA*50 1.4 is top o class in some ways out performing the best Zeiss lenses. the DA* 55 1.4 is the option for people wo do’t want to spend 2 grand on a lenses.

A DA* 55 1.4 image.
2018-09-09-AP Raven by Norm Head, on Flickr

Wide open
2018-Callander-bike rack by Norm Head, on Flickr

Incidently, if you’ve seen the design team video from the DFA* 50-1.4, they discuss how careful design of CA is used to create smooth out of focus areas, and transitions. SO it’s not that there’s no CA. And no CA is not necesarily a good thing, depending on it's characteristics.

I compared images from my DA*55 1.4 to the DFA 50 1.4 and Zeiss lenses, and while the DFA* 50 1.4 is clearly top of class, the Zeiss and 55 1.4 aren’t far behind. For myself, I saw no advantage to the more expensive glass, unless pixel peeping side by side.

 

[smoke665]

Incidently, if you’ve seen the design team video from the DFA* 50-1.4, they discuss how careful design of CA is used to create smooth out of focus areas, and transitions. SO it’s not that there’s no CA. And no CA is not necesarily a good thing, depending on it's characteristics.

mine is the SMC FA50mm 1.4, originally released in 1999, and prior to the coating improvements after that date. The DFA model was released in 2018 and is and entirely different coating than the SMC version. As noted in the sample images above the CA is most noticeable at sharp transition edges.

 

[21limited]

Yes, the HD coating is measurably superior to the SMC. But that doesn’t negate the better CA shaping of the larger lens designs. It’s not just the coatings.

But the results for the FA are acceptable (in my mind). I have many SMC lenses. And all the Limited Lenses have been upgraded to HD coatings as have many of the other DA lenses.

Bottom line for me, you own, the FA 50, you don’t own the others, and you get acceptable results. So, experiment away. Using what you have is always a starting point. (and maybe the end point.) And honestly, that DFA* 50 1.4 is huge. I wouldn’t want to carry it. Sometimes it’s about IQ, but often it’s about, does it fit in the camera bag with my other lenses so it’s there when I want it. For a guy like me, portability is often worth more than ultimate IQ. That to me is the big advantage of FA lenses.

When possible I always have a 50, and everyone should have at least one 1.4 lens in their bag for low light situations. That one looks useable. CA is not an issue in every photo, and I can force visible messy CA with almost every lens I own. Even my old ’98 Tamron 300 2.8 which is probalby my worst lens for CA, the majority of it’s images have no visible CA and it’s OoF areas are smooth.

 

[smoke665]

But that doesn’t negate the better CA shaping of the larger lens designs. It’s not just the coatings.

I would agree on the contribution of the better ! I just that with my ecent offerings CA is virtually nonexistent. However, to me it seems the pre 1999 lenses have a more creamy OOF, than the newer models.

 

[21limited]

That could be part of the implemetation of sharpenss in more modern lenses. CA makes for smoother transitions and out of focus areeas, extreme sharpness leads too busy looking photos. And in the case of many older lenses, the background OoF areas are smoother because compared to modern glass, the lens is soft. The engineers from every company deal with the CA and smooth OoF vs absolute sharpness trade off. Pentax, has always favoured smooth OoF areas. The 31 ltd. was considered one of the top 3 lenses ever made for over 20 years, because for commercial photographers, because the smooth out of focus areas were clean enough to put advertising print on.

When everyone else was on the lw/ph resolution metric, Pentax’s moto was “Lenses for the way people take images.” Lower resolution but higher quality images. Most were taken in by the test site emphasis on resolution, not over all image quality. A lot of GenX photographers think resolution and image quality are the same thing. Test sites as well. Optical Limits trashed my DA 18-135, 1.5 out of 5. I have thousands of great images taken with it. Many sites still give only passing reference to how OoF areas are handled as if resolution is the most important thing. I would argue how a lens handles transitions is way more important than resolution. I have so much more resolution than I ever need or use. The camera companies got carried away on a resolution wave.