50/1.4 MF or 40/2.8AF

[travis1]

Hi. I have a DS. Im thinking of getting both the above but one is

about 8-10 times more costly than the other.

 

If you were to get one, which one is of better optical quality?

Obviously the 50mm is of better value.;)

 

thanks

[markku_ylilammi]

Both are of excellent quality, of course. According to the German FotoMagazin journal the 40/2.8 is significantly better than the 50/1.4, optically.

 

However for the pixel density of the DS both these lenses are too good, that is, the result is limited by the CCD resolution and you probably won't see much difference in the pictures.

[petre_petrov1]

Which version of the 50/1.4 are you looking at? The "A" version is, arguably, the best. For the price it currently goes for, it would be a great sin NOT to get it. No Pentax shooter should live without the "fast fifty." These will be the best 60-90 bucks you will ever spend. Even if, according to the Germans, the 40/2.8 has some slight advantage (I cannot imagine it, for the A50/1.4 is as good as they get), this is purely academic. Notice also--and this is far from negligible--the 50 will give you a viewfinder that is twice as bright. Finally, on a DSLR, the 50 will become an exquisite, fast portrait lens, while the 40 will behave as a longish normal lens.

[andrew robertson]

How about the 43 Limited?

[travis1]

I was talking about the takumar series . Anyway I just got a screwmount 50/1.4 for 50 bucks. Let's see how it performs. Will report.

 

Andrew, i'd rather the 31 limited, but then it's very hard to find.

[ericd]

Hihi I've buyed the 50 f/1.4 in M42 + A Spotmatic SP body, a 200mm f/4, a Vivitar flash and a flash handle for 51$. Don't look for a 50 alone they're often less expensive with a body.

[david k.]

Travis, would be interested to hear how the 50 1.4 screw mount lens works for you (knowing the gear you have used up to now), I often shoot with it on a Spotmatic and find it a very pleasant lens.....very nice OOF image BTW.

 

You should look at Pentax K series lenses for full compatability with the DS, as you probably know K "A" lenses will give you all the DS metering modes.

[kotsu57]

I have "the opposite": an F50/1:1.4 and the M40/1:2.8.

The AF40/1:2.8 SHOULD be a different beast from the old pancake, but you asked opinions.

I get OK pictures on the istD with the 40 mm, but.. I like the F50/1:1.4. It is the second best lens I've got. I would recommend the 50/1:1.4, even if it corresponds to 75 mm on the DSLR. The 40 is only "marginally wider". I would recommend the AF version. It is great in low light, two stops faster. Take an extra step backwards (assuming you're on a cliff).

[george_d._gianni]

Enjoy your Takumar, Travis, it's a very fine lens. <br>

A couple of years ago, after autofocus had conquered the photo world, I sold a few old manual lenses because I thought I would not use them much. One of these was the M version of the 50/1.4 for the only reason that I was sold on the optical and mechanical qualities of the FA43/1.9 limited (advantage autofocus and bokeh). So I condemned the smooth, old and trusty "fast fifty", which had served perfectly from 1979 to 2002, and sold it along with three other M lenses to a friend, living happily thereafter with my newer, modern FA primes and zooms.<br>

A couple of months passed... I used and loved the 43 ltd, it is a great lens. But somehow I missed the 50 and started looking around in the second hand market. And I found a nice A version for 90euros. Well I don't use it as much as before but it feels good, like a fine precision instrument, and is a perfect focal length on the DS when light is low. <p>

Fortunately I kept three other MF lenses, and my all time favourite is still the A*85/1.4, though it is kind of long on the DS. But I still use it on my film bodies.