Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentax-M SMC 50mm F1.7
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice images!


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If someone is wondering about the resolution of this lens Smile.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
walter g wrote:
I know if I buy one, I will probably wind up buying a dozen. Smile
It's just a matter of time.


No, not just a dozen.
Actually I ended with almost complete line up of primes in K series, M series, A series, many tak, a dozen in FA series and DA series.

The nikkors are good too, but they don't have the drag as smc...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax K-r
Pentax M 50mm f1.7

İstanbul-Turkey....




PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax K-r
Pentax M 50mm f1.7

İstanbul-Turkey....




PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
VERY VERY nice.
Great photos.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mehmetkok wrote:
Pentax K-r
Pentax M 50mm f1.7

İstanbul-Turkey....




I did a shootout of 26 normal lenses today, incl. Pentax M f1.7/50 and MC-Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 and had wanted to comment earlier. However I don't dare to show the test, it wasn't all that well done and light changed during the test.
Differences of all lenses are very subtle only and I was shy to use words like 'more shining', 'more brilliant', but this is about what I had wanted to say about the Pentax M as compared to my copy of the Rokkor. Now after this fabulous photo I do dare say so Smile
Sharpness, specially center sharpness of the Pentax M is also tops! Bokeh of the Rokkor is super smooth, but even though the M lens, in my test shot, again allow the vague word, has more 'body'


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax K-r



PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some great images from a great all around lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've been lurking on these forums quite a bit and every other day I come across really nice shots taken with this lens.

I currently use an OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8, while it has served its purpose well (family portraits) it hasn't WOWed me yet. Might be because because I haven't had the opportunity to shoot very interesting subjects.

How does this lens compare to the zuiko?

I'm starting to get the feeling that everything pentax is a safe bet. The only reason I don't regret I bought a canon is its wider range of lens mount compatibility.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jito wrote:

I'm starting to get the feeling that everything pentax is a safe bet.


me too I feel very much so.
the way I use my lenses it is very important that they are well built, have good handling, are not too bulky and of course are good performers, also easy availability adaptability. For all these reasons I had started with Takumar lenses and now, with more and more experience with other lenses I realize how wise my choice was and again go back using mostly my Taks and Pentax K and M lenses, generally also prefer the colors they render.

according to my test shots both Pentax M 1.7/50 and OM 1.8/50 ( the one which says 'made in Japan', said to be the best version ) are top lenses! Wide open the M lens is a bit sharper, more noticeably at f2 where it already is amazingly sharp, already achieving almost max. sharpness in the center, at f5.6 the OM is about equally, very sharp.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
I believe that the M1.7/50 will have a hard time to stand up against the Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm F1.4 = the MD with the 55mm filter, but I am very curious, and may throw a MC-Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 and some versions of Takumar 1.4/50 into the comparison as well. However often I do 'fast and dirty' comparisons just for myself which won't be presentable nor stand up to the scrutiny of you guys, but if I have the time to come with anything I can dare to share I certainly will ( and it will be on a NEX5 )

Well I think that you could be surprised by this small 50 1.7 Wink. The Takumar 50 1.4 is almost the same as my FA 50 1.4, pentax didn't change the design a lot in years. The little M is king in resolution, CA and flare resistance. I only don't like it closed down to F16 and lower... diffraction kills it but there I can use my Pancolar 50 1.8 MC.

Not everything pentax is great but most of them - yes. You can check this in the global forum pentaxforums.com there is a database with almost all lenses with ratings. M 50 1.7 has 9.20 rating which is nice!


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
kuuan wrote:
I believe that the M1.7/50 will have a hard time to stand up against the Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm F1.4 = the MD with the 55mm filter, but I am very curious, and may throw a MC-Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 and some versions of Takumar 1.4/50 into the comparison as well. However often I do 'fast and dirty' comparisons just for myself which won't be presentable nor stand up to the scrutiny of you guys, but if I have the time to come with anything I can dare to share I certainly will ( and it will be on a NEX5 )

Well I think that you could be surprised by this small 50 1.7 Wink. The Takumar 50 1.4 is almost the same as my FA 50 1.4, pentax didn't change the design a lot in years. The little M is king in resolution, CA and flare resistance. I only don't like it closed down to F16 and lower... diffraction kills it but there I can use my Pancolar 50 1.8 MC.

Not everything pentax is great but most of them - yes. You can check this in the global forum pentaxforums.com there is a database with almost all lenses with ratings. M 50 1.7 has 9.20 rating which is nice!


Actually the M50/1.4 had a slight redesign for smaller size optimisation and the A50/1.4 is apparently a optimisation of the Tak (not better by any means) . The K50/1.4 is the same. The only certain thing is the from the M42->K->M->A->FA the quality control and building quality has gone downhill ......

If you take the pentaxforums.com rating so seriously than get the SMC Takumar 55/1.8(radioactive) as it has a 9.33 rating or the K55/1.8 with a 9.38 Wink

Personally I consider my S-M-C 1.4/50 so good that I also got the K50/1.4 with the hope that it is missing the radioactive thorium in the back element....


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:
...
Personally I consider my S-M-C 1.4/50 so good that I also got the K50/1.4 with the hope that it is missing the radioactive thorium in the back element....


I like the S-M-C 1.4/50 so very much that I keep a second copy, just in case Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I prefer the M 50/1.4. Seems to render a little better to my eyes while still being insanely sharp stopped down. The focus ring goes a little further making it seem more precise and is thicker and therefore easier to grip for me.

Does anyone know if the 35/2 is as good and has the same character? I have both versions of the 28/2.8 but the FL doesn't quite work for me, it's too wide.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
William wrote:
I prefer the M 50/1.4. Seems to render a little better to my eyes while still being insanely sharp stopped down. The focus ring goes a little further making it seem more precise and is thicker and therefore easier to grip for me.

Does anyone know if the 35/2 is as good and has the same character? I have both versions of the 28/2.8 but the FL doesn't quite work for me, it's too wide.


some day I'll get a M 1.4/50, I like it small! ( had bought one but it was faulty, and when later I got the M1.7 I had the choice of a M f1.4 too, but opted for the f1.7 )

William often it is said that the S-M-C 2/35 is not all 'that' good, I believe this is mostly so because the small f3.5/35 steals the show.
I like the thought to comparing it's character to that of the 1.4/50, I would say that they do render very similarly

I once had been defending this lens Smile see:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=44630&start=15

( For me the FL of 35mm on APS-C doesn't work all that well and therefore I have not used it very much, I am afraid I do not have many samples that show the quality of the lens ( mostly for being badly focused ), anyway, here those I had uploaded to flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157611348124390/ )


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was referring to the M 35/2 but your samples of the S-M-C Tak certainly do that justice.

For 35mm I have lately been using the 18-55 WR because it is very sharp at that focal length and contrasty. There's a Fujian 35/1.7 coming for the NEX too. I plan to replace the M 28s with a 35 and if I can find one for a decent price get an M 20 to have a lens that's actually wide on APS-C and insanely wide on film.

Then there's the possibility of getting a Contax 50/1.7 and 35/2.8 but the 21/2.8 is downright unaffordable and I'd need to Leitax the lot of them which would add a fair amount to the cost and need undoing if I go full frame.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like all the 50-55s from pentax. Well to be honest I like all of my 50-58s from any manufacturer. With that said the m50/1.7 has many of the same characteristics as the 40mm limmited for me. Good colors, sharpness, nice focus ring and a compact format. The 40 limmited is actually the only AF lens I really covet. But since I mostly use old film cameras it's just not a perfect fit for me whereas the m50/1.7 on my MX or ME is a go anywhere anytime combo that works well all around. Yes there are optically superior lenses but bang for your buck in a compact slr I can't think of anything that overshadows this combo. To be honest I prefer to use M42 lenses on my dslr but I make an exception for the 50/1.7 . While I rarely use the m50/1.4 on dslr I tend to opt for the S-M-C Tak 50/1.4 or SMC Tak 55/1.8or 2.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being a Pentaxian with 50 Fifties, I have a few of the breed. Super-Tak 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 55/2; Macro-Tak 50/4 (1x); K50/1.2; M50/1.7, M50/2; FA50/1.4. All superb optics, except maybe the M50/2 of which I have 3 that I don't use. The K50/1.2 is amazing, and also heavy. The 50/1.4s give similar results but by different means -- the ST is more touchy-feely. The M50/1.7 and ST55/1.8 are just great: sharp wide open and sharper closed down, with fine bokeh. All render well.

Yes, I have other Fifties I needn't be ashamed of, but some days a pocketful of Pentax Fifties are all I need. I can stroll around some quaint village with the K50/1.2, FA50/1.4, MacroTak 50/4, and SuperTak 55/1.8, all different tools for different purposes. Now I just need some Pentax 58...


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
William wrote:
I was referring to the M 35/2 but your samples of the S-M-C Tak certainly do that justice.


I don't have the M 35/2, but the K 35/2 is IMO very ok. I don't have many in 35mm than the FA35/2 to compare. Both are very good. The K 35/2 ha some hasher bokeh. Perfect for full body length shoots. Also the Pentax K30/2.8 is razor sharp wide open.

Pentax K 35/2, @f3.2:


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Pentax 30mms are interesting but are in a different price bracket to the others mentioned, the ones I've seen have gone for more than the DA Limiteds cost new. That shot from the K 35/2 is impressive and certainly as good as I'd need at that aperture. The M version is optically different though, it's smaller and has one less element.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:

Actually the M50/1.4 had a slight redesign for smaller size optimisation and the A50/1.4 is apparently a optimisation of the Tak (not better by any means) . The K50/1.4 is the same. The only certain thing is the from the M42->K->M->A->FA the quality control and building quality has gone downhill ......

If you take the pentaxforums.com rating so seriously than get the SMC Takumar 55/1.8(radioactive) as it has a 9.33 rating or the K55/1.8 with a 9.38 Wink

Personally I consider my S-M-C 1.4/50 so good that I also got the K50/1.4 with the hope that it is missing the radioactive thorium in the back element....

I think that the optimisations are only in the mechanics, the optics is the same with changed coating. Basicly it is the same lens. But you are right about the QC! The latest ones are just like toys.
About the ratings - they are made by owners... so they are not 100% correct but as a guide are good enough.
About the thorium - it is yellow - easy to be seen.
I'm not sure but there is a difference in rendering between the Tak and M 50 1.4, I'm wondering could it be only coating... maybe they have changed the lenses a little.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
After I tried probably all fast Pentax 50's, I've ended with Pentax-A 1.4/50. For me best price/performance/usability ratio. Wide-open it's better than FA and stopped down to f2.8 is just great. I think, that overall it can be compared to Planar 1.4/50.
It's better built than F/FA versions and in comparison to Tak's and K/M versions, it is fully supported on digital bodies. I prefer it's color rendering too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2