FA-50 1.4
Posted 23/07/2007 - 15:02
Link
hello,
I don't have myself FA50/1.4 but from a fella has heard that it is almost necessary with this lens to use a blend, to avoid sun's effect on pictures. Otherwise you get unpleasant sun effect as he told me.
Could anyone proof that to be a true, is there any reason for that?
BR Audrius
I don't have myself FA50/1.4 but from a fella has heard that it is almost necessary with this lens to use a blend, to avoid sun's effect on pictures. Otherwise you get unpleasant sun effect as he told me.
Could anyone proof that to be a true, is there any reason for that?
BR Audrius
Regards, Audrius
Posted 23/07/2007 - 15:05
Link
That's a very mysterious question which unfortunately will need some further explanation as it doesn't make sense as it stands.
Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
Best regards, John
Posted 23/07/2007 - 15:12
Link
hello John,
I was told that a hood for FA50/1.4 is a must. Is it so?
Quote:
Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
You are right. I meant lens hood, sorry for my English.Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
I was told that a hood for FA50/1.4 is a must. Is it so?
Regards, Audrius
Posted 23/07/2007 - 15:45
Link
In my opinion, every lens should be used with a lens hood, even with modern multi-coating.
This is not something that specifically applies to the 50mm f1.4, although there is a point in that the larger the front element of a lens the more essential a lens hood may become.
This is not something that specifically applies to the 50mm f1.4, although there is a point in that the larger the front element of a lens the more essential a lens hood may become.
Best regards, John
Posted 23/07/2007 - 15:46
Link
Quote:
hello John,
I was told that a hood for FA50/1.4 is a must. Is it so?
I use a lens hood with every lens, sunny or not. At the very least it gives the lens some protection from fingerprints etc.
hello John,
johnriley wrote:
Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
You are right. I meant lens hood, sorry for my English.Use a blend? Do you mean a lens hood?
Or something else?
I was told that a hood for FA50/1.4 is a must. Is it so?
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 23/07/2007 - 16:09
Link
I got what you mean. Thanks for reply!
That is obvious for me that the hood would help in any case. Just my fella expressed himself so that I decided to recheck. Seems everything quite ordinary.
As to protection from fingertips- for that I use UV or skyfilter. Yep, I know that someone could argue if this is worth or not vs. picture quality. But i do use it anyway.
Once again, thanks for reply! i got picture clear
That is obvious for me that the hood would help in any case. Just my fella expressed himself so that I decided to recheck. Seems everything quite ordinary.
As to protection from fingertips- for that I use UV or skyfilter. Yep, I know that someone could argue if this is worth or not vs. picture quality. But i do use it anyway.
Once again, thanks for reply! i got picture clear
Regards, Audrius
Posted 23/07/2007 - 17:46
Link
Quote:
I have both and use them (18-55 on *ist-Ds), and the 16-45 has the following differences:
* Slightly wider (like 24 vs 28mm on film)
* Contrast is better, IMHO. In difficult scenes the 16-45 shines (like straight into sun; wide dynamics etc)
* Sharpness is superb (but the 18-55 is very very good so it can be difficult to tell except at large sizes)
* Bokeh is nicer on the 16-45. The 16-45 has 8 aperture blades vs 6 on the 18-55.
* Unbelievable close focus at 16mm on the 16-45. Try taking portraits at 30cm. I haven't been able to match this whacky view
I would say the 16-45 is definitely a better lens. But depending on what you shoot and how hard you push things you may not see a marked difference
(And I reckon the same will probably go for the new 16-50/2.8 )
Matt
Just to add vignetting is problematic wide open on the 18-55....Quote:
Please note that I'm not one to believe something must be good just because it cost a lot of money or because Photozone say it's good. I'm having doubts about the 16-45 I've just aquired. Will sell it if I think it's hardly any better than the 18-55 (which is what I'm finding so far).
If you're just taking snap shots then you won't see much difference Please note that I'm not one to believe something must be good just because it cost a lot of money or because Photozone say it's good. I'm having doubts about the 16-45 I've just aquired. Will sell it if I think it's hardly any better than the 18-55 (which is what I'm finding so far).
I have both and use them (18-55 on *ist-Ds), and the 16-45 has the following differences:
* Slightly wider (like 24 vs 28mm on film)
* Contrast is better, IMHO. In difficult scenes the 16-45 shines (like straight into sun; wide dynamics etc)
* Sharpness is superb (but the 18-55 is very very good so it can be difficult to tell except at large sizes)
* Bokeh is nicer on the 16-45. The 16-45 has 8 aperture blades vs 6 on the 18-55.
* Unbelievable close focus at 16mm on the 16-45. Try taking portraits at 30cm. I haven't been able to match this whacky view
I would say the 16-45 is definitely a better lens. But depending on what you shoot and how hard you push things you may not see a marked difference
(And I reckon the same will probably go for the new 16-50/2.8 )
Matt
I've skipped the 16-45 and saving my pennies for the DA*
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2176 posts
19 years
West Midlands
Dan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/