Pentax FA 50 f1.7 at ffordes

Spotted a Pentax FA 50mm f1:1.7 at ffordes, not for me, but I know they are sought after ?

Here is a link if anybody wants a look,

link

Nothing to do with me, I'm just giving anyone interested, a "head-up"

£99????? It would be better to buy a new f/1.4

Bet they gave somebody about £30 trade in on a camera and have split the camera and lens up..... robbin' bastards, can't imagine a dealer buying in a standard lens.

shim

I understand that the f1:1.7 is preferred for macro work.

Some people prefer the f/1.7 and it's certainly rarer. Ffordes aren't noted for cheapness but I reckon they'll probably get £99 for this - just not from me.

The 1.7 is a bit smaller and lighter than the 1.4 as well.

£99 is a fair price considering the rarity. They'd get even more if they put it on eBay!

Having just measured mine I think they are exactly the same size but I agree about the weight. My 1.4 is 46g heavier @ 232g than my 1.7 @ 186g on our kitchen scales

My 1.7 was acquired 2nd hand for £69 in 2005 and I definitely prefer it over the 1.4.

[IMG]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w20/GlynM/Misc/IMGP1567-small.jpg[/IMG]

Glyn

Hmmm! I've got a FA 1.4 and an F 1.7 right here in front of me and they look about the same size. The AP test report (1991) says they weigh 235g and 194g : max diam. both same at 64mm but it's not clear if these are FA or F. The heights are the same at 44.7mm The 1.7 hits a max. central resolution of 120 LPM at f/8 and looks shit below that (not AP's words ), whereas the 1.4 hits 120 LPM at only f/2.8 and goes up to 128 LPM at f/4 and f/5.6 then falls away very slowly. The 1.7 looks better by about 5 LPM at f/16 but that seems to be all it has going for it. It would have to be used at f8 or above. Not much point in going beyond f/5.6 with the 1.4 unless you need the depth of field, the edge has just about caught up the centre.

There's a very slight clicking on this 1.7 as you turn the focus ring from inf to 3m, bit like you were opening a safe? Does anyone know what that would be? It seems to reduce after doing it a few times.

I paid £220 for the 1.4 and I am surprised that they are still making them and selling them for about £120..... tremendous value for money.

If anyone wants a light 50mm the f2 A Series only weighs 144gr and according to AP gives slightly better performance than the 1.7 AF

shim

"About" the same size ain't exactly the same size

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/index.html :
FA 1.4: 63x37mm, 220g
FA 1.7: 63x31mm, 170g

I might replace my A 1.7 with a 2.0 one day it's really any good. I have an FA 1.4 as well.

But in this case I think bdimitrov is wrong. Mine are both 64mm dia x 37.5mm back plate to front at infinity and 45.2mm at the other end. No where near a 6mm length difference. I suspect a cut & past error with his M & A to F & FA

Glyn

Yep cut and paste error. It's the A and M Series 1.7's and 2.0's that are 31mm just measured them. The A f/1.4 is 37mm

shim

Shim

Either you or AP had a bad copy of this lens. Mine is fantastic, better than the 50/1.4A and on par with a number of my rangefinder lenses (non-retrofocus, so in theory better lenses).

I just checked on Wikipedia when the FA's actually came out...no information about those lenses but the Z-10 and Z-1 were introduced in 1991. So I would guess the FA50s were introduced at the same time.

I replaced the F50 f1.7 with an FA50 1.4 just for the extra low light capability, not much difference in quality....

The FA50mm 1:1.7 was produced between 1991 - 2004.

Just wanted to thank Galoot for pointing this out, the lens will be with me in the morning!

I've been looking for one for ages, I rang up yesterday and someone had reserved it but they rang me back this morning to say it hadn't been purchased.

Thanks!

Si

Good for you, 'DarknFuzzy'.

I have about 6 different Pentax 50mm's from a f1.2 to a f2, so didn't really need it, that is not to say I didn't want it !!

Just thought I would pass on the info.