I'm not sure about terrible, but they were destined for different purposes. The 1.4 often ended up for press use where contrast was important for printing block making. The 1.7 was sold as a consumer kit lens so less harsh. My purpose today was to take the 50mm out to help decide if the new 50 was something I could do with and see if my previous thoughts about 50mm had changed. The result was I still feel I prefer a bit wider or a bit longer. but if I feel I need a 50mm 1.4 I've got one (or two) anyhow.

No, it is a 1.4 (FA old version) but to me it isn't that different to what I'd expect from the new one. The bokeh is circular (more or less) as per the new one which was the complaint about it in that hand waving video. I couldn't actually see much difference apart from that.
Having gone out with the 50mm to take that earlier, I do find it something of an in between focal length as I did of old. With my old ME I usually preferred the 40 pancake as it gave (to me) a more natural view and something longer for tele shots / close ups (usually my 90mm Vivitar Macro) or a 70/75 - 150mm zoom. In any event I had to crop that 50mm shot to achieve a better composition. I agree f1.4 is handy for low light with film but with the variable ISO digital offers that argument is less important.

I'd happily be given one of the new ones and say thanks but I'm not sure I'd want to carry it as one of my main lenses. If I need a 50, I've got several and any of those will still suffice.

It seems to have worked well on the KP for those Whisky Festival photos but that is in effect using it as a 75mm lens.

To carry a full set of the new DFAs (15-30, 24-70, 70-200, 150-450 plus the new 50mm) with the K-1 would be a truly herculean task!

Something else to consider is that the older lenses produce a less clinical image. Maybe not as sharp but they can still carry their inherent charm such as when used on slide film.

So can people really tell if an old FA 50mm f1.4 lens or the new DFA has been used?
What with the bokeh clues in the video mentioned above etc.
Here's a challenge to guess:




K-1 50mm 1/3200" ƒ/1.8 ISO 200 from raw file.

This site https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM shows images taken at a range of ISOs for comparison purposes.

My own thought is to limit the higher ISOs when possible too, but if you need a higher ISO to get the shot then do so. Might be better to increase the ISO than suffer camera shake or to get sufficient depth of field. I'd hope both cameras would be fine up to 3200 (and beyond) in any event.

If noise is your major concern, look to get a K-5 or a K-1 which have a lower pixel density hence less noise. (Or even a 645D.)

Suggest you keep both until you've compared them in case you actually prefer the 12-24. I was a bit disappointed with the 10-20 and for most purposes the 12-24 is just great.
FWIW I found the 8-16 image quality was better than the 10-20 too but for many subjects is too wide with unnatural looking edges.
My issue with the 10-20 is heavy vignetting which while it can be PP'd out, it really shouldn't have to be! No such issue with the 12-24 as I'm sure you're aware.

If anyone's after a light Pentax DSLR, look no further than the K-S1. It'll eat most m4/3rds for breakfast!

Comparison sites are a little strange though, such as:
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Pentax-K-S1-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Mark-III
This rates the K-S1 higher in all categories bar one but gives it a lower overall score! Try and make sense of that.

For a long term Olly user I can see the sense to go for a lightweight Olympus option, but for someone who already has a range of Pentax DA lenses and other DSLRs, the lighter Pentax makes a lot of sense.

I purchased a K-S1 because it was a cheap sale offer at the time, now I often take it out with the 16-85 lens in preference to the K-1/K-3/MX-1 and have no regrets. Brilliant underrated little thing for much the same reason some go to m4/3rds. There really is no need to jump ship, and surely a decent Pentax with a 20mp APS-C sensor is better than a smaller 16mp one when it comes to image quality? Best of all it still has a real TTL viewfinder.

I thought you wanted fast auto focussing, that sounds like a step backwards!

It would be interesting to see some direct comparisons with the older F & FA equivalents. He proof in the pudding... !

Not looking pink here, but why is the lens so much larger than the old F & FA 50mm f/1.4s?
Is it really 10 times the price better?
Mmmm!