----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
> Well, when I actually TESTED my 50s I found that the M 50/2 is a really > good performer, plus it's cheap and very small. None of the above can > be said for A 50/1.2 from what I've heard (I sold mine a while back, > before I had a chance to test it.) The A 50mm f/1.2 is pretty soft wide open (though much better than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 that I replaced with the Pentax lens), and is only ok until about f/8, at which point it is very good indeed. > > So, while you might pick up a faster Pentax 50 which is a LITTLE better > (I'd suggest A/1.4 or A/1.7--at least the M50/1.4 is an older design and > reputedly not as good) I don't think you'll be disappointed by the A 50/2 > (assuming it is the same as M50/2) and I'd recommend putting money towards > a better telephoto or wider wide if you find the need for that. All the Pentax 50mm lenses in the f/1.4 to f/2 range are good lenses (perhaps the K55mm f/1.8 is the exception, it isn't all that wonderful until well stopped down). Of all the ones I have, I think the K 50mm f/1.4 is the "sharpest", the M 50mm f/1.4 is the "creamiest" (for lack of a better term), the FA 50mm f/1.4 seems most excellent, but I haven't shot a lot with it yet, and the 1.7s and f/2s in whatever series all seem very good as well. I don't have many samples of each, but I have almost a dozen 50mm lenses in various places around the house, so I have been able to test (as much as I test anything) more than one sample of most emulations. William Robb
