>> At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more >> relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are >> considerably less expensive than the FA50/1.4. >> > > Canon and Nikon both produce very low cost 50mm lenses in the f/1.8 > and f/2 range. While they're not 'bad', they're nowhere near as good > as the FA50/1.4 on rendering, or even the Pentax 50/1.7 series. The > comparable lenses are the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF lens at $280, and a > Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM at $295 (B&H Prices). Yep. Prices around here are higher, as usual, but in relative terms the situation is not that different. I think the Nikon may be bit closer to the Pentax (and further away from the Canon) in price than indicated here, though...
> I've used both of them. > These are built with the same mount quality as the Pentax FA50/1.4 > but aren't quite as good on imaging performance. OK. > The only other 50mm > f/1.4 lenses in the 35mm SLR range that I think are comparable in > performance was the Contax mount Zeiss Planar and the Leica Summicron- > R, both of which are substantially more expensive. > > Pentax continues to offer the budget minded A50/2 lens at $70. It's > nowhere near the performance of the f/1.7 and f/1.4 lenses, but it's > still a good lens. > So it's also a lot poorer than my A50/1.7? That's a bit interesting. The shop where I bought this lens used a couple of years ago also had an A50/2.0 in similar condition, and they had actually priced it higher... And there is also the A50/1.2, of course, but that's 2-3 times as expensive as the FA50/1.4, and perhaps doesn't perform quite as well besides the higher speed? By the way, how about the new(ish) one from Voigtlander/Cosina? Some of their lenses (not sure about the 50mm) seem to have a very good reputation... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
