Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When my A50/1.7 aperture got stuck, it was because one of the metal tabs inside the aperture ring, at the A button, had come loose. This loose piece of metal prevented the ring from turning through all the stops. So I removed the offending piece of metal, and now the aperture works fine. This seems to be a common problem with A-series lenses (at least the 50/1.7 and 50/1.4) and happens because they cheaped out and attached thos springs by molding plastic stubs through their mounting holes instead of using screws. I've repaired a couple by drilling a hole in the appropriate spot and reattaching the spring with a very small screw (still had to file down the head of the screw a little bit for clearance). Definitely a case in which the use of plastic was demonstrably inferior to metal. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
Just to avoid any confusion. C/N/M 1.8 lenses look all like glued cardboard, some are enormous, they lack some of their peers features, but all are good optics. I can confirm that, except for flare, Canon 50/1.8 is the equal of Pentax FA 50/1.7. Maybe offering a cheap standard prime is a more democratic approach and brings in return more followers of the right way. ;o) Servus, Alin Bruce wrote: BD ... It certainly gives one piece of mind knowing that you can BD choose between 1.7 and 1.4 and still get a very good lens with Pentax, where BD with Canon/Nikon you really are kind of stuck with only the 1.4. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
I'll have to agree with Alin on possible approach. A good friend of mine first started shooting his Canon with a Sigma 28-80 cheap zoom. After viewing many of my prime pics, he decided to get a 50mm 1.8 lens. I have seen his later stuff and it is much better. Had the lens cost much more, I'm not sure that he would have taken the plunge. As it is, he is now starting to look for a short tele prime. Maybe the lowball build/price thing does work well. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:41 AM Subject: Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50 Just to avoid any confusion. C/N/M 1.8 lenses look all like glued cardboard, some are enormous, they lack some of their peers features, but all are good optics. I can confirm that, except for flare, Canon 50/1.8 is the equal of Pentax FA 50/1.7. Maybe offering a cheap standard prime is a more democratic approach and brings in return more followers of the right way. ;o) Servus, Alin Bruce wrote: BD ... It certainly gives one piece of mind knowing that you can BD choose between 1.7 and 1.4 and still get a very good lens with Pentax, where BD with Canon/Nikon you really are kind of stuck with only the 1.4. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
Unfortunately, I found out yesterday that my old 1.7/50 (A) is blocked - I can move between aperture 1.7 and 11, but not smaller and not A. BTW: is this a common problem, that the aperture lever of the lenses gets worn out? It's this small platic block within the gap of the mount that transfers the chosen aperture to the body (correct English terms?) When my A50/1.7 aperture got stuck, it was because one of the metal tabs inside the aperture ring, at the A button, had come loose. This loose piece of metal prevented the ring from turning through all the stops. So I removed the offending piece of metal, and now the aperture works fine. But, unfortunately I never got the A electrical contacts back into place, so now my A 50/1.7 is an M 50/1.7. -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
- Original Message - From: John Mustarde Subject: Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50 But, unfortunately I never got the A electrical contacts back into place, so now my A 50/1.7 is an M 50/1.7. Mine is a very small ashtray. You did better than I did. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Subject: Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
John Mustarde wrote: But, unfortunately I never got the A electrical contacts back into place, so now my A 50/1.7 is an M 50/1.7. John, would you mind explaining to me the difference between the M and the A? (I have an A)... TIA, fairy. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
Hi all, what's your recommendation for those two lenses? http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,7.html http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,4.html I'm surprised how expensive the 1.7 is - it costs about 350 DM in Germany (that's about US$ 160), while other lenses from Canon/Nikon/Minolta are about 250 DM (US$ 115). Thus the gap to 1.4 is much smaller than for other manufacturers: about 550 DM (US$ 250). What's your experience and recommendation? The local info sheets listed the 1.4/50 with 6 groups and 7 lenses, the 1.7 with 6 groups and 5 lenses!? But after raeding the link above, I guess this was a typo. 5 groups and 6 lenses. Thanks for your comments Martin PS: how to I search in the archives for e.g. 1.4 or 50? Is the search engine functional? -- Martin Trautmann tel:++49-761-5035732 Wildtalstr. 45 fax:++49-89-2443-13836 D-79108 Freiburg mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
Hi, Recently Martin Trautmann wrote: what's your recommendation for those two lenses? http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,7.html http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,4.html Well, if you were closer to Hamburg you could try out both... There is an F50/1,7 on eBay.de right now. In general, this is a difficult question. The 1,4 and 1,7 lneses have been tested by different people, and the results are mixed, some say one is better, some say the other. However, they all agree: both lenses are extemely good, with the 1,4 being a bit bigger, a bit heavier, and more expensive. So, the answer is this: if you need f/1,4 then get the 1,4. Otherwise get the 1,7 or the one that you find first for a good price. I'm surprised how expensive the 1.7 is - it costs about 350 DM in Germany (that's about US$ 160), while other lenses from Canon/Nikon/Minolta are about 250 DM (US$ 115). Are those not 1,8 offerings from the other manufacturers? The local info sheets listed the 1.4/50 with 6 groups and 7 lenses, the 1.7 with 6 groups and 5 lenses!? But after raeding the link above, I guess this was a typo. 5 groups and 6 lenses. Not the only typo from Pentax. However, there are mistakes on my page too... Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
On Mon 2001-04-30 (04:04), Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: Hi, Recently Martin Trautmann wrote: what's your recommendation for those two lenses? http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,7.html http://phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/primes/40-55/FA50f1,4.html Well, if you were closer to Hamburg you could try out both... There is an F50/1,7 on eBay.de right now. Hey, good pointer - I'll have a look :-) better, some say the other. However, they all agree: both lenses are extemely good, So that's good news. Unfortunately, I found out yesterday that my old 1.7/50 (A) is blocked - I can move between aperture 1.7 and 11, but not smaller and not A. BTW: is this a common problem, that the aperture lever of the lenses gets worn out? It's this small platic block within the gap of the mount that transfers the chosen aperture to the body (correct English terms?) I'm surprised how expensive the 1.7 is - it costs about 350 DM in Germany (that's about US$ 160), while other lenses from Canon/Nikon/Minolta are about 250 DM (US$ 115). Are those not 1,8 offerings from the other manufacturers? more or less correct: Canon EF 1.8/50 II (ø52)249.- Nikon AF 1.8/50 (ø 52) 249.- Minolta AF 1.7/50 (ø49) 249.- Pentax AF 1.7/50 (ø49) 359.- Canon EF 1.4/50 USM (ø58) 969.- Nikon AF 1/4/50 D (ø52) 749.- Minolta AF 1.4/50 (ø49) 559.- Pentax AF 1.4/50 (ø49) 549.- (prices in DM from www.fotokoch.de) So every 0.1 aperture is about 100 DM more? ;-) Kind regards Martin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: SMC-FA 1.4/50 vs. 1.7/50
Recently Martin Trautmann wrote: Unfortunately, I found out yesterday that my old 1.7/50 (A) is blocked - I can move between aperture 1.7 and 11, but not smaller and not A. I might have interest in bying it. Please contact me off the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you are interested in selling it. BTW: is this a common problem, that the aperture lever of the lenses gets worn out? It's this small platic block within the gap of the mount that transfers the chosen aperture to the body (correct English terms?) No, not really. Common is that the aperture blades get dirty or oily, bit that the mechanics break, this is a vey rare occurence. Canon EF 1.8/50 II (ø52) 249.- Nikon AF 1.8/50 (ø 52)249.- Minolta AF 1.7/50 (ø49) 249.- Pentax AF 1.7/50 (ø49)359.- Hm, interesting! C cas no USM; N is not a D lens. I am not familiar with M. Pentax has the D functionality but no USM. It is also faster than the Nikon, so maybe the price is justfied. Canon EF 1.4/50 USM (ø58) 969.- Nikon AF 1/4/50 D (ø52) 749.- Minolta AF 1.4/50 (ø49) 559.- Pentax AF 1.4/50 (ø49) 549.- Wow, the Pentax is a steal! It has no USM like the C, but the P is much smaller. Nikon now has D, and Pentax too, so 200 DM saved. So every 0.1 aperture is about 100 DM more? ;-) You wish! Check the prices of the A 50/1,2. Cheers, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
