My FA50/1.4 mounted on the PZ1 is not slow to focus and the focusing ring is not stiff at all, just a tad too narrow. Herbet. --- "J. Hein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Boz, > > I looked at your newly updated Pentax pages. With > respect to the primes I > hold this is a clear improvement. I spotted a typo > in your description of > the FA43/1.9. You write: "..., the AF somwhat low." > I guess you meant the > AF is slow. The "is" is missing as well. > > Since my FA50/1.4 got stolen I own this lens. I > would like to comment a > bit from my experience. I leave it up to you what > you do with it. > > I wouldn't call the focusing mechanism stiff. I can > focus it with a single > finger, holding the body (MZ-5n) with both hands and > using one finger of > the left hand. We dicussed that some time ago on > PDML, other users > reported this as well. This I can't do with an MF > lens. (I own M135/3.5 > at this time). In comparison to a cheap Tamron 28-80 > zoom the focus is > slow as was my 50/1.4. I think this is more the > slower transmission for > the faster lens. The AF transmission shaft has to do > many more rotations > to focus the lens to a given distance than on the > zoom. I expect this is > due to the DOF being more shallow and therfore one > had to increase > precision on the expense of AF-speed. I recall my > FA50/1.4 to be even more > slow and fuzzy in AF then the 43/1.9. Please note > that this is a HIGHLY > subjective comment, since I changed body together > with the lens (stolen > together with my lens) and I can't perform side by > side comparisons. > > I had two shots with my 43/1.9 which show evidence > of flare. Something I > never had with my 50/1.4. Wide open with both lenses > I get (got) double > structures in the background, so I wouldn't give > high marks for Bokeh to > either lens, when fully open. Distortion of the 43 > is clearly not as good > at the 50/1.4. I am not convinced the 43/1.9 is > optically better than the > 50/1.4. With respect to the AP article you quote, > they clearly point out, > a 43mm is harder to do than a 50mm lens. So this is > a typical `apples and > oranges' issue I raise here. > > For me the 43 shines with respect to handling, > quality of build and being > 43mm. Because of being shorter and more light weight > it balances better on > a MZ-5n than the FA50/1.4 did. Also I have a strong > preference for the > slightly wider angle. It makes more difference than > I ever thought. My > advise here would be: `Don't buy a 43 if you want a > 50 and vice versa.' > > While typing, I realised this might be interesting > to cross post to PDML, > to get you some comments of otheres on the issue. I > hope you don't mind. > > Joachim > > > - > 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 . > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text - 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 .
