Adrian Sanchez , Dec 01, 2003; 09:22 a.m.
I've just bought this cheap lens, and noticed its superior sharpness
and optical quality.
Do you think the same or am I just seeing things, product of my
enthusiasm?
Where do you think I could get a LPI resolution test and hyperfocal
chart for this lens? I've found some for similar Pentax lenses, but
not for the f/2
Thanks,
Adrián
Alan Gage , Dec 01, 2003; 11:32 a.m.
"I've just bought this cheap lens, and noticed its superior sharpness and optical quality. "
Superior to what?
Alan
Adrian Sanchez , Dec 01, 2003; 12:38 p.m.
To a 100W light bulb filled with water...
Mark Weber , Dec 01, 2003; 12:48 p.m.
100W light bulb filled with tap or spring water? But seriously, I too bought this lens recently and I am very happy with it. I don't have "high" quality lenses to compare it to but I also noticed it's quite sharp.
Mark Weber , Dec 01, 2003; 12:57 p.m.
Douglas Green , Dec 01, 2003; 02:04 p.m.
Slow normal lenses like this 50mm f2 are almost invariably the sharpest lenses around. I would expect this inexpensive 50mm f2 to blow away any zoom lens, for example, in optical performance.
Jay T , Dec 01, 2003; 10:24 p.m.
Interpret 'cheap' as 'inexpensive' as opposed to 'low quality'. The various Pentax 50mm lenses are renowned for their quality and sharpness.
Douglas Stemke 
, Dec 02, 2003; 12:54 p.m.
I have only used the 'A' version of this lens. It was a beautiful and unbeliveably light lens lovely images; it was my first K mount 50. I sold it simply because it was hard to justify having a 50mm f1.4 SMC Super Takumar, 50mm f1.4 A, 50mm f1.4 M, 50mm f1.7 A, 50mm F f2.8 macro and the f2. And do I use all of those lenses? You bet, althought the M version gets the least work.
James Mitchell , Dec 02, 2003; 02:14 p.m.
Outstanding lens; often I find it's a little too sharp for portraits of women. I never gave it much respect until I reviewed some older photographs I took back when I was still trying to figure out contrast, and was totally surprised with how sharp the darn thing is.
Regardless of which other lenses you've got (I live by my 55/1.2), this one's a good one to hang onto.
=)
Adrian Sanchez , Dec 05, 2003; 02:10 p.m.
The language barrier
I said "cheap" instead of the more appropriate "unexpensive". This could lead to confusion: some thought I meant the lens was "cheap" in the terms of "low-quality", "poorly-built", etc.
That's not what I meant, but a high quality lens which has been acquired at an unbelievable low price.
English is a very subtle language. We, spanish-speakers, have such a vast vocabulary we tend to be extremelly literal, so -for us- "cheap" is the same as "unexpensive" because there are other words for poorly-crafted goods, if you know what I mean ;-)
A.
