Pentax Da 50Mm F1.8 Lens For Pentax Dslr Cameras

Objetiva excelente! Muito rápida e muito nítida! O valor também foi excelente! A objetiva estava no Brasil e não foi necessário pagar impostos de importação. Suspeito que seja de uma compra cancelada. O que não importa. Só torna a compra ainda mais vantajosa! Não conheço nenhuma “nifty-fifty” que entregue o mesmo pelo mesmo valor!

Hade läst en del positiva recensioner och jag blev inte besviken. Använder denna med min Pentax K-70 och den tar fantastiska bilder.

明るいレンズでまっことシャープに撮れるし、フルサイズ機にFFで付けても違和感なく使えて、安いのに良いことづくめです。見た目やカム機構の動作音は好き嫌いが分かれるところですが、私は大好きです。ISO200以下のスローシャッターでうまく撮れたなら絵作りにまろやかさも加わっている事でしょう。

I want to use this review to address a few questions other relative newcomers with conservative budgets might have. I own a K-30 that I bought with the 18-135mm zoom lens, which I like a lot. I'm not a camera or lens expert and I don't have a lot of discretionary camera money, so my questions when I started considering the purchase of a prime lens were 1) is it worth it, and 2) if so, which one should I get? I couldn't try any prime lenses out because there aren't any Pentax dealers in Hawai'i and I don't know anyone I can borrow from, so I pretty much had to do things backward: get a lens and see if it was worth it. I started a few months ago with the similarly-priced DA 35mm f2.4 AL, choosing it over the 50mm f1.8 for reasons that I can't remember now, and lo, it was in fact worth it. That lens has some issues but at its best, the sharpness and clarity compared to the 18-135mm -- which is a really nice lens -- astonished me. It's a different animal, most noticeably at 100% resolution a few stops down. The 35mm hooked me on prime lenses but it didn't make me any more financially sound, so this lens was the obvious next step. I'm very glad I took it. Like the 35mm, it's quite light but nicely constructed. When I ordered it I also ordered a hood and a UV filter, as I did for the 35mm, because if I'm going to break any glass I would prefer it to be something that doesn't run into three digits to replace. This lens takes a 52mm filter, while the 35 takes a 49mm one. I got B+W filters for both, and collapsible rubber hoods. I recommend this for the peace of mind if nothing else. A good filter won't affect the image and it will protect the lens. The reason I say that this lens isn't perfect is that it isn't weather-resistant, and the enjoyable weightlessness derives from the plastic construction. You're just not going to get a weather-resistant, all-metal lens for under $200. Beyond that, I have no complaints. If you're contemplating buying your first prime lens and you're choosing between this one and the 35mm, get this one. I wanted a relatively fast lens both for shooting in low light and for controlling the depth of field. Both the 35mm at f2.4 and the 50mm at f1.8 are relatively fast, but the 35mm loses some of its speed because it's pretty soft at maximum aperture: you just don't get a crisp image from edge to edge when it's wide open, so you can't use it wide open if you need that kind of sharpness. There are situations in which one doesn't need that, but if you do you're out of luck with the 35mm. Effectively, that makes the 50mm considerably faster than the 35mm because it looks quite sharp at the maximum aperture. You might have to shoot at f3.5 to get the same sharpness from the 35mm that you get from the 50mm at f1.8. (Don't take that for gospel; I haven't done a direct comparison, but that's around the point at which the 35mm starts to look much sharper across the frame than it does wide open.) Like most lenses the 50mm also gets sharper as the aperture gets smaller, but it looks really good at the maximum aperture as well. Basically, pictures in low light or with the narrowest depth of field are going to look better with the 50mm than they do with the 35mm. Both lenses tend to hunt some in low light, the 35mm a bit more than the 50mm, and they'll do the same trying to focus on clouds or misty landscapes. In good light with well-defined targets, they're both pretty quick and there's nothing much to recommend one over the other. I've had some purple fringing issues with the 35mm in high contrast images that haven't turned up in the 50mm to this point. I'm still happy I got the 35mm because the wider field of view is handy in tight quarters, but if I had to get one or the other I would choose the 50mm without hesitation. In addition to what I think is the clearly superior performance of the 50mm, for whatever reason I also find it a lot easier to compose shots with the 50mm than with the 35mm. I have no idea why that is and I'm sure it wouldn't be true for everybody, but I'm pretty sure that everybody would agree about the physical advantages of the 50mm over the 35mm. Because I shoot outdoors most of the time, and because outdoors in Hawai'i often means wind or blowing sand/dust or rain or all of the above simultaneously, the lack of weather resistance is a genuine issue with both of these low-cost primes. But I have the weather-resistant zoom if I really feel compelled to shoot 35mm or 50mm pictures in the rain, so I can hold off on the additional $500 or more that it would cost to get weather-resistant prime lenses at these focal lengths. Both lenses are really good deals for what they are. The advantage of the 35mm is that it's wider, obviously, but I say go ahead and get the 50mm and take a few steps back if you have to. It's just a wonderful lens and if you've confined yourself to one of the kit zooms so far, you'll be amazed by the image quality.

I wish all lenses were like this-attractive, cheap, lightweight high quality, great images, great bokeh. Stays in my k5ii. Most recent outing was using it at a wta250 tennis match , qualifying rounds. I was at the 3rd row and pics were nice, with/without cropping, though not pro 300mm f2.8 level. Don't know why people say af is noisy. Scree drive is on so many lenses and I remember my 77mm F1 8 seemed even louder when focusing.