This page is dedicated to the little unscientific comparison of two known lens from Pentax: 50/1.4 and 43Lim/1.9. As is known, the second is twice as expensive. At the time of this writing in the Moscow company Myuster 50/1.4 lens worth $ 220, while the price of the lens 43Lim/1.9 was $ 480.
In this regard, of interest following questions:
- Is the difference in price with the quality of the image?
- If the difference as there is, under what conditions it can be seen?
These questions have troubled me a long time. Before you buy a lens 50/1.4, I tried to use every opportunity to compare the images generated by these two remarkable devices. Alas, the comparative visual information on the Internet I found. On those rare photographs (prints and digital images), which fell to me, I said excellent properties of both optical products. Identify a clear leader on the image quality was not possible, since ended up in my pictures were taken in different conditions, yes, to the same stories and the photographs were different. But once the distinct advantages of the lens 43Lim/1.9 was revealed, I decided to buy the 50/1.4 lens. Arguments in favor of such a purchase from me were the following:
- Additional 7 mm in long side for me an absolute plus. At 50 mm can already carry a genre portrait photography, while the lens with a focal length of 43 mm still quite strongly distorts the scale when shooting portraits;
- Less than half a ruble catchy design seemed more attractive.
- Structurally Lim looks more solid, and for manual focusing it is more suited. But the 50/1.4 lens looks like in this respect, with dignity, in my opinion. No backlash in its design there, and the focus ring has a pretty big move.
One way or another, but buying fifty dollars I still did not abandon the hope to find out whether I lost something in picture quality. And finally, in early October, I managed to make a tiny series of shots of them together lens. Two of the most typical story I propose to your attention.
The analysis should consider the following:
1. When examining all the images (especially large pieces) you might get the impression of a possible “camera shake” and / or not completely accurate focusing. It is not. I just wanted to give up an extra computer processing and present the results exactly as you can get them with a film scanner. Of course, I know how to prepare photographs for publication. And with the Photoshop program I am familiar. However, in this case, I deliberately refused to computer sharpening.
Here it should be noted that according to the testimony of owners of Lima, all of its charm lies not in the particular field. All of them with one voice about the amazing plasticity, ability to better bunal color halftones, better color rendition, the incredibly beautiful bokeh, and other such things. That is what I propose to evaluate in the first place.
Those who believe that the focus should be sharp, I refer to other tests and reviews.
2. Note that compared to lenses with different focal lengths. Therefore, the depth of field and blur the nature of them will be a little different. For example, in the classical theory, the point at infinity is smeared on the negative in diameter (f M) / N, where f – focal length, F – scale survey, N – number of aperture. So when shooting the same scale and at the same relative aperture of the lens, the degree of spreading is directly proportional to the focal length.
Note: Proponents of the approach of Harold Merklingera may not agree with me. I want to assure them that I, of course, this theory is well known. But, alas, it is not nearly as versatile as the traditional approach. Detailed arguments I presented in a separate article “Focal Plane: the search for physical meaning. Is it true theory of Harold Merklingera? ”
3. Is it right to compare lenses with different focal lengths? I understand perfectly that everyone will answer this question differently. I think that you can compare. The only important thing correctly specify all initial conditions and the purpose of comparison, in order that the reader can take all these additional factors into account.
My approach is that we must start from the objectives of the survey. For example, it is necessary to remove a portrait of the scale M = 0,025. If we take the different cameras with different lenses and set them around the same shooting parameters, then why not compare the results? Such comparison is, of course, is not entirely correct from a scientific point of view, but it is quite possible, if at the forefront to put aesthetic evaluation. Because here we are talking not about the technology, but about the art of shooting, then this approach seems more than justified. Anyway, I’m much more interesting to look at the real pictures, not on the data of instrumental tests and graphs OTF.
4. Good to know that viewing on a computer screen (at 72 dpi) initial scan (2820 dpi) with 50% (100%) increase is equivalent to examining a print size 0,9 x 1,4 m
(1,8 x 2,8 m).
5. Photos are not randomly given pairs. It is important to compare the photos of one pair with each other, rather than treating the individual images by themselves!
Thus, the results:
Portrait without thinking
43Lim@4.0; Agfa Vista 200
50/1.4 @ 4.0; Agfa Vista 200
Halving the initial scans of the fragments
(The film was scanned at 2820 dpi)
Left – 43Lim, right – 50/1.4
Two pictures, impressions
Etude in fuzzy tonah@2.8; Agfa Vista 200
Left – 43Lim, right – 50/1.4
Fragments of the etudes in fuzzy tonah@2.8; Agfa Vista 200
(Fragments of full-scan @ 2820 dpi)
Left – 43Lim, right – 50/1.4
Findings
Should you have a little disappointed. No conclusions here, I do not intend to publish.See and think for yourself. Do not forget only about the first mentioned limitations.
By the way, if you think that is useful to compare the actual prints, you should note that this is how its pluses and minuses (Oh, this dialectic!). At the moment I made a few prints from these negatives in different laboratories. The results, of course, always a little different. But! When comparing the fingerprints obtained from a mini-Laba, the difference between images is much smaller than the screen. Any printing process quickly eliminates the difference, what underlines it.
So, you think that the difference in the pictures justifies twice the price? Then boldly buy Pentax FA 49/1.9 Limited. Think that the difference is not so significant? Then, perhaps, worth to buy Pentax FA 50/1.4.
In any case, I am sure you will not regret the purchase made!