[zxaar]

I had tried the Mamiya Sekor 50/1.4 and I'll say it is a very good lens (maybe great) in it's own right. although I won't exactly say that it is better than the Tak equivalent. it's unique, but not better. as far as comparison between 1.2 and 1.4, the 1.2 has a much punchier and livelier vivid look with a great bokeh from wide open and even when compared at the same aperture as that of the mamiya at 1.4.
the Mamiya's bokeh is good but I wouldn't say great. also it has a cold feel to it and much darker. the 1.2 is much brighter even at 1.4 while the Mamiya has just a fair amount of light transmission.

mostly comes down to personal preference in the end when it comes to 'best lense' because difference between them is so little.

For example i am attached to mamiya one, and while i had both pentax and mamiya same time, i much preferred mamiya pictures.

When it comes to sharpness bokeh etc, while resolution is something that could be measured bokeh is mostly down to personal preference.

i bought tak 50mm F1.4 today just for collection purposes and having taken some pics so far, i am not even sure that this would replace 55mm F1.8 tak for me. Looks good lense but so far my impression is it is behind both 55mm and 50mm f1.2.

50mm F1.2 is master's work F1.2 lense with this compact size, hats off to who designed it.

[Digitalis]

"When I see Digitalis and Asahiflex, I know I don't have a problem."

curiosity killed my bank account.

[Pentaxor]

mostly comes down to personal preference in the end when it comes to 'best lense' because difference between them is so little.

For example i am attached to mamiya one, and while i had both pentax and mamiya same time, i much preferred mamiya pictures.

When it comes to sharpness bokeh etc, while resolution is something that could be measured bokeh is mostly down to personal preference.

i bought tak 50mm F1.4 today just for collection purposes and having taken some pics so far, i am not even sure that this would replace 55mm F1.8 tak for me. Looks good lense but so far my impression is it is behind both 55mm and 50mm f1.2.

50mm F1.2 is master's work F1.2 lense with this compact size, hats off to who designed it.

Yes, personally I prefer the Pentax 55/1.8 as well over the ST 50/1.4. the ST 50/1.4 is better sharpness-wise but I prefer the rendering of the 55/1.8. the 55 has a much subtle look to the image but sharp enough wide open to be considered nice and not distracting. very nice for portraits. 55 is warmer compared to the 1.2. 1.2 is more vivid.

I agree that it is really a masterpiece and should not be considered overrated due to speed alone. there is a reason why it is more expensive than it's slower manual focus and AF counterparts. not only because of supply and demand.
honestly, I like it much more than the Canon 50/1.2 counterpart.

[axl]

I agree that the 55/1.8 is warmer. Seems to be slightly more contrasty wide open than 50/1.2 too. But I personally prefer the colder tone of 50/1.2 and what really sets these two apart is the OOF rendering! As good as 55/1.8 design is the 50/1.2 just kills it...at any distance, any f stop.
I trully consider it to be the best SMC lens in 40-55 range although I have to admit I have many more to try

PS: I'm soooooo glad my momentary lapse of reason didn't get better of me and I kept both of my Ks

Alright!!

Does that mean that you are planning on buying multiple copies of 50mm at different apperture???

Welcome to the LBA club, where I used to be a member. You are off to a great start. Don't forget Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 zk.

[bilybianca]

I admit I haven't read through all the replies, so this might be a repeat.
I've had and used three of the 50mm f1.4 Pentax lenses, the A, the F and the FA. I've done controlled test with the three, and could never see any difference at all in image quality between them. Sold the A, kept the F for it's rarity and use the FA on a daily basis.
I also had an F50mm 1.7, reputedly sharper at full aperture compared to the f1.4's. With my sample that was definitely not the truth. My 1.7 was remarkably softer at 1.7 than the FA 1.4 at 1.4. At 2.8 and smaller they were pretty equal.
So I guess it's a question of sample variation just as much as a question of lens design.

Kjell

[Pentaxor]

I admit I haven't read through all the replies, so this might be a repeat.
I've had and used three of the 50mm f1.4 Pentax lenses, the A, the F and the FA. I've done controlled test with the three, and could never see any difference at all in image quality between them. Sold the A, kept the F for it's rarity and use the FA on a daily basis.
I also had an F50mm 1.7, reputedly sharper at full aperture compared to the f1.4's. With my sample that was definitely not the truth. My 1.7 was remarkably softer at 1.7 than the FA 1.4 at 1.4. At 2.8 and smaller they were pretty equal.
So I guess it's a question of sample variation just as much as a question of lens design.

Kjell

I don't think it's about sample variation. most, if not all people who had tried and owned both lenses could testify that the 1.7 is sharper than the 1.4. itis not even a 50/50 nor an 80/20 ratio, but more of a 98% to 2% ratio. also, I believe it has the resolution tests and mathematical statistics to support that. so the lens design have to do something with it.

as far as your copy is concerned. maybe you just got a dud or it has some issues that you are not aware of.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 06-21-2010 at 11:39 AM.

[Voe]

Leica R 50mm Summicron (2nd version) converted to Pentax.

As with the 43mm Limited, the 50mm Summicron is sharper than any Pentax 50mm. Conversion will set you back $35 and 5 minutes of your time.

[zxaar]

Yes, personally I prefer the Pentax 55/1.8 as well over the ST 50/1.4. the ST 50/1.4 is better sharpness-wise but I prefer the rendering of the 55/1.8. the 55 has a much subtle look to the image but sharp enough wide open to be considered nice and not distracting. very nice for portraits. 55 is warmer compared to the 1.2. 1.2 is more vivid.

I agree that it is really a masterpiece and should not be considered overrated due to speed alone. there is a reason why it is more expensive than it's slower manual focus and AF counterparts. not only because of supply and demand.
honestly, I like it much more than the Canon 50/1.2 counterpart.

The main thing about 50mmF1.2 is its size, it is very compact lense (for a f1.2 lense). It is small enough that i could carry it in my pocket.

Compared to canon's version which more looks like rice bowl it is definitely very portable. I dunno if anyone tried, but by looking at it, it sounds impossible to put into pocket. (normal ones).

Since i had 50mm F1.2 for long time i wished to know how much better/worse it is compared to canon's version. After lots of research and looking through sample of canon 50mm F1.2 , my opinion is that wide open canon version might be fractionally sharp at center than pentax version. The difference is very small, may be like 100 - 97 types. Bokeh probably is smoother on pentax's version.

In the end, definitely not over-rated lense. But it take time to appreciate it.

[VaSA]

So far I've tried SMC Takumar, A 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, and K 50mm 1.4 For me personally K and Takumar were the clear winners.

[Pentaxor]

The main thing about 50mmF1.2 is its size, it is very compact lense (for a f1.2 lense). It is small enough that i could carry it in my pocket.

Compared to canon's version which more looks like rice bowl it is definitely very portable. I dunno if anyone tried, but by looking at it, it sounds impossible to put into pocket. (normal ones).

Since i had 50mm F1.2 for long time i wished to know how much better/worse it is compared to canon's version. After lots of research and looking through sample of canon 50mm F1.2 , my opinion is that wide open canon version might be fractionally sharp at center than pentax version. The difference is very small, may be like 100 - 97 types. Bokeh probably is smoother on pentax's version.

In the end, definitely not over-rated lense. But it take time to appreciate it.

the Bokeh is smoother on the Pentax and better color for my taste. I find the Canon's color neutral and dull. the Canon's though are really sharp, this includes the 85. but I was never impressed due to those 2 things that I mentioned.

[axl]

Leica R 50mm Summicron (2nd version) converted to Pentax.

As with the 43mm Limited, the 50mm Summicron is sharper than any Pentax 50mm. Conversion will set you back $35 and 5 minutes of your time.

How much would R Summicron set one back?

[scorpioh]

How much would R Summicron set one back?

I would like to try a 35mm Leica R Summicron too. But can't seem to find them new.

[Ishpuini]

For utmost sharpess: the SMC Pentax-F 50mm f/2.8 macro.

I have to agree here. This is certainly the best 50 I have owned. I had a few others (M50/2, M50/1.7, FA50/1.4) but they were all sold. The FA50/2.8 macro is the one that remains in my kit.

Must add that I don't find 50mm an ideal standard FOV on APS-C. For that I prefer either the FA43/1.9 or the FA31/1.8, and when shooting square pictures even the DA21/3.2! 50mm however is a very practical studio still life focal length and as such having macro facility is certainly a bonus ensuring I can never get too close on any (non macro) subject. Love that lens!

Wim

[Voe]

I would like to try a 35mm Leica R Summicron too. But can't seem to find them new.

I recently sold mine for $350USD.
The reason I sold it is because it made me do a complete switch from Pentax to Leica M.
I miss my FA Limiteds, but I gladly say hello to Leica lenses.