Is there any lens faster than F1.2 that will fit a Pentax?

Christopher M.W.T · 09-14-2010, 05:49 AM

Cool thanks for the feedback there

I still think I may try and get my hands on a Pentax F1.2, mainly for bragging rights

Nick Siebers · 09-14-2010, 08:55 AM

Bragging rights, yes, there the 50/1.2 really shines. :-)

Pentaxor, I am headed to a concert next week, I will see what I can do as well. I suspect most of the good shots, if there are any, will be stopped down a bit, though.

egordon99 · 09-14-2010, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by troglodyte

serious possible different choices. Personally I'd go for the medium format f2.4 lens. Wicked IQ that spanks any Pentax aps-c dslr with the same DOF as f1.2 on aps-c.

You are correct if you are refering to using the MF f/2.4 lens ON a MF body. And you are NOT getting the "brightness" of an f/1.2 lens on ANY f/2.4 lens.

8540tomg · 09-14-2010, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by egordon99

You are correct if you are refering to using the MF f/2.4 lens ON a MF body. And you are NOT getting the "brightness" of an f/1.2 lens on ANY f/2.4 lens.

Yes, the viewfinder brightness bonus is the trump card for all fast MF lenses. The 1.2 may have very shallow depth of field but it will be far easier to focus manually due to its light gathering ability. This would permit shots that just wouldn't be possible or at least more difficult with a slower lens. I don't do enough low light work to justify the expense of a 1.2 and find a 50mm 1.4 meets my needs. For those who shoot by candle light it just might.

Tom G

Pentaxor · 09-14-2010, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by 8540tomg

Yes, the viewfinder brightness bonus is the trump card for all fast MF lenses. The 1.2 may have very shallow depth of field but it will be far easier to focus manually due to its light gathering ability. This would permit shots that just wouldn't be possible or at least more difficult with a slower lens. I don't do enough low light work to justify the expense of a 1.2 and find a 50mm 1.4 meets my needs. For those who shoot by candle light it just might.

Tom G

fair enough TOM.

Nick Siebers · 09-24-2010, 08:56 AM

Well, I tried f/1.2 at a concert, and I stand corrected. It definitely worked better than I expected. I didn't bring an f/1.4 or f/1.7 to compare, but given that I had to push ISO to 6400, I'll just go ahead and say the speed was helpful. And true, DOF is minimal, but for these type of shots I didn't feel perfect focus was critical.

(Doug Martsch of Built To Spill)

Pentaxor · 09-24-2010, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Well, I tried f/1.2 at a concert, and I stand corrected. It definitely worked better than I expected. I didn't bring an f/1.4 or f/1.7 to compare, but given that I had to push ISO to 6400, I'll just go ahead and say the speed was helpful. And true, DOF is minimal, but for these type of shots I didn't feel perfect focus was critical.

(Doug Martsch of Built To Spill)

what shutterspeed did you use here?

Nick Siebers · 09-24-2010, 07:19 PM

1/90, 1/60, 1/60. And actually, I didn't have it wide open for these - f/1.7, f/2 and f/2. I took most of my shots wide open, but I think I like these more. May just be coincidence, though.

Pentaxor · 09-24-2010, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

1/90, 1/60, 1/60. And actually, I didn't have it wide open for these - f/1.7, f/2 and f/2. I took most of my shots wide open, but I think I like these more. May just be coincidence, though.

I see. would had preferred looking at some of those at wide open to see how they look. I haven't been able to shoot at a concert yet since work has really been very demanding lately. I haven't got enough sleep 7 Days a week to begin with. not even time for a break or go for a swim, work out and ply basketball. but mostly not being able to go out and do some photography.

although some of my lowlight shots (non-concert) at wide open were decently sharp at midrange to infinity, but would like to see the results during a concert. I'm going to try and check when there is an upcoming concert gig next month, possibly after Thanksgiving. maybe I could set it up during a meet with some of the local Pentax members here. or could shoot during the late afternoon.

anyway, what was the ISO and shutterspeed when you shoot wide open? was it around 1/200 at ISO 3200? or 1/160 at ISO 2000?

blende8 · 09-25-2010, 11:27 AM

I have been told that the PK bajonett mount does not allow anything larger than f1.2 and not even this at all focal lengths.
Canon has the largest mount.

Nick Siebers · 09-25-2010, 06:11 PM

Here's a couple from the opening act ReVolT ReVolT - even less light. 1/45 and 1/90 respectively at ISO 3200, f/1.2.

I can get skin tones looking a little more natural if I play with them, but I like the exaggerated colors. That was pretty much how the show was lit.

Pentaxor · 09-25-2010, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Here's a couple from the opening act ReVolT ReVolT - even less light. 1/45 and 1/90 respectively at ISO 3200, f/1.2.

I can get skin tones looking a little more natural if I play with them, but I like the exaggerated colors. That was pretty much how the show was lit.

thanks Nick. let's see if I can do better. but if you say that was pretty much the available light available, the organizers must be saving a lot of electricity I guess.

anyway, I would guess that the lighting was stronger on those 2 previous photos compared to the ones that were shot at f1.2, since they would look equally exposed if you boosted the ISO by a stop. so the mood there would had probably been changed. that's the tough thing about rock concerts at night, the lighting are mostly dynamic, depending on how the light people wanted the setting would be like.

m8o · 09-29-2010, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Having had a 50/1.2 for a while now, I am skeptical of the usefulness of such a fast lens for band photography. There is so little depth of field at f/1.2, never mind wider! But I'd love to see the pics to prove me wrong.

Well, if you're not ontop of the band and 10 or 20 feet away you can get say a foot or more depth or field. That works, as is evidenced above at that.

**Digitalis** · 09-29-2010, 06:43 PM

the leica noctilux 50mm f/1.0 and 0.95 are rangefinder lenses of the highest quality.(I own the f/1.0) however they cannot be used on a Pentax DSLR due to the focus flange. the voigtlander nokton 35mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/1.1 cannot be used for the same reason.

I don't seem to understand that when someone asks for a faster lens for their SLR, people start mentioning rangefinder glass.

I concur with Marc Sabatella, on a full frame leica M9 the DOF from the Leica nonctilux 50mm f/1.0 produces impractically shallow DOF for the subjects the OP desires to photograph. The bokeh effects from the noctilux are very unpredictable, it can vary from sublimely beautiful or make you want to gouge your eyes out with a melon baller. The leica noctilux is also not what I would call the sharpest lens leica has ever made, in fact even the older generations of the the summilux 50mm f/1.4 beat the crap out of it at f/4.

blende8 · 09-30-2010, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by blende8

I have been told that the PK bajonett mount does not allow anything larger than f1.2 and not even this at all focal lengths.
Canon has the largest mount.

Already f1.2 was a problem with M42.
Here is a 55/1.2 lens where you can see that the rear lens holding had to be shaved a bit to allow for the Auto pin.

09-29-2010, 06:43 PM	#29
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	the leica noctilux 50mm f/1.0 and 0.95 are rangefinder lenses of the highest quality.(I own the f/1.0) however they cannot be used on a Pentax DSLR due to the focus flange. the voigtlander nokton 35mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/1.1 cannot be used for the same reason. I don't seem to understand that when someone asks for a faster lens for their SLR, people start mentioning rangefinder glass. I concur with Marc Sabatella, on a full frame leica M9 the DOF from the Leica nonctilux 50mm f/1.0 produces impractically shallow DOF for the subjects the OP desires to photograph. The bokeh effects from the noctilux are very unpredictable, it can vary from sublimely beautiful or make you want to gouge your eyes out with a melon baller. The leica noctilux is also not what I would call the sharpest lens leica has ever made, in fact even the older generations of the the summilux 50mm f/1.4 beat the crap out of it at f/4. Last edited by Digitalis; 09-29-2010 at 06:57 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
sigma 150-500mm hsm lens pentax fit	kositoes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-25-2011 12:42 AM
Does anyone know if a Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm lens will fit on a Pentax K-m?	cobra k-m	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	04-22-2010 07:08 AM
Help me! Will this lens fit on a Pentax camera?	JP_Seattle	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-09-2010 07:05 PM
Will Konica lens fit Pentax K100D?	sylvanite	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-08-2007 08:42 PM
Adapter to fit canon lens on pentax?	ronald_durst	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-11-2007 10:50 AM

09-14-2010, 05:49 AM	#16
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Cool thanks for the feedback there I still think I may try and get my hands on a Pentax F1.2, mainly for bragging rights

09-14-2010, 08:55 AM	#17
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Bragging rights, yes, there the 50/1.2 really shines. :-) Pentaxor, I am headed to a concert next week, I will see what I can do as well. I suspect most of the good shots, if there are any, will be stopped down a bit, though.

09-14-2010, 10:54 AM	#18
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Originally posted by troglodyte serious possible different choices. Personally I'd go for the medium format f2.4 lens. Wicked IQ that spanks any Pentax aps-c dslr with the *same DOF as f1.2 on aps-c*. You are correct if you are refering to using the MF f/2.4 lens ON a MF body. And you are NOT getting the "brightness" of an f/1.2 lens on ANY f/2.4 lens.

09-14-2010, 02:07 PM	#19
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Originally posted by egordon99 You are correct if you are refering to using the MF f/2.4 lens ON a MF body. And you are NOT getting the "brightness" of an f/1.2 lens on ANY f/2.4 lens. Yes, the viewfinder brightness bonus is the trump card for all fast MF lenses. The 1.2 may have very shallow depth of field but it will be far easier to focus manually due to its light gathering ability. This would permit shots that just wouldn't be possible or at least more difficult with a slower lens. I don't do enough low light work to justify the expense of a 1.2 and find a 50mm 1.4 meets my needs. For those who shoot by candle light it just might. Tom G

09-14-2010, 02:14 PM	#20
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by 8540tomg Yes, the viewfinder brightness bonus is the trump card for all fast MF lenses. The 1.2 may have very shallow depth of field but it will be far easier to focus manually due to its light gathering ability. This would permit shots that just wouldn't be possible or at least more difficult with a slower lens. I don't do enough low light work to justify the expense of a 1.2 and find a 50mm 1.4 meets my needs. For those who shoot by candle light it just might. Tom G fair enough TOM.

09-24-2010, 08:56 AM	#21
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Well, I tried f/1.2 at a concert, and I stand corrected. It definitely worked better than I expected. I didn't bring an f/1.4 or f/1.7 to compare, but given that I had to push ISO to 6400, I'll just go ahead and say the speed was helpful. And true, DOF is minimal, but for these type of shots I didn't feel perfect focus was critical. (Doug Martsch of Built To Spill)

09-24-2010, 09:42 AM	#22
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Well, I tried f/1.2 at a concert, and I stand corrected. It definitely worked better than I expected. I didn't bring an f/1.4 or f/1.7 to compare, but given that I had to push ISO to 6400, I'll just go ahead and say the speed was helpful. And true, DOF is minimal, but for these type of shots I didn't feel perfect focus was critical. (Doug Martsch of Built To Spill) what shutterspeed did you use here?

09-24-2010, 07:19 PM	#23
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	1/90, 1/60, 1/60. And actually, I didn't have it wide open for these - f/1.7, f/2 and f/2. I took most of my shots wide open, but I think I like these more. May just be coincidence, though.

09-24-2010, 08:08 PM	#24
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Nick Siebers 1/90, 1/60, 1/60. And actually, I didn't have it wide open for these - f/1.7, f/2 and f/2. I took most of my shots wide open, but I think I like these more. May just be coincidence, though. I see. would had preferred looking at some of those at wide open to see how they look. I haven't been able to shoot at a concert yet since work has really been very demanding lately. I haven't got enough sleep 7 Days a week to begin with. not even time for a break or go for a swim, work out and ply basketball. but mostly not being able to go out and do some photography. although some of my lowlight shots (non-concert) at wide open were decently sharp at midrange to infinity, but would like to see the results during a concert. I'm going to try and check when there is an upcoming concert gig next month, possibly after Thanksgiving. maybe I could set it up during a meet with some of the local Pentax members here. or could shoot during the late afternoon. anyway, what was the ISO and shutterspeed when you shoot wide open? was it around 1/200 at ISO 3200? or 1/160 at ISO 2000?

09-25-2010, 11:27 AM	#25
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	I have been told that the PK bajonett mount does not allow anything larger than f1.2 and not even this at all focal lengths. Canon has the largest mount.

09-25-2010, 07:14 PM	#27
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Here's a couple from the opening act ReVolT ReVolT - even less light. 1/45 and 1/90 respectively at ISO 3200, f/1.2. I can get skin tones looking a little more natural if I play with them, but I like the exaggerated colors. That was pretty much how the show was lit. thanks Nick. let's see if I can do better. but if you say that was pretty much the available light available, the organizers must be saving a lot of electricity I guess. anyway, I would guess that the lighting was stronger on those 2 previous photos compared to the ones that were shot at f1.2, since they would look equally exposed if you boosted the ISO by a stop. so the mood there would had probably been changed. that's the tough thing about rock concerts at night, the lighting are mostly dynamic, depending on how the light people wanted the setting would be like.

09-29-2010, 05:59 PM	#28
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Having had a 50/1.2 for a while now, I am skeptical of the usefulness of such a fast lens for band photography. There is so little depth of field at f/1.2, never mind wider! But I'd love to see the pics to prove me wrong. Well, if you're not ontop of the band and 10 or 20 feet away you can get say a foot or more depth or field. That works, as is evidenced above at that.

09-30-2010, 12:20 AM	#30
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Originally posted by blende8 I have been told that the PK bajonett mount does not allow anything larger than f1.2 and not even this at all focal lengths. Canon has the largest mount. Already f1.2 was a problem with M42. Here is a 55/1.2 lens where you can see that the rear lens holding had to be shaved a bit to allow for the Auto pin.