[Class A]

would this help to improve your idea about 50/1.2 sharpness?

Thanks for posting these, Peter, but this is not what I call "sharp". At this size, the features in the focus plane should look a lot crisper unless one deliberately wants a "soft" look.

I believe the 50/1.2 is a unique lens and surely deserves its fans but it just isn't that much of an allure to me. I'd much prefer an FA 77/1.8 or a fast 85.

I had a K50/1.2 to play with for a while and while I loved the DOF opportunities, I was majorly put off by the colour rendition. It seemed like significant amounts of orange were missing from the images, giving the green of plants a really dull, old-fashioned look. Couldn't fully repair it with post and would use any lens like that pretty much for B&W photos only.

[dgaies]

Here's another shot at f/1.2. It's a 50% crop with a little bit of sharpening in Photoshop (single pass of Smart Sharpen).

The car appears to be at a slight angle to the plane of the sensor and the best focus seems to be just to the right of the five in "95".

[Class A]

Here's another shot at f/1.2.

OK, the car is a little less blurry than the background.



Sorry, I hope you get the humor.

In all seriousness, though, the 50/1.2 just isn't sharp at f/1.2. Compare that with the FA 77/1.8 wide open and it's a night and day difference.

[sewebster]

OK, the car is a little less blurry than the background.



Sorry, I hope you get the humor.

In all seriousness, though, the 50/1.2 just isn't sharp at f/1.2. Compare that with the FA 77/1.8 wide open and it's a night and day difference.

This most recent pic does look better than the previous two however.

[Rondec]

OK, the car is a little less blurry than the background.



Sorry, I hope you get the humor.

In all seriousness, though, the 50/1.2 just isn't sharp at f/1.2. Compare that with the FA 77/1.8 wide open and it's a night and day difference.

I suppose it would look better if he stopped down to f1.8. That's the problem with shooting lenses with quite different maximum apertures and comparing them all "wide open." To my way of thinking, it would be better to shoot them all at f2 and see how they compare. The faster lenses will tend to benefit more since they are stopped down more, compared to the slightly slower lenses.

[dgaies]

I suppose it would look better if he stopped down to f1.8. That's the problem with shooting lenses with quite different maximum apertures and comparing them all "wide open." To my way of thinking, it would be better to shoot them all at f2 and see how they compare. The faster lenses will tend to benefit more since they are stopped down more, compared to the slightly slower lenses.

I agree, which is why I prefaced everything up front that this isn't a great test to compare the sharpness of each lens. It's main purpose was to demonstrate the maximum OOF/bokeh of each lens, wide open.

Perhaps another round of shots, all taken at f/2 would be interesting as well.

[Pentaxor]

truth: no other Pentax lens can beat the 50/1.2 sharpness at f1.2.

I think it's unfair to compare sharpness especially if the slower lens is sharper. I believe people expect some miracle that a fast f1.2 lens with a super-shallow DOF can beat an f1.8 lens in terms of sharpness. although it is possible for some lenses that are fast but slower, what can you possibly expect from an ultra-fast lens? or which ultra-fast lens is as sharp or better than anything slower?

I believe another test with all the fast lenses set at f2 or f2.8 would atleast give a fair sharpness comparison.

although, even before any test could be made, I would say that the f1.2 lens does significantly become sharper at f1.4, much so from 1.8, f2.8 and f4. personally eventhough this lens is very fast, it is one very versatile lens on a 35mm camera.

[axl]

truth: no other Pentax lens can beat the 50/1.2 sharpness at f1.2.

I think it's unfair to compare sharpness especially if the slower lens is sharper. I believe people expect some miracle that a fast f1.2 lens with a super-shallow DOF can beat an f1.8 lens in terms of sharpness. although it is possible for some lenses that are fast but slower, what can you possibly expect from an ultra-fast lens? or which ultra-fast lens is as sharp or better than anything slower?

I believe another test with all the fast lenses set at f2 or f2.8 would atleast give a fair sharpness comparison.

although, even before any test could be made, I would say that the f1.2 lens does significantly become sharper at f1.4, much so from 1.8, f2.8 and f4. personally eventhough this lens is very fast, it is one very versatile lens on a 35mm camera.

+1

if anybody expects f1.2 lens beat f1.8 lens wide open... good luck
I'm off tomorrow, and I'll pitch my line up against each other if I'll get the time, I'll try wide open and stopped to f2.8, then we'll be wiser...

[RonHendriks1966]

wow nice job. I have DA*55 and FA*85 and both look good to me.

[Class A]

if anybody expects f1.2 lens beat f1.8 lens wide open... good luck

Who might that be?
I'm not expecting that, however, that doesn't stop me from observing that the 50/1.2 shots I've seen (and done myself) are not really sharp at f/1.2.

The FA 50/1.4 wide open is soft as a wet cookie and while Pentaxor could say it is sharper then the kit lens at f/1.4, this doesn't affect the fact that the FA 50/1.4 still is soft at f/1.4 and that there are lenses which are sharper at f/1.4 (e.g. the DA* 55/1.4).

I'm pretty sure the f/1.2 lenses from Canon are sharper than the K50/1.2 wide open, but I don't really care. All I wanted to say is that I'm not thrilled by the sharpness of the 50/1.2 wide open and that subject separation depends on both smooth background and sharp subject. I don't think the 50/1.2 delivers in terms of the latter wide open, but I'm happy for everyone who thinks otherwise.

[schneider]

I'm happy for everyone who thinks otherwise.

It's not really a matter of 'thinking'. The objective sharpness wide open is there.

The quality of the copy, skill/luck with focussing influences the results with this lens a lot. The matte of our DSLR's is also not helping (please Pentax give us an option!). Therefore optimum results are somewhat difficult to achieve.

Immediately outside of the plane of focus strong coma kicks in heavily impacting apparent sharpness.




crop


.

[Kerrowdown]

For me the 50/f1.2 for OOF wins hands down, but I own one so I'm a tad biased.

[Pentaxor]

For me the 50/f1.2 for OOF wins hands down, but I own one so I'm a tad biased.

I believe there is also some bias to those who dont own the lens, although it was more about opposition and the unnecessary need for the f1.2.

[Rondec]

I think it is important for people to judge what they need/would use. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 isn't that big, but autofocus is huge for me, hence my decision (particularly considering that currently the A 50mm f1.2 is pretty close in price used to the DA *55). Those who are comfortable with manual focus and can capture a moving target at f1.2 have my kudos, but it is way above my skill level.

[Clinton]

The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 isn't that big

In terms of photons reaching the sensor, I believe it's the same difference as between 1.4 and 2.8.

Lets say you have 100 photons reaching the sensor at F1, you then have 50 at F1.4 and 25 at F2.8
Half the difference between F1 and F1.4 would be 25, so I believe at F1.2 you'd have 75 photons reaching the sensor, or a difference of 25 photons from F1.2 to F1.4 and a difference of 25 photons from F1.4 to F2.8. It's only a half stop, but it's a half stop at the top of the spectrum. It may mean more light than you'd think otherwise.