Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-09-2012, 11:44 AM   #31
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
Many purchase for bragging rights. Functionally FA50/1.4 will be more value for money.
I have both lenses and the only real thing the FA 50/1.4 has on it is auto focus.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Easy... It's only half a stop. Can you see the difference between ƒ1.4 and ƒ1.7?

Personally? I've visited the following thread to convince me: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74819-post-your-1-2-photos-1-2-only.html
And the pictures in that thread convinced me that such thin DOF sucks. Pictures where the nose and ears are out of focus, but the eyes are in focus, really don't appeal to me. (I'm probably cursing in a Church right now.)
Keep in mind that with the A 50/1.2, it allows focusing to be done at 1.2 and it stops down to the set aperture when the shutter is fired. Plus, there is more than faces that can be imaged.

04-09-2012, 12:05 PM   #32
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Is there ANYTHING in focus in this picture? If anything is... then it's soft.
Are you blind or just that ignorant?!?
Criticizing fast lenses as being soft is a telltale sign of misunderstanding.
04-09-2012, 04:47 PM   #33
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
The A 50mm f1.2 looks better at f1.4 than the FA 50 1.4 at 1.4.

I use the FA because I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my shoestring budget on a lens that I don't have the skills to focus on a digital camera.

But the 50 1.4 has its faults and the 1.2 is generally better at any equivalent aperture. It isn't just about DOF and light gathering. Although those things are nice (and I'm the type of person who *likes* those soft pictures)...
04-09-2012, 06:43 PM   #34
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my shoestring budget on a lens that I don't have the skills to focus on a digital camera.
You should try MILCs - they make it incredibly easier to manually focus fast lenses, especially with features like focus peaking.

04-09-2012, 08:25 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
You should try MILCs - they make it incredibly easier to manually focus fast lenses, especially with features like focus peaking.
You can also just use live view....
04-09-2012, 08:54 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
You can also just use live view....
... and get the wrong idea about how useful this feature can be.

It is just not implemented as well on DSLRs - a poor refresh rate and an annoying flicker is what I see on my Pentax DSLRs. I heard from Canon users that their cameras are not stellar in this area either.

Focus peaking would help, but it's not been added yet to any DSLR.
04-09-2012, 09:54 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
You should try MILCs - they make it incredibly easier to manually focus fast lenses, especially with features like focus peaking.
[sarcasm]
Yes... the chessgame pic Laurentiu posted was perfectly focussed... Now I sure want a MILC too.
[/sarcasm]
04-09-2012, 10:29 PM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
QuoteOriginally posted by slackercruster Quote
The 50mm f1.2 seems to be priced as a collectors item. Is it worth the high price for functional use or is it pumped up for collector value mostly?

Thanks
Some of us, in particular those who use the camera every day, may have a different approach:

f1.2 lenses are big and heavy. They often bring a 'not so nice' balance to the camera. With a $25 f1.7 lens you don't worry about damaging and losing value.

You can't say the 1.2 lens is "better". It is different. For sure this lens lets you make great photographs. But so does a f1.7 lens and there is a lot to say for a smaller, lighter lens that is inexpensive.

Obviously what I say is very subjective, but I do think the answer to your question is not in the technical possibilities of the lens.

04-10-2012, 01:10 AM   #39
Pentaxian
LennyBloke's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 305
I used to own an A series 50mm f1.2 (until about 3 years ago), but I was never able to take advantage of the thin DOF to best effect. I too found it a little "dreamy", but not in a way that I liked - I expected this look suit portraits but it just didn't do it for me. It was really sharp, crisp and contrasty from f2.0 downwards, but I don't think there was much in it between this lens and the A series 1.4. The best thing for me about the 1.2 was that selling it allowed me to buy a DA* 55 f1.4 and then a bit later an A 50mm f1.4.

I've said in other posts that I believe the A series 50mm f1.4 is by far the best value lens around, but if you've a need for the extra bit of light and it suits your pocket (financially and weight-wise!) then go for it.
04-10-2012, 04:27 AM   #40
Pentaxian
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,454
Worth it or not?

I've asked myself this several times when thinking about buying a 50/1.2.

As I already have a 50/1.4 and the 1.2 , for me, falls into the want rather than need category. I can get very nice out-of-focus highlights with the 1.4 but I'll admit the 1.2 has a look I just can't reproduce with the 1.4. Like most of us I'm afflicted with LBA but I just can't convince myself I realy need a 50/1.2.

Tom G

Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-13-2012 at 05:32 AM.
04-10-2012, 05:54 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,343
[deleted]

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:35 AM. Reason: [deleted]
04-10-2012, 03:01 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
G and T's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Langwarrin Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 351
Yes the K50 f1.2 or the A50 f1.2 can be over-priced but there are other alternatives that are just as good if not different in their own way. I have 3 ( a Cosina 55 f1.2, a Tomioka 55 f1.2 and a m42 Hanimar 55 f1.2), the last aquisition was the Hanimar (Made by Tomioka), which was bought for only $22AUD in its original 1960s box and looks unused. So there is no excuse money wise whether f1.2 is worth it only what you can do with them.
04-10-2012, 03:19 PM   #43
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by G and T Quote
Yes the K50 f1.2 or the A50 f1.2 can be over-priced but there are other alternatives that are just as good if not different in their own way. I have 3 ( a Cosina 55 f1.2, a Tomioka 55 f1.2 and a m42 Hanimar 55 f1.2), the last aquisition was the Hanimar (Made by Tomioka), which was bought for only $22AUD in its original 1960s box and looks unused. So there is no excuse money wise whether f1.2 is worth it only what you can do with them.
I have seen examples of Tomioka 55/1.2 going for more than Pentax lenses and Cosina going for nearly as much. Sure, people can luck into a deal, but that is the exception and not the rule.
04-10-2012, 03:21 PM   #44
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Buy well and you won't lose anything on resale, so if you dont like it or don't think it's worth it just sell it on. I picked up a K50/1.2 last year for just over $200 (attached to an ME super) with the idea to try it out and sell it if I didn't like it..... I still have it


04-10-2012, 03:31 PM   #45
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
A comment in another thread re: 21/3.2 being too slow gave me a wicked idea. Fast+wide lenses are hard to find? I stacked a 0.25x FE adapter onto my K50/1.2 for a 12/1.2 optic. Then I stacked it onto my Nikkor 85/2 for a 21/2 optic. The results? Rather, uhh, impressionistic... -- in other words: Don't try this at home, kids.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled ranting.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f1.2, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sears 1:1.7 50mm - no MC on lens - is it worth$15 Honoria Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 03-10-2014 12:19 PM
Is it worth trading F 35-105mm with A 50mm 1.4? HoBykoYan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 10-07-2010 10:05 PM
Tamron 17-50mm .. is it REALLY worth it? Nightwings Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 08-17-2010 06:35 AM
Deciding whether the DA* 16-50mm is worth it. ManhattanProject Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 07-15-2010 03:06 PM
The K 55mm 1:1.8 - worth having with the M 50mm 1:1.7? Jonathan Mac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 06-01-2010 10:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top