[womble]

Stopped down just a little bit the lens is very sharp. Wide open it is a bit soft and dreamy and of course the DoF is very narrow. I'm not sure I'd spend $500 on one, but I was lucky to pick one up attached to the front of a Pentax ME... My travelling light film kit is my LX with the K50/1.2, K28/3.5 and K135/2.5. Given the weight of the 50 and the 135 I'm not certain "light" is the right adjective to use. At least it is one of those lenses you can sell on without loosing too much if you decide it isn't for you.

K.

[gofour3]

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

Yes for film and maybe for APS-C digital. The 50 1.2 is designed as a fast “normal/standard” lens on a FF film camera. It’s a perfect walk around normal lens for any lighting condition and has a superb bokeh which is even wider on film. I also have the FA43/1.9, K50/1.4, K55/1.8 and K55/2, those lenses are great but the K50/1.2 is the best by far.

Price wise you can get the K50/1.2 cheaper if you find one that's part of a film kit. (See Kris's post above and I got one of mine with a K2DMD)
I have two copies of this lens and paid under $300.00 for each one.

Phil

[womble]

I have two copies of this lens and paid under $300.00 for each one.

That's just greedy...

[Anvh]

For the same framing with different focal lengths, yes of course we must change lens-subject distance -- and greater distance alone thickens DOF. So distance is an extra variable here. If we manipulate enough variables, we can get whatever results we want. If we want the same perspective, we don't move, and DOFs are as I stated.

In your list it is, i use magnification remember
But yeah you're right but how should i know you kept the perspective the same?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I don't have the 50 f1.2, but I have heard (often) that the f1.2 is actually superb when closed down a lot (f/8-/11)

f/8-11 is too much - these lenses peak in performance around f/2.8-f/4. The Cosina 55/1.2 is superb already at f/2. I like to use it at f/2.8 because the background ends up being subtly blurred but is still recognizable. And, of course, it's very good wide open too:

[yusuf]

Many purchase for bragging rights. Functionally FA50/1.4 will be more value for money.

[RioRico]

Many purchase for bragging rights. Functionally FA50/1.4 will be more value for money.

No (maybe) and yes.

Yes, my FA50/1.4 sees much more use; it's a very flexible lens.

No (maybe), f/1.2's really can perform in ways that f/1.4's can't.

The (maybe) relates to just which f/1.2; @yusuf didn't specify which. I haven't tried an AF or A-type f/1.2 so I don't know whether such automation would make me use the lens more. My experience there is with the K50/1.2 which of course requires a bit of care to use so as to maximize its strengths.

A parallel: My SuperTak and FA 50/1.4s have identical optics but are quite different to use -- the FA when I'm in a hurry, the SuperTak when I'm not. Just the tactile difference makes me approach subjects differently. I rarely manually-focus the FA. The SuperTak makes me work more deliberately.

So a better comparison (still not perfect) would be between my K50/1.2 and SuperTak 50/1.4. That's an easy test: Although the SuperTak is much lighter, and often faster to use because of Av metering, the K sees much more use -- but mostly for special purposes, NOT f/8-f/11 general shooting.

Anyway, I don't brag about the K50/1.2. Much. If I had various 50-55-58mm f/1.2's, *THEN* I'd have something to brag about! But if I had an AF 50/1.2, I likely wouldn't have time to brag -- I'd be too busy using it!

---

Last edited by RioRico; 04-09-2012 at 04:24 AM.

[womble]

Many purchase for bragging rights. Functionally FA50/1.4 will be more value for money.

Actually I stick it on the front of my LX and take photos with it. Manual focusing with an FA series lens is a PITA.

K.

[axl]

SMC 50/1.2 is the best lens I've ever used in any mount. Period.
Some people don't appreciate the thin DOF but there is a lot more to that lens then just the thin DOF. The OOF is the best from any 40-55 lens I've tried (K50/1.2, K50/1.4, K55/1.8, A50/1.7, A50/1.4, A50/1.2, F50/1.7, FA43ltd, FA50/1.4, DA40ltd, DA*55 and EF50/1.4), build quaility is unmatched, colour rendition is excellent and it'll keep it's value for longer than most other lenses. If you are confident with your MF skills and can get a good price, just go for it. You won't regret...

[Clavius]

f/8-11 is too much - these lenses peak in performance around f/2.8-f/4. The Cosina 55/1.2 is superb already at f/2. I like to use it at f/2.8 because the background ends up being subtly blurred but is still recognizable. And, of course, it's very good wide open too:

Is there ANYTHING in focus in this picture? If anything is... then it's soft.

[axl]

Is there ANYTHING in focus in this picture? If anything is... then it's soft.

Are you blind or just that ignorant?!?

[NaClH2O]

[ad-hominems deleted]

Mostly because f/1.2s and f/1.4s can just do stuff that f/1.7s and f/1.8s can't, and not just with hyper-thin DOF. Also because f/1.2s are kewl...

I have to agree. There are times when a very wide aperture is needed. For instance last summer I tried to capture a meadow full of fireflies at my sister's. Fireflies are difficult because 1) the light is dim 2) their light is short lived, lasting only a few seconds at most and finally 3) it's dark out! First I tried my 12-24 F/4.0 I captured 5 shots of totally dark screens. Not even a gilmmer of a firefly. Then I tried my A 50 1.7 the fastest lens in my bag at the time. I got something but the lights were so dim I had to push exposure so far that the noise totally destroyed the shots. I went back the next weekend (she lives 3 hrs away) and voila! Success with the K 50 1.2! Still had to push exposure and there was a fair amount of noise but after running it thru noise ninja I had photos that while not stellar were acceptable.


Now I admit that capturing fireflies is a somewhat...er...esoteric niche, but I'm sure that there are other applications where ephemeral and dim light would need to be captured.

NaCl(it's not just about paper thin dof)H2O

[Clavius]

Are you blind or just that ignorant?!?

Nope, just honest. Only the tops of the king and queen are most in focus. But I can't say the focus has been nailed. Or is this lens so soft?

[hoanpham]

f1.2 has its own uses. Pentax has the sharpest most contrast full of all f1.2 I have been through.
Most complain by people are by user error - wrong focus, metal reflections, backgrounds, distances.
Worth or not? I keep my. and if i can find another one for cheap, i just buy it as spare. and i don't mind having several spare at all ;-)

[Blue]

I have the A 50/1.2 and it was well worth what I paid for it. However, you didn't really state a price range and that makes your question difficult to answer.