[Outis]

I don't have much of a preference between the first two (the Sony and the Takumar), but I definitely like those two better than the third (50mm 1.2).

[Stagnant]

Sony is more contrasty and sharper wide open. I also prefer it's smooth bokeh. 50 1.2 lags behind in every aspect.

[fuent104]

The differences in bokeh are entirely neglegible to me. The only substantial difference I see in the images are in the colors and contrast in some of the images. This easily dealt with in post. I'd say the Pentax lenses, particularly the Takumar, performed extremely admirably, especially for the price. That was a steal of a lens!

[TedW]

The Tak competes well. It would be interesting to see a K 55 1.8. I have that lens and it is extremely sharp and has the smc coatings.

Very interesting though and thanks for sharing.

[ChristianRock]

To my eyes the bokeh of the Tak is a bit worse, except wide open. That is consistent with what I see in my K 55 f2 (pretty much the same lens, just mechanically limited to f2, and in K mount). Still, not bad at all. I paid 24 dollars for mine, so maybe I overpaid? lol Just kidding, it's a gem, but the M 50 1.7 is at least as good! I mean, even famous Pentax-hater Ken Rockwell had to admit the M 50 1.7 is as good as what he considers the best lens ever made (Summicron 50 f2), except wide open. So, no surprises when cheap Pentax nifty fifties perform superbly

[Stavri]

The SMC K 55 f1.88 is the lens you need in this comparison, even closer in IQ to the T* than the super-tak.

[Nicolas06]

Hm, from the photos it looks like the Sony is a tad sharper if you look at the spider webs on the flowers. But in terms of bokeh rendering, colours, they are both quite good. The big difference in price, just to get AF.. well, dunno if its worth it. Maybe for some people

When overall we see the prices of AF and manual lenses (except a few leica and Zeiss) I'd say for most, AF is a very valuable difference.

[redcat]

AF is a very valuable difference

Exactly, if the shot is not in focus, the leica/zeiss lens is useless ^^ and the more I use MF lens, the more I appreciate the AF =))

[Wild Mark]

The colours in the Tak are a little yellow (warmer), which could be due to thoriated element(s). If so subject the lens to UV for a week or two (or a Ikea LED lamp for 48hrs) and you should see better colours.

I have to be honest, I would be upset if I shelled out $1000 for the sony.

[willeisner]

When I see this comparison I'm glad to have my 50mm Pentax, are really extraordinary over the years.

[nikono]

The math:
Pentaxt55mmf1.8 = Zeiss55mmf1.8 - AF
$10 = $1000 - $990
AF = $990

In other words:
Time is money.
The Autofocus function is worth $990 because the photographer with AF lens took less than a second to shoot, he left while the photographer with the MF lens was still spinning his focus ring back and forth.

[Wild Mark]

The math:
Pentaxt55mmf1.8 = Zeiss55mmf1.8 - AF
$10 = $1000 - $990
AF = $990

In other words:
Time is money.
The Autofocus function is worth $990 because the photographer with AF lens took less than a second to shoot, he left while the photographer with the MF lens was still spinning his focus ring back and forth.

Ahhh not necessarily so. By using the hyperfocal approach, one can stroll with the camera set permanently in a focal range and take shots using Aperture mode or the like.

[Nicolas06]

Ahhh not necessarily so. By using the hyperfocal approach, one can stroll with the camera set permanently in a focal range and take shots using Aperture mode or the like.

Just to say, hyperfocal distance on APSC for a 55mm is:
f/1.8 => 90m
f/4 => 40m
f/8 => 20m.

And the deph of field for a shallow deph of field shoot at 1.5m:
f/1.8 => 5cm of deph of field
f/2.8 => 8cm of deph of field
f/5.6 => 15cm of deph of field

Good luck with it. In particular if you plan for a shallow deph of field shoot !

[clackers]

In other words:
Time is money.
The Autofocus function is worth $990 because the photographer with AF lens took less than a second to shoot, he left while the photographer with the MF lens was still spinning his focus ring back and forth.

True.

But the AF guy could get back home to find that one shot you talk about at f1.8 autofocused on the tip of the nose instead of an eye. ☺

[Nicolas06]

True.

But the AF guy could get back home to find that one shot you talk about at f1.8 autofocused on the tip of the nose instead of an eye. ☺

1) I can perfectly manage to have this issue when doing manual focus myself.
2) While it was true with K5, with K3 and its small off center points the issue is no longer there