[OrenMc]

I seen the review on the " A " version but was wondering what the difference was optically with the M version. I believe the build quility should be good it being all metal but that is just an assumption.

The main question is about the bokeh though.
Does any one have this lens that can share some photos?

Also, is $250 a good price for this lens?

I just went back and checked the reviews again and seen there is a K version. Maybe I am mistaken what version the lens I looked at is. Is there an M version? I will have to go back and take a second look. I can't get there until this weekend so all the info I can find will help with the purchasing decision. If this is the K model I like the bokeh on the shots in the review section.

Thanks all
Oren

---

Last edited by OrenMc; 06-24-2008 at 06:55 PM.

[pasipasi]

Plenty of photos if you search flickr with the tag "smc p-m 50mm f2" here Flickr: "smcpm50mmf2"

I've heard that the A 50/1.7 is slightly better optically than the M 50/1.7, but I could be wrong. The lenses are not identical, so there might be some small differences.

$250 is way too much I think. I've both the M 50/1.7 and A 50/1.7 and the 50/2 is cheaper than those. I'd say $50 for the M version.

EDIT: thought he was asking about f/2

[kathyk]

The difference is 8 blades in the K version, 9 in the A (no "M" in 50/1.2). Optically the same, Pentax "Normal" Prime Lenses. I think $250 is a good price. I find metering seems better in the A versions, but more noticeably in a longer lens like 100mm and up, the 35's and 50's seem to do well in K, for me.

[pasipasi]

Yeah $250 for the 1:1.2 version is good, I misread. It's 5am!

[OrenMc]

I just noticed also that it isn't rated very high like the 1.4 is. It only gets an 8.25. while the 1.4 gets a 10.

I want a good nifty fifty for low light and portrait. I also really want the the bokeh to be very good. Of couse the ego is saying get the 1.2 for bragging rights. But quality is more important. I want to get some good use out of it and not with my lips.

I think the photos in the review speak well for this lens. The bokeh is awesome.
The LBA monkey is pretty heavy right now.

[Wheatfield]

I just noticed also that it isn't rated very high like the 1.4 is. It only get an 8.25. while the 1.4 get a 10.

I want a good nifty fifty for low light and portrait. I also really want the the bokeh to be very good. Of couse the ego is saying get the 1.2 for bragging rights. But quality is more important. I want to get some good use out of it and not with my lips.

I think the photos in the review speak well for this lens. The bokeh is awesome.
The LBA monkey is pretty heavy right now.

If you want a portrait lens, sharpness is the least of your worries.
The K50 f/1.2 is no slouch, it's just that the 1.4 is spectacular.
I love my 50 f/1.2.

If you want resolution numbers, Yoshihoko still has his site up. He had a solid test procedure, and you can trust his numbers.

[kathyk]

You might find this interesting !

the Normal Lens Shootout Photo Gallery by Sean Carpenter at pbase.com

[OrenMc]

Wheatfield, I was not aware of Yoshihoko but I googled and looked at the resolution tests.
Great info thanks!
I see the the K 1.2 is quite different than the A version. The FA 1.4 has outstanding numbers.
I could sure save some money with the FA.

KathyK, thanks for the link.
The test was done with the A version so I am not sure how to compare. What I seen though was the 1.2 has a broader DOF and was a little cooler. If the K version is similar I like those facts.

[HoboSapien]

OrenMc -

Here are a few from the K 50 1.2 I picked up a few weeks ago. I know some think it's a bit of a novelty lens, but I think I like it. Build quality, of course, is much better than the FA lens, and I think it behaves better wide open. Not that I don't like the FA, but let me get blasphemous here and say that some of the buzz might be exaggerated. I'm biased towards MF lenses, though.

You could buy the somewhat rare K for $250 and, if you didn't like it, resell for no loss at least. You could buy the FA anytime for about $200 and resell for slightly less. I bought the 50 1.2 as part of an outfit with five other lenses included, fully intending to sell it to recover the cost of the whole package. Well, guess what.

I've not posted before, so let's see if this works:

ISO 400, 1/90 sec. wide open or close to it.


ISO 800, 1/90 sec., wide open or close to it. You might be familiar with the Seafair pirates in Seattle?


ISO 800, 1/45 sec., wide open or close to it.


I'm not certain I have many shots from the lens that aren't high ISO and pretty wide open, but if I can turn any up I'll try and post them.

[ChrisN]

I posted some images from the K50/1.2 with K10D, in another thread here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/1655-i-promised-some-sho...-1-2-lens.html

If I was shopping again from a fresh start, I think I'd carefully compare the results you can get with the FA50/1.4. That's probably an easier lens to use for most purposes, unless you definitely want the shallowest possible depth-of-field.

[OrenMc]

Hobosapien, so your the one that got that killler deal on graigslist. I still have issuse over missing that one.
Welcome, thanks for the photos.

[Tom S.]

Not only would you save money with the FA 1.4, you will be very happy with it's performance. It is an excellent lens and one of my favorites.

That's not knocking the 1.2, but for the price, the 1.4 is unbeatable.

[vizjerei]

Here are some pic I posted before. with K 50 1.2
I haven't try taking portraits with it yet, but it should be great. But if you want AutoFocus and take picture fast, then FA50/1.4 is great. I use my 1.2 usually when I want to relax and walk around.

But 250$ is a good price, but of course depends on if you think it is worth it or not.

1.2 wide open

[Matthew Allen]

Here's a link to some shots from my K 50/1.2. It's a beautifully built lens but not the easiest to use (especially with a pentamirror like my DL uses) at f1.2.

Flickr: MajorMantra's stuff tagged with smcpk50mmf12

I don't actually think the bokeh is all that wonderful. It can be ok, and obviously it's very composition dependant, but it sometimes tends to look 'busy' which is not a desirable quality.

Matthew

[HoboSapien]

Hobosapien, so your the one that got that killler deal on graigslist. I still have issuse over missing that one.
Welcome, thanks for the photos.

Thanks OrenMc. I did get that deal. Seems like I usually miss out by a hair when I try and find things locally, so it was a nice surprise. I might still part with a couple of the lenses, but can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for selling them.

Good luck with whatever you decide to buy. I should qualify what I said about the FA 50: it is a tremendous lens, I just don't really take enough portraits to make it shine in that respect. Others state that the bokeh is better on the 1.4; I haven't used the 1.2 enough to have a strong opinion but it is undeniably great on the 1.4.