[snpsht]

If I have the wrong section appologies.

As you know an F1.2 lenses surfaces once in a blue moon.

Today on European Union e-bay there are three, 55mm Porst, 55mm Cosina and 55mm Revuenon, if memory serves me correctly they all came out of the same factory with different labels but I could be wrong, they have about 3 hours to run from the time of this posting.

I have been informed by the real boss that I do not need one.

Good Luck

CD

I have the Porst and it is a very difficult lens that I am thankful I didn't pay a lot for. That said, it does give some interesting effects, and with a lot more practice on my part it could provide quite artistic results!

However, I'd suggest that if you feel the need for a 1.2 you go with either of the others.

[pinholecam]

Reveunon 55/1.2 is a great lens.
Really under appreciated just because its a forgotten 3rd party brand.

[pinholecam] Now, I am a believer

[pleo]

I once had the Porst and the Revuenon 1.2/55 .
I compared them with my old Pentax K 1.2/50 and the newer Pentax A 1.7/50.
Best was the K 1.2.
2nd the A 1.7.
Why?
Porst and Revue have really soft corners until you reach f 2.5.
But with this aperture die Pentax 50mm lenses are already really sharp and contrasty!
If you need a "soft-lens" und the 2.2/85 is too expensive the Porst/Revue will do.
For every other needs I recommend even a simple 1.7/50 from Pentax.

[.a.t.]

mystical vision
seer and seen are captured
blissful surrender

[debakarma]

f one point two
will it be sharp, will it be soft
surreal bokeh

[Transit]

Dawn of the light
as one with the knowledge
nous somme du solei

[Asahiflex]

Only digital-age lenses of f/1.4 or faster are sharp enough to be used wide open on digital cameras and produce sharp results. Older designed-for-film lenses of that speed are soft

Then my A50/1.2 must be defective because it is super sharp in the focal plane right at f/1.2.

[monochrome]

Then my A50/1.2 must be defective because it is super sharp in the focal plane right at f/1.2.

[Stagnant]

Can someone post full size images from Pentax 50 1.2 and Revuenon 55 1.2 on K-3 ? Preferably something like a landscape at 1.2 and then at 1.8 or 2.8 ? I want to see with my own eyes what people mean by "sharp wide open". For example I would not call my FA 50 1.4 a sharp lens at 1.4.

[Alex645]

Can someone post full size images from Pentax 50 1.2 and Revuenon 55 1.2 on K-3 ? Preferably something like a landscape at 1.2 and then at 1.8 or 2.8 ? I want to see with my own eyes what people mean by "sharp wide open". For example I would not call my FA 50 1.4 a sharp lens at 1.4.

Keep in mind, as reminded in a recent post about sample variation, that although the average fast lens wide open will yield mediocre resolution, it is possible that someone has the lucky lens at the top of the graph. I've also found that with shallow DOF, although the focal point may not actually be "super sharp", the contrast with the bokeh makes the sharp areas appear sharper than they may be when compared to the same shot at f/8.

[Stagnant]

Keep in mind, as reminded in a recent post about sample variation, that although the average fast lens wide open will yield mediocre resolution, it is possible that someone has the lucky lens at the top of the graph. I've also found that with shallow DOF, although the focal point may not actually be "super sharp", the contrast with the bokeh makes the sharp areas appear sharper than they may be when compared to the same shot at f/8.

I do know that contrast, especially microcontrast do create effect, that is perceived as sharpness, but again I not sure if those lenses in question are actually contrasty enough. Anyway, I would like to see some shots, with the parameters I suggested, to see the results with my own eyes.

[hoanpham]

Then my A50/1.2 must be defective because it is super sharp in the focal plane right at f/1.2.

I think mine might be a defect copy as well. It is super sharp at f1.2 :-)

[yucatanPentax]

Can someone post full size images from Pentax 50 1.2 and Revuenon 55 1.2 on K-3 ? Preferably something like a landscape at 1.2 and then at 1.8 or 2.8 ? I want to see with my own eyes what people mean by "sharp wide open". For example I would not call my FA 50 1.4 a sharp lens at 1.4.

Maybe search Flickr? Although my curiosity is now piqued to see landscapes at 50mm f/1.2 . . .

[Stagnant]

Why would I search flickr, if there are forum users who own the lenses in question and keep bragging about the optical properties ? I want to see full size samples. And I specifically asked for landscapes, because it is hard to judge the performance of a lens solely on shots where only a couple of centimetres are in focus.

[hoanpham]

Why would I search flickr, if there are forum users who own the lenses in question and keep bragging about the optical properties ? I want to see full size samples. And I specifically asked for landscapes, because it is hard to judge the performance of a lens solely on shots where only a couple of centimetres are in focus.

Pentax K 50mm f1.2 goes concert. All at f1.2, on a7r. My A50/1.2 is lightly sharper.
(click to enlarge)