F1.2 Lenses

kh1234567890 · 12-09-2015, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by hoanpham

(click to enlarge)

Can you make these public on Flickr or generate a Flickr guest pass ?

Asahiflex · 12-09-2015, 12:47 PM

OK, here's a fullsize (8MB) bad photo with my A50/1.2. Just shot it handheld, ISO 800. Check the sharpness on my taskbar icons, and the left side of the keyboard. The Cosina / Porst versions don't even come close (and I had both of them also). Of course, there's still lots of aberrations left...

http://www.pentaxian.nl/PeterJ/smca5012.jpg

**beachgardener** · 12-09-2015, 01:18 PM

I seriously hope Pentax will produce a new 50 f1.2 AF

Asahiflex · 12-09-2015, 01:25 PM

Another unresized one. Just opened in ACR and saved with quality 12 (= maximum JPG quality). Focused on "1805" on top of the label.

http://www.pentaxian.nl/PeterJ/smca5012-2.jpg

hoanpham · 12-09-2015, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

Can you make these public on Flickr or generate a Flickr guest pass ?

Moved to public. Mostly at f1.2. Enjoy :-)

**Billy Joe** · 12-09-2015, 01:35 PM

I take issue with those who say the 1.2 cosina's are not sharp

Asahiflex · 12-09-2015, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Billy Joe

I take issue with those who say the 1.2 cosina's are not sharp

But for f/1.2 the DOF is awfully deep, don't you think?

Stagnant · 12-09-2015, 02:05 PM

"Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo." That's what flickr says.

pleo · 12-09-2015, 02:22 PM

It's not the field of a 1.2 lens to produce landscape shots!
Because of the small dof you will always find some regions that are not that sharp.

I had the K 1.2 and the Revue and the Porst (the last 2 because you could get them with film-slr as a kit-lens!)
The K was really sharp.
Better than A and FA 1.4!

As for those who take the FA for a comparison of sharpness:
The FA is well known not to be the best lens at 1.4!
The 1.7 has better sharpness wide opened then the 1.4 stopped down to 1.7!

The FA 1.4 has something different:
Special character (good for portraits) and (very) good sharpness from 2.8 on.

Stagnant · 12-09-2015, 02:58 PM

Using a depth of field calculator you get a number of 105 meters as a hyperfocal distance at 1.2. So shooting a flat scene with objects removed further than 105 meters should not be a problem. Of course it does mean, that some of the foreground will be blurred, but if the main subject / subjects is at the hyperfocal distance, who cares ?

noelpolar · 12-09-2015, 03:19 PM

I can't get my head around why one would shoot a landscape at 1.2...... for the most part. Similar test to a portrait with a fisheye.

Stagnant · 12-09-2015, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by noelpolar

I can't get my head around why one would shoot a landscape at 1.2...... for the most part. Similar test to a portrait with a fisheye.

In this very case, A landscape at F1.2 is a nice way to check the lens sharpness across the frame. Besides, I frequently shoot landscapes / cityscapes in low light at 1.8 (Sigma 18-35) when I do not have a tripod with me.

kh1234567890 · 12-09-2015, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

OK, here's a fullsize (8MB) bad photo with my A50/1.2. Just shot it handheld, ISO 800. Check the sharpness on my taskbar icons, and the left side of the keyboard. The Cosina / Porst versions don't even come close (and I had both of them also). Of course, there's still lots of aberrations left...

It may be sharp but there is that veiling flare fuzzy glowy dreaminess, same as I get with the 50/1.4 wide open.

hoanpham · 12-10-2015, 12:14 AM

I have 6-7 different fast 50mm f1.2 - f1.1. All of them glow at wide open, and still slightly glow at f1.4. All depends on the light condition.
If you want perfect f1.4, get a Summilux 50/1.4 Asph (and a body to use it).

A50/1.2 is best the Pentax 50mm at f1.2, then K version. With correct light condition, there is no different between them.

f1.2 is challenging. I am sure you will have a lot of fun with it. It took me years to use it correctly :-)

Nicolas06 · 12-10-2015, 01:34 AM

I would say the results we see here doesn't come from f/1.2 setting but more from the lens characteristics. This is not the difference with f/1.4 that make theses lenses.

Basically on the pictures here the lens is certainily not super sharp but sharp enough on the part in focus. And it is very dreamy/hazy on the OOF areas.

To me the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 has a very different look, much more modern and much sharper too. But maybe you also don't get the dreamy look that objectively is an optical issue but that maybe is part of what make them unique.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Revuenon 55mm f1.2	Zeeke	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	11-01-2014 10:44 AM
Lens Tournament: FA 43mm F1.9 Limited vs A 50mm F1.2	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	30	10-29-2014 10:32 PM
pentax 50mm f1.2 vs. limited lenses	mholford	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	46	04-10-2013 02:22 AM
f1:1.2 lenses..	jolee1990	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	09-14-2009 12:24 PM

12-09-2015, 12:45 PM	#31
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by hoanpham (click to enlarge) Can you make these public on Flickr or generate a Flickr guest pass ?

12-09-2015, 12:47 PM	#32
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	OK, here's a fullsize (8MB) bad photo with my A50/1.2. Just shot it handheld, ISO 800. Check the sharpness on my taskbar icons, and the left side of the keyboard. The Cosina / Porst versions don't even come close (and I had both of them also). Of course, there's still lots of aberrations left... http://www.pentaxian.nl/PeterJ/smca5012.jpg

12-09-2015, 01:18 PM	#33
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	I seriously hope Pentax will produce a new 50 f1.2 AF

12-09-2015, 01:25 PM	#34
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Another unresized one. Just opened in ACR and saved with quality 12 (= maximum JPG quality). Focused on "1805" on top of the label. http://www.pentaxian.nl/PeterJ/smca5012-2.jpg

12-09-2015, 01:33 PM	#35
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	Originally posted by kh1234567890 Can you make these public on Flickr or generate a Flickr guest pass ? Moved to public. Mostly at f1.2. Enjoy :-)

12-09-2015, 01:35 PM	#36
Billy Joe Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 374	I take issue with those who say the 1.2 cosina's are not sharp

12-09-2015, 01:44 PM	#37
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by Billy Joe I take issue with those who say the 1.2 cosina's are not sharp But for f/1.2 the DOF is awfully deep, don't you think?

12-09-2015, 02:05 PM	#38
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	"Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo." That's what flickr says.

12-09-2015, 02:22 PM	#39
pleo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Hamburg Posts: 116	It's not the field of a 1.2 lens to produce landscape shots! Because of the small dof you will always find some regions that are not that sharp. I had the K 1.2 and the Revue and the Porst (the last 2 because you could get them with film-slr as a kit-lens!) The K was really sharp. Better than A and FA 1.4! As for those who take the FA for a comparison of sharpness: The FA is well known not to be the best lens at 1.4! The 1.7 has better sharpness wide opened then the 1.4 stopped down to 1.7! The FA 1.4 has something different: Special character (good for portraits) and (very) good sharpness from 2.8 on.

12-09-2015, 02:58 PM	#40
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	Using a depth of field calculator you get a number of 105 meters as a hyperfocal distance at 1.2. So shooting a flat scene with objects removed further than 105 meters should not be a problem. Of course it does mean, that some of the foreground will be blurred, but if the main subject / subjects is at the hyperfocal distance, who cares ?

12-09-2015, 03:19 PM	#41
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	I can't get my head around why one would shoot a landscape at 1.2...... for the most part. Similar test to a portrait with a fisheye.

12-09-2015, 03:30 PM	#42
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	Originally posted by noelpolar I can't get my head around why one would shoot a landscape at 1.2...... for the most part. Similar test to a portrait with a fisheye. In this very case, A landscape at F1.2 is a nice way to check the lens sharpness across the frame. Besides, I frequently shoot landscapes / cityscapes in low light at 1.8 (Sigma 18-35) when I do not have a tripod with me.

12-09-2015, 04:06 PM	#43
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by Asahiflex OK, here's a fullsize (8MB) bad photo with my A50/1.2. Just shot it handheld, ISO 800. Check the sharpness on my taskbar icons, and the left side of the keyboard. The Cosina / Porst versions don't even come close (and I had both of them also). Of course, there's still lots of aberrations left... It may be sharp but there is that veiling flare fuzzy glowy dreaminess, same as I get with the 50/1.4 wide open.

12-10-2015, 12:14 AM	#44
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	I have 6-7 different fast 50mm f1.2 - f1.1. All of them glow at wide open, and still slightly glow at f1.4. All depends on the light condition. If you want perfect f1.4, get a Summilux 50/1.4 Asph (and a body to use it). A50/1.2 is best the Pentax 50mm at f1.2, then K version. With correct light condition, there is no different between them. f1.2 is challenging. I am sure you will have a lot of fun with it. It took me years to use it correctly :-)

12-10-2015, 01:34 AM	#45
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	I would say the results we see here doesn't come from f/1.2 setting but more from the lens characteristics. This is not the difference with f/1.4 that make theses lenses. Basically on the pictures here the lens is certainily not super sharp but sharp enough on the part in focus. And it is very dreamy/hazy on the OOF areas. To me the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 has a very different look, much more modern and much sharper too. But maybe you also don't get the dreamy look that objectively is an optical issue but that maybe is part of what make them unique.