[deudeu]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH.

50mm f0.95!

I know, that large an aperture is a bit too much to ask, but why not a f1 or even just a f1.2 with AF? Right now, only canon has something that fast! Bringing a lens like this to the table would probably make a lot of serious enthusiasts reconsider what Pentax has to offer!

But anyways... Someday I will be rich and I will buy a leica... maybe

[Zewrak]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH.

50mm f0.95!

I know, that large an aperture is a bit too much to ask, but why not a f1 or even just a f1.2 with AF? Right now, only canon has something that fast! Bringing a lens like this to the table would probably make a lot of serious enthusiasts reconsider what Pentax has to offer!

But anyways... Someday I will be rich and I will buy a leica... maybe

You answered yourself in the last sentence.

[rover]

You answered yourself in the last sentence.

Indeed.

Not many companies can justify selling a $6,000 lens.

[séamuis]

this is already being discussed. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/37159-you-got-fast-50-a.html#post346769


Pentax CAN engineer such a lens, and probably do it better for cheaper. the fact is though, such a lens is utterly useless for 99.99999% of people. this, just like the original Canon 0.95 lens is just a 'look at me' bragging rights lens. this type of move makes sense for such a niche company like Leica, but for pentax it doesn't.

the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.0 isn't all that much so why does one need it? and even with AF you'd be lucky to get any shots in actual proper focus at that aperture. what practical application can you use such a lens? and how would it do the job any better than the 1.4's currently offered by pentax?

[Zewrak]

this is already being discussed. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/37159-you-got-fast-50-a.html#post346769


Pentax CAN engineer such a lens, and probably do it better for cheaper. the fact is though, such a lens is utterly useless for 99.99999% of people. this, just like the original Canon 0.95 lens is just a 'look at me' bragging rights lens. this type of move makes sense for such a niche company like Leica, but for pentax it doesn't.

the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.0 isn't all that much so why does one need it? and even with AF you'd be lucky to get any shots in actual proper focus at that aperture. what practical application can you use such a lens? and how would it do the job any better than the 1.4's currently offered by pentax?

Taking photographs of the dark side of the moon.

5. What is the fastest camera lens that Carl Zeiss ever built?
The 50 mm Planar f/0.7 lens. It was created for NASA to take pictures of the dark side of the moon. It was also used for movie-making.

Besides, Leica can't make cameras that their main customers can use anymore either. Read here : http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

On a side note: http://www.leitax.com/index.html

[deudeu]

Indeed.

Not many companies can justify selling a $6,000 lens.

Two little links here:
Sigma | 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO Autofocus Lens for Pentax | 184109

and

Pentax Lens Review Database - 50mm F1.2

So there are some expensive lenses out there, and Pentax was once able to make a f1.2...

[Gooshin]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH.

50mm f0.95!

I know, that large an aperture is a bit too much to ask, but why not a f1 or even just a f1.2 with AF? Right now, only canon has something that fast! Bringing a lens like this to the table would probably make a lot of serious enthusiasts reconsider what Pentax has to offer!

But anyways... Someday I will be rich and I will buy a leica... maybe

range finder lenses are slightly different in construction, one

the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.0 isn't all that much so why does one need it? and even with AF you'd be lucky to get any shots in actual proper focus at that aperture. what practical application can you use such a lens? and how would it do the job any better than the 1.4's currently offered by pentax?

using this:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

at 2 meters, 1.4 vs 1.0 on a 50mm will yield almost 4 cm of extra DOF

at 3 meters, 9cmm of extra dof


shooting someone at 10 meters away, will allow you to have a mere 2.4 meter depth of field (total) @ 1.0 vs 3.4 meters, thats a whole meter of background that will be eliminated.


for some creative work, this is quite valuable.


like wise, lets take the 21mm f1.4 from leica,

shooting a person at 2 meters away, will have a total DOF of 79cm, just enough for the person to be in good focus, with everything else OOF... just TWO meters away!! that means you can have a person stand a mere meter away from a wall, and it will already be blurry!!

the modern pentax equivalent, at a silly f3.2 changes the depth of field to a full 2 meteres! meaning that pretty much everything in close vecinity will be in focus, and then its just like a P&S shot.

[Dav5002]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH.

50mm f0.95!

I know, that large an aperture is a bit too much to ask, but why not a f1 or even just a f1.2 with AF? Right now, only canon has something that fast! Bringing a lens like this to the table would probably make a lot of serious enthusiasts reconsider what Pentax has to offer!

But anyways... Someday I will be rich and I will buy a leica... maybe

I've read somewhere that Leica can make such a lens because of the small register distance of rangefinder cameras. With a mirror camera it is much more difficult to design and never will be so good.
But the Leica R lenses are available for Pentax now, just change the bayonet and voila

[séamuis]

range finder lenses are slightly different in construction, one



using this:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

at 2 meters, 1.4 vs 1.0 on a 50mm will yield almost 4 cm of extra DOF

at 3 meters, 9cmm of extra dof


shooting someone at 10 meters away, will allow you to have a mere 2.4 meter depth of field (total) @ 1.0 vs 3.4 meters, thats a whole meter of background that will be eliminated.


for some creative work, this is quite valuable.


like wise, lets take the 21mm f1.4 from leica,

shooting a person at 2 meters away, will have a total DOF of 79cm, just enough for the person to be in good focus, with everything else OOF... just TWO meters away!! that means you can have a person stand a mere meter away from a wall, and it will already be blurry!!

the modern pentax equivalent, at a silly f3.2 changes the depth of field to a full 2 meteres! meaning that pretty much everything in close vecinity will be in focus, and then its just like a P&S shot.

no arguing that, goosh. though I was more or less talking about low light capability. probably should have been more clear.

[Gooshin]

no arguing that, goosh. though I was more or less talking about low light capability. probably should have been more clear.

yeah, agreed. as far as getting more light its hardly a selling point.

[deudeu]

this is already being discussed. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/37159-you-got-fast-50-a.html#post346769


Pentax CAN engineer such a lens, and probably do it better for cheaper. the fact is though, such a lens is utterly useless for 99.99999% of people. this, just like the original Canon 0.95 lens is just a 'look at me' bragging rights lens. this type of move makes sense for such a niche company like Leica, but for pentax it doesn't.

the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.0 isn't all that much so why does one need it? and even with AF you'd be lucky to get any shots in actual proper focus at that aperture. what practical application can you use such a lens? and how would it do the job any better than the 1.4's currently offered by pentax?

It is just another creative option. Shallow depth of fields are fun... shallower is funner.
I personnally think that there is room for a lens like that (not the f0.95 that's a bit over the top, but I would not mind if they brought back the f1.2), even just to make a technical statement.
Pentax is know for their primes, so they should have some variety and quality out there.

[Zewrak]

It is just another creative option. Shallow depth of fields are fun... shallower is funner.
I personnally think that there is room for a lens like that (not the f0.95 that's a bit over the top, but I would not mind if they brought back the f1.2), even just to make a technical statement.
Pentax is know for their primes, so they should have some variety and quality out there.

They used to be. Now they are known for having good cameras at low price.

I see more and more people "save" money by buying third party lenses. Why? Because they do not want to dish out the cash the Pentax lenses cost, and Pentax lenses are CHEAP. That tells me that people that use Pentax either do not want to or do not have the money to pay for the really expensive lenses.

[séamuis]

That tells me that people that use Pentax either do not want to or do not have the money to pay for the really expensive lenses.

I think a big part of this is that most of Pentax's current customer base is existing users with a whole arsenal of older glass.

They used to be. Now they are known for having good cameras at low price.

really? when did they stop being known for their lenses? I personally know many a canon and nikon user who openly admit that pentax has some of the best glass out there old and new.

though for the record that new KM im very likely to purchase will mostly wear my smc Pentax 'K' 55mm 1.8. not the new smc DA* 55mm 1.4

[Zewrak]

I think a big part of this is that most of Pentax's current customer base is existing users with a whole arsenal of older glass.

Yes, I also agree that the older lenses are cannibalizing the current setup. And why would it not, when they are equal to better then the newly produced?

really? when did they stop being known for their lenses? I personally know many a canon and nikon user who openly admit that pentax has some of the best glass out there old and new.

though for the record that new KM im very likely to purchase will mostly wear my smc Pentax 'K' 55mm 1.8. not the new smc DA* 55mm 1.4

The KM will have the first version of the 18-55 kit lens. And both of them are plastic pieces of crap, buildqualitywise. Just as the consumers want it.

Yes, Pentax have had some of the best optics. And they still do in their pricerange, but add some dollars in and you get better lenses in every focal length there is. Money that, once again, Pentax users will not pay. If they did pay for it, they would be produced. I am sure that Pentax can once again produce lenses like back in the days. But the price for a DA(orwhatever it would be named) 50/1.2 would cost probably 5000$ more then the average pentax owner would pay. Simple as that.

And I have yet to see a person that can afford a 5000-10000$ lens use a Pentax DA lens on their Canon 1Ds Mark III.

EDIT: The only way we will see the high end lenses for Pentax come back, is if Pentax start producing lenses with Canon, Nikon and Leica mount and ontop of that drop the DA series and go back to FA or SMC-A.

[rburgoss]

Back when the K mount was recently introduced along a good array of Pentax glass, Pentax advertised the all new rectilinear SMC 15/3.5 SUPER WIDE LENS, in full pages of photo magazines. The add said (something like this)

"How can we make a lens that only 15 photographers will buy this year?"

By those days (mid 70's), the lens sold for around >$1300, give or take a few bucks. Selling price for top SLR (the K2DMD) was around $600.

Of course Pentax can make a f/0.95 normal 50 mm lens, but how many people will buy it at for example $3000 (half of Leica), considering most of us are very reluctant to shell out $1200 for a K20D body and settle for a less featured K200D for half the price.

Someone here may have more accurate numbers, but I guess everyone gets the idea.

Robert B.