[WerTicus]

F means auto focus A means auto aperture

hence an FA lens is auto Focus and auto Aperture.

D is Digital.

not sure what K means exactly, probably just K mount.

there is no FA f1.2, if there were id want one

[Pentaxor]

Still learning about Pentax lenses, so I guess I got confused. I think I meant "F" series instead of "A" series.

sorry to disappoint you, but there are no AF 1.2s.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Is there enough of a difference between the two to justify me saving my money up for the f1.2 in case I run across one, or would it be better to just get another f1.4 that supports autofocus?

If you have to ask, then I'd say - no, it's not worth worrying about it.

If you have to ask, then I'd say - no, it's not worth worrying about it.

I agree, what kind of pictures do you expect to take with a 1.2 that you can't take with any existing lens you have? The 1.2 is quite specialised and difficult to use to it's full potential.
We're not trying to catch you out, just trying to establish whether you need to be spending that kind of money.

[Ash]

They may render f/1.2-f/2.0 images with better IQ than any of the f/1.4 lenses, but you do really have to justify the extra cost in more ways than one.

Great to have - little to 'need'.

[Blue]

They may render f/1.2-f/2.0 images with better IQ than any of the f/1.4 lenses, but you do really have to justify the extra cost in more ways than one.

Great to have - little to 'need'.

So you are saying that since I have an A f1.2 I should sell my FA f1.4 and put it towards the FA 43mm ltd or the DA 40mm? The trouble is I'd likely get the 40 or 43 first and have a hard time letting go of the FA.

[Ash]

So you are saying that since I have an A f1.2 I should sell my FA f1.4 and put it towards the FA 43mm ltd or the DA 40mm? The trouble is I'd likely get the 40 or 43 first and have a hard time letting go of the FA.

If it were me I'd strongly consider it - I even considered it myself and I don't have an f/1.2 lens.

Then again, the FA 50 is an AF lens, and I've loved its results at all apertures - I'd miss my f/1.4 capability if I went with the 43 ltd, not to mention with the 40 ltd.

[Pentaxor]

I agree, what kind of pictures do you expect to take with a 1.2 that you can't take with any existing lens you have? The 1.2 is quite specialised and difficult to use to it's full potential.
We're not trying to catch you out, just trying to establish whether you need to be spending that kind of money.

maybe the OP is special? j/k

I think the OP may not be ready yet on using the 1.2. I do agree that it is quite tricky to use especially at wide openings but he could use it extremely well from f2.8 to f11 or whatever. until such time that he wanted to try out the lens' wide open capability. although the 1.4 autofocus is a luxury and makes life easy for those with weak vision.

anyway, if money isn't an issue for the OP, then go for it.

[Blue]

If it were me I'd strongly consider it - I even considered it myself and I don't have an f/1.2 lens.

Then again, the FA 50 is an AF lens, and I've loved its results at all apertures - I'd miss my f/1.4 capability if I went with the 43 ltd, not to mention with the 40 ltd.

Since I'm fortunate enough to have one of the last run of the Japanese FA f1.4s, I'm not likely to do that.

[G M Fude]

..I was just wondering if there is any big difference between an f1.2 and f1.4 lens.

For me, it was pure LBA. I had a 1.4 lens as the workhorse on my first SLR back in the 70s. With my K10D I now had a chance to go just one step further, a 1.2, so I bought one. Does it take better photos than a 1.4? Hell no, not with me pushing the shutter button.

But it was a bit like Nigel Tuffnell in This is Spinal Tap explaining to Marty how their amplifiers "go up to eleven" (if you've not seen the film you won't understand the reference and will think I've gone nuts). My A50 f1.2 is a lens that goes up to eleven.

Buy a 1.4; you'll save heaps and they take a bloody good photo. Unless any of what I said above makes sense to you, too.

BTW the A50 1.2 is a sensational looking piece of kit. Look in through that big front element and there's a truly ginormous set of aperture blades. Phwaw!

Not that this should make any difference to your purchase, either...

[Pentaxor]

I agree, what kind of pictures do you expect to take with a 1.2 that you can't take with any existing lens you have? The 1.2 is quite specialised and difficult to use to it's full potential.
We're not trying to catch you out, just trying to establish whether you need to be spending that kind of money.

For me, it was pure LBA. I had a 1.4 lens as the workhorse on my first SLR back in the 70s. With my K10D I now had a chance to go just one step further, a 1.2, so I bought one. Does it take better photos than a 1.4? Hell no, not with me pushing the shutter button.

But it was a bit like Nigel Tuffnell in This is Spinal Tap explaining to Marty how their amplifiers "go up to eleven" (if you've not seen the film you won't understand the reference and will think I've gone nuts). My A50 f1.2 is a lens that goes up to eleven.

Buy a 1.4; you'll save heaps and they take a bloody good photo. Unless any of what I said above makes sense to you, too.

BTW the A50 1.2 is a sensational looking piece of kit. Look in through that big front element and there's a truly ginormous set of aperture blades. Phwaw!

Not that this should make any difference to your purchase, either...

you're not refering to the blades or 1.2 speed as the number 11, are you?

truth is, it does not take better pictures, but it does render images in a different way that other lenses don't tend to do. probably that's the number 7 string on a bass guitar. you can live with 4 strings and can still produce an awesome sound, but having 6 would render a different awesomeness. what more can a 7 be? which in this case is fictional in reference to "THIS IS SPINAL TAP", the difference however is this is not a fictional movie.

[cheekygeek]

Strangely worded question. As others have stated, the difference is 1/2 stop and about $300.

I've got a lovely SMC K 1.2 and a similarly lovely SMC K 1.4. I'm a "bang for the buck" kind of guy and I plan on taking a bunch of pictures with both of them before I decide, but I suspect that I will sell the 1:1.2 to help finance another focal length lens purchase.

The extra half stop comes at the expense of a difficult SLIVER of depth of field (depending upon how close you are focusing). Terrific stuff can be done with that sliver (see the 1.2 Club for examples, if you haven't already).

Honestly, I was terrifically pleased with a Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 that I had and sort wish I hadn't sold THAT one. Getting caught up in the numbers is sort of a trap (although I sure do like the SMC 85mm f1.8 and FA 35 f2 for their respective speeds)!

[BillM]

hey jeryst,how are ya? way back in 1980 I just had to that f1.2,saved my money and eventually
went to the local camera shop to get it.I wanted swing a deal with and throw in the f2 kit lens
that came with k1000. Went in to shop,told Carl(owner) what I wanted and can never forget what he said..."Kid,is that little of bit light worth all that money?" $60 difference between the 2 at the time
I bought the 1.4,still have it,been happy ever since then with it.

[Pentaxor]

just an update. a brand new and used FA50/1.4 sells for about $250-$350 bucks while a used Cosina 1.2 and K 1.2 costs around the same price. from this, we could see no real difference in price except that the 1.2's are manual focus. the "A" version though cost a bit more selling for about 400-500 bucks which is $50-150 bucks more. although some "A" versions are selling for around $350 and under if you were/are able to luck on them. some months ago there were hordes of them selling for $200 bucks which is cheaper than the FA50/1.4. this would mean that given the price between the two lenses, the 1.2's pricing ain't that really expensive but just as affordable as the FA 1.4's and it's the choice of the person which lens to choose.

fwiw, there are other manual K/M/A lenses with varying focal lengths that are priced the same or a lot more expensive than the 1.2's and their auto-focus equivalent counterparts.

[Boris]

I agree, what kind of pictures do you expect to take with a 1.2 that you can't take with any existing lens you have? The 1.2 is quite specialised and difficult to use to it's full potential.
We're not trying to catch you out, just trying to establish whether you need to be spending that kind of money.

Gary, I got my A 50/1.2 for USD 350 from Adorama. I think it was either spring 2008 or spring 2009 - I don't remember exactly and it feels as if I always had it.

It is true that there are AF f1.4 lenses out there and that precise focusing at 1.2 is a pain in lower behind. Here is my own example. In K10D Katz Eye f.s. that I myself installed seemed to have hit the bulls eye. Not so with K-7. I asked Pentax Israel to install it for me and they did. Only later I realized that I had consistent misfocus issue (I think it is back focus, because whenever I focused somewhere, actually it was focused closer to me). Brought camera to Pentax Israel for repairs only to be told that 0.3 (mm?) adjustment is needed and that for that I'd have to send my camera to Germany which is something they don't recommend. Bummer...

On the positive side, I had a shoot of my younger daughter this weekend. I said to myself - I can do it, and fixed the aperture at 1.2 none the less. It took time and trial and errors, but few images came out right and boy, this lens can be sharp wide open. There is very small soft effect (like in halos) but I can still count every hair in my 1 years old eye brows...

I kind of prefer my A 50/1.2 to any other normal lens, and I had quite a few (FA 50/1.7, M 50/2.0, M 50/1.4, FA 50/1.4, FA 43/1.9 spring to mind). Can I live without it? Probably so. Can I live with it. Oh yes! Have I figured it out fully? Bloody unlikely! Will I keep shooting with it? You bet! Do I recommend it to others? It surely is worth the try.