Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2010, 11:56 AM   #16
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,761
I'd say Pentaxor is closer on the price of these lenses. A few weeks ago, though, there was a screaming deal on Ebay for a recently CLA'd MX plus the 1.2 and a 35/2 for around $550. Surprisingly, it didn't sell all that quickly. If I hadn't just pushed the button on a DA70, and didn't already have the Cosina 55/1.2 I would have been all over that.

03-03-2010, 12:22 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
arpaagent: Yes, I don't know any f/1.7 lens offering more than 6 aperture blades.
I guess if I can focus at f/1.4 I'll also succeed at f/1.2...
That's why I like the 8-bladed 1.4/50 better: F 1.7/50 at f/2.8

not particularily great but way better: SMC 1.4/50 at f/2.8

and where it really shines - wide open


Any you should check your f/1.2 lens: your backgrounds are very blurry. My lenses are way sharper...
But I don't have pictuers with anything remotely female to offer.


Pentaxor: The Cosina may be a f/1.2 lens as well but it has several downsides I don't like: Its MFD is/are 60cm, it focuses in the other direction (could live with that) and it doesn't have an A-setting.

Explantion: Using my other two full manual lenses is no problem because the difference from f/1.2 to their aperture (f/2.5 and f/3.5) is big enough so there is enough tension to let them stop down wide enough to be used in a semi-A-mode. I dial in EV compensation (for the f/2.5 lens -1.5EV because f/1.2 to f/2.5=2EV) and preset the aperture on the aperture ring matching the setting on the camera.
However on the f/1.4 and so consequentely on faster lenses this isn't possible because there is no f-stop difference to allow for this needed tension.

Hope you understand how I use them.


In general: I really appreciate you taking the time to write something in this thread but if you to please also take the time to read what I've written and what my signature reads.

I had the A 1.7/50 before I had the F 1.7/50. I only bought the F because I got it cheap (70€ with SF-X). So why should I buy one again?
The K 1.2/50 isn't a real option as it doesn't provide anything more than its slightly brighter aperture over my SMC K 1.4/50. Same 8 blades - nothing revolutionary better.
The A however has these 9 blades + like the name says - A functionality.

Conclusion: If I find a A 1.2/50 for a reasonable price I'll buy it. If not I'll just let the idea fade away and forget about it.

The back-up plan that came to my mind very recently (yesterday) is to sell them both like my original idea and buy the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM instead.
Except the f/1.2 aperture it offers anything the A f/1.2 would plus even more any of my current lenses do.
Unfortunately the same applies here: I highly doubt you can buy one for my set budget.
03-03-2010, 12:43 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Egg Salad Quote
In general: I really appreciate you taking the time to write something in this thread but if you to please also take the time to read what I've written and what my signature reads.

I had the A 1.7/50 before I had the F 1.7/50. I only bought the F because I got it cheap (70€ with SF-X). So why should I buy one again?
I read posts, but I don't read signatures, and I am not sure you should expect it. Why should you try an A 50 1.7? Because you hate the build quality and tiny plastic focus ring on your F 50 1.7, but want sharpness wide open and the "A" setting. You have one and like the F better? Then keep the F, or sell it and chase something else.

Any of these excellent lenses will do 90% or more of what the best one will. And the advice you get on a forum like this is worth far more than you paid for it, even if not perfectly tailored to your exact needs.
03-03-2010, 12:44 PM   #19
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I'd say Pentaxor is closer on the price of these lenses. A few weeks ago, though, there was a screaming deal on Ebay for a recently CLA'd MX plus the 1.2 and a 35/2 for around $550. Surprisingly, it didn't sell all that quickly. If I hadn't just pushed the button on a DA70, and didn't already have the Cosina 55/1.2 I would have been all over that.
I agree. The average I have for the A is $494 with a range of $300-685 based on 14 lenses from fleabay, KEH, and here.

The k averages about $381 with a range of $153-500 for 28 lenses.

That doesn't count the person that sold about 30 of the A on ebay for an average of $285 and 9 of the k for $217. He also sold 5 K1000 with f1.2 A attached for about $100 before he realized what they were.

03-03-2010, 02:26 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
Nick, this wasn't meant as bitching but it annoys me if I write what I want and I still get proposed to do something else than what was listed.
And no, in general I don't expect people to read all signature lines. But when I comment on other people's lens purchase plans and the have their current stock of lenses listed I'll read them and base my recommendations on that.
You need to consider I'm German and as JensR on DPR recently said: Germans have no charme:ugh:.
Non-bitch ending.

About build quality: the A 1.7/50 is better than the F series but by itself still far from decent or how you would call it. It's not much less plastic and the same goes for the A 1.4/50 - only the A 1.2/50 offers full metal build.
03-03-2010, 03:27 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,814
QuoteOriginally posted by Egg Salad Quote
...About build quality: the A 1.7/50 is better than the F series but by itself still far from decent or how you would call it. It's not much less plastic and the same goes for the A 1.4/50 - only the A 1.2/50 offers full metal build.
Build quality is tricky when you get to the A series or later. It varies widely depending on the lens, and what you see on the outside isn't always what you see inside. I have an FA 28-105mm f4-5.6 Power Zoom which is 100% plastic on the outside and has the cheesy power-zoom switch that's often broken on used lenses. Inside, there's mostly metal, including four thick aluminum barrels for the elements.
03-03-2010, 04:06 PM   #22
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
But fortunately you can tell if holding the lens in your hands. Unfortunately this means you have to own it.
On older leses it's easy: if it looks like it metal - it's metal.
The DA* are harder to judge. On the outside it's only (higher quality) plastic but on the inside they are mostly metal (can only speak for the 16-50 of course).

I try to be pragmatic about things but metal and therefore higher weight attracts me - and if it is all plastic outside I would still call it badly built. I would like to handle the F 2.8/100 for that reason: all the review say it's build like a tank (if tanks were built like photographic lenses) but I can't imagine how a lens that hideous could be actually heavy and well built being all-metal inside.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter anymore since my plan looks like a failure. It's not worth that much (~$400-500) to me. So it looks like the money saved here can be used to fund "my" Tamron 70-200 to be then.

I'll watch out for either the A 1.2 or Sigma 1.4 but I doubt there will be any fitting my price range.
03-03-2010, 04:48 PM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
Another option for an f1.2 would be the Tomioka variations of the 55mm f1.2 m42 lenses. Unfortunately, they are pulling the same price range as the k & A Pentax lenses.

03-03-2010, 08:27 PM   #24
Veteran Member
arpaagent's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 777
QuoteOriginally posted by Egg Salad Quote
arpaagent: Yes, I don't know any f/1.7 lens offering more than 6 aperture blades.
I guess if I can focus at f/1.4 I'll also succeed at f/1.2...
That's why I like the 8-bladed 1.4/50 better: F 1.7/50 at f/2.8
not particularily great but way better: SMC 1.4/50 at f/2.8
and where it really shines - wide open

Any you should check your f/1.2 lens: your backgrounds are very blurry. My lenses are way sharper...
But I don't have pictuers with anything remotely female to offer.
I'm trying to figure out what you meant by that? Are you just joking or you really thinking that my pictures don't look sharp? Based on the backgrounds being blurry? Hehe, aren't they supposed to be blurry? If you are joking that's cool but if not please explain .
03-04-2010, 11:53 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
Well, a joke you have to explain generally isn't a good one. It seems I have to use smilies more.
And of course your pictures aren't sharp. But what lens gives enough resolution for sharp images at f/1.2 (not TV lenses or something that small)?

And nay to M42 lenses. I don't have any other M42 lenses so I'd even need an adapter for it.
Maybe a Voigtländer Nokton 1.4/58.
03-04-2010, 10:20 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,139
Well, Egg, perhaps the A50/1.2 now "controlls your mind" in the words of another post in this form. You may just have to get one and try it out. I bought a LOT of lenses before I finally sucked it up and bought a DA 35, hoping to find a normal-ish lens with macro abillity. Sometimes it is cheaper to just get what you want.

I think you might get more than you estimate for the K 50/1.4, perhaps $100 (?). The F 50 may be less, I've seen them go for only $160; and you could sell the A 50/1.7 too, if you wanted to. There is a gap there, but saving and perhaps luck could get you to an A50/1.2.

The build quaility of the SMC Takumars is magnificant though, and you can use them in Av mode with limitations. The adapters run $30 but open a whole new world of lenses to ponder.

I apologize if my slighlty off topic post caused annoyance, I was trying to be helpful.
03-05-2010, 11:04 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
I certainly don't hope so. Luckily 50mm isn't my favourite focal lenght so I'm only lusting for it because its
1. something you can seriously brag with and
2. because it contains the best of both lenses.

But just getting one is easier written than accomplished - they are really rare - not like Ebay "rare". As I said I'll just have to regularily look through the listings to eventually find the A or the Sigma for an accepteable price.

Before I look for M42 lenses: Could someone tell me how using them works precisely?
If you set the aperture on the aperture ring is the aperture stopped down immediately or is there an aperture release switch?
I'm specially asking in respect to the SMC Takumar 1.4/50.
Some may wonder why I consider a M42 lens after asking for an A-line lens. Reason is useability could be higher as it is easier to use in the way I use my manual lenses - with automatic metering. I could just saw of the aperture lever on my lens but I won't mutilate this lens.
Also it came out second after the A 1.2/50 in this the Normal Lens Shootout Photo Gallery by Sean Carpenter at pbase.com test. Here's the ranking: The Normal Lens Shootout Bracket photo - Sean Carpenter photos at pbase.com

I don't think I'll get much more for my "K" lens - lens prices are different to the ones in the US it seems. I bougt the K for 50€ which would be $68 right now. The F series now sells for around 200€ (~$270) here - if you (as a seller) get lucky even slightly more.
Again, I don't have the A 1.7/50 anymore. Sold it shortly after buying the F. Got me 60€ ($81).

P.S. No need to apologize.
03-05-2010, 02:26 PM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 93
You know....I'm still a newb an all, but that "Normal Lens Shootout" MUST be taken with a grain of salt.
Check out the pics he took of the M50 1.7 and compare them to his 50 1.2
The 1.7 really blows it away.

If the only reason his "favorite lens" wins is because:
a) It's his favorite lens
b) It's the only one that is 1.2

...well, then thanks a lot for showing off so many lenses, you helped me gain some insight on many of these that I was curious about, and it must have taken him a lot of time to put that all together, but the only thing he proved was that 'favorite' doesn't always mean 'best'. In my opinion.
03-05-2010, 02:54 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Winnie Quote
You know....I'm still a newb an all, but that "Normal Lens Shootout" MUST be taken with a grain of salt.
Check out the pics he took of the M50 1.7 and compare them to his 50 1.2
The 1.7 really blows it away.

If the only reason his "favorite lens" wins is because:
a) It's his favorite lens
b) It's the only one that is 1.2

...well, then thanks a lot for showing off so many lenses, you helped me gain some insight on many of these that I was curious about, and it must have taken him a lot of time to put that all together, but the only thing he proved was that 'favorite' doesn't always mean 'best'. In my opinion.
I both have the FA50/1.7 and A50/1.2. the 1.7 is evidently sharper at 1.7 and at f2, but at f2.8 it is not that obvious unless you pixel peel, but still the difference is very slight. slightly below f2.8, there is no clear sharpness advantage of the f1.7. but sharpness is not the only parameter that I consider that makes the lens better than the other. honestly speaking, I find the 1.2 overall rendering (bokeh, colors, sharpness on all apertures) to be better. the soft-sharp rendering gives a certain feel on the image that is obviously different on the 1.7. I'm not saying it's better just because it's a 1.2. but because it renders differently due to it's different optical design. even if the 50/1.2 is constructed to open at 1.7, as long as it retains the number of optics, blades, and design, I would still prefer it over the 1.7. what I found out is that the 1.2 even shines further at lower apertures from f2-f11.

as I mentioned before, if I were to sell all my 50mm lenses, the f1.2 will be the last one standing.

btw, mind you that you need to use a good lens hood because it helps a lot with contrast. that's how I got sharp images even at 1.2.
03-05-2010, 05:53 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Egg Salad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 337
Original Poster
Don't know which particular picture you mean but I've found two comparison images that illustrate the differences between F 1.7/50 and A 1.2/50.
I can't see if the focus is the same but it must be close.
The F weirdly seems to exaggerate the sharper portion of the image - the flower (especially distinct on the petals) while the A renders the whole scene with smoother transitions - can be seen on contrasty edges.
F: Pentax-F 50/1.7 @ f/1.7 photo - Sean Carpenter photos at pbase.com
A: Pentax-A 50/1.2 @ f/1.8 photo - Sean Carpenter photos at pbase.com

Objective tests aren't even possible - especially not when it's only one person doing the rating. Firstly there is the human factor which allows for a great variety of of testing errors and also if the person diong the test is photography-affine he7she is most likely prejudiced. The larger the testing group the more objective the results get.
The same can be seen here all the time: people logically tend to suggest the lenses they own.
But this is statistics and has nothing to do with this.

Still, can somebody give a description on M42 lenses or provide a link?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
idea, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, sharpness, slr lens, smc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can the FA 31 replace two lens? SylBer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 12-30-2009 05:47 PM
Replace 16-50 with primes? Crepusculum Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 10-12-2009 12:47 AM
How Often Do You Replace Your Camera? Miserere Pentax DSLR Discussion 47 03-17-2009 08:16 PM
Replace parts Catelin Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 02-09-2009 11:43 PM
Giving up the 16-45. what should replace it? jazzman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 12-21-2007 02:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top