[reeftool]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

If Samyang begins to make AF lenses, I would expect to see the prices much higher than their MF glass.

[Clavius]

Some paid $4,000 for the Canon 50mm F1.0L .
FM Reviews - Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L USM

Flickr: 50 mm f 1.0 L

Canon EF Lens Ultrasonic | eBay

What I don't understand is, if people really are willing to pay that much for such insanely fast lenses, why don't manufacturers find them more interesting to produce? If you look around in flickr there's lots and lots of users.

[Na Horuk]

What I don't understand is, if people really are willing to pay that much for such insanely fast lenses, why don't manufacturers find them more interesting to produce?

Its probably like a luxury race car. A lot of people dream of one, but even if they can afford it, very few actually decide to get it.
f1.0 doesn't have very many uses - its main use is to astonish people on the internet

[Clavius]

Its probably like a luxury race car. A lot of people dream of one, but even if they can afford it, very few actually decide to get it.
f1.0 doesn't have very many uses - its main use is to astonish people on the internet

I would insta-buy a DFA 50mm 1.2, just because I'm still so astonished myself with the A 50mm 1.2.

[Pål Jensen]

What I don't understand is, if people really are willing to pay that much for such insanely fast lenses, why don't manufacturers find them more interesting to produce? If you look around in flickr there's lots and lots of users.

They didn't sell. Neither did the 200/1.8.

[TimKierath]

This looks awesome!
I'd still prefer a 55 f1.2, because of our cropped sensors, 55 kind of fills in the portrait segment coming in at 82mm f1.9 equivalent - but the auto aperture that this boasts over my Porst version would be worth it.

[Clavius]

This looks awesome!
I'd still prefer a 55 f1.2, because of our cropped sensors, 55 kind of fills in the portrait segment coming in at 82mm f1.9 equivalent - but the auto aperture that this boasts over my Porst version would be worth it.

I have the Porst version too. The Porst is actually a bit sharper then the Pentax, imho. Then again, the colours and bokeh better with the Pentax version.

[Smeggypants]

Its probably like a luxury race car. A lot of people dream of one, but even if they can afford it, very few actually decide to get it.
f1.0 doesn't have very many uses - its main use is to astonish people on the internet

On what basis do you make that claim? Because you see no use for a 50/1.0 ??

I'm a narrow DOF fan. I'd buy a f/1.0 lens with a K mount if a] one existed and b] I could afford it. And no I have no interest in atonishing anyone anywhere least of all the Internet. Are you not judging others by your own personality?

[glanglois]

Looks interesting. Will be at least as cheap as current Pentax 50mm offerings and Samyang has a name for releasing lenses that are very sharp wide open.

The biggest problem is that manual focus at f1.2 is pretty hard. I own the DA *55 and can't really see switching to a lens like this, unless they would decide to start releasing lenses with auto focus...

And a focus point that's quite small and crisply defined. Otherwise .....

[carrrlangas]

I'm a narrow DOF fan. I'd buy a f/1.0 lens with a K mount if a] one existed and b] I could afford it.

DoF changes very little between f/1 and f/2... Try it yourself: Online Depth of Field Plotter
There other far more important qualities like out of focus blur and resultant shutter speed...

[Aristophanes]

They didn't sell. Neither did the 200/1.8.

They sold in limited quantities.

People should realize why these lenses were developed in the first place.

It was to produce softer images, especially of portraits. There was a lot of reaction about how fine grain film made features standout (like zits) that were unwanted, so softer images could be done with fast glass making it possible to both utilize fine grain 100-400 ISO film and flatter the portrait. The same issue is occurring with HD and super-fine cinematography. Of course digital makes it easier with Photoshop vs. airbrush.

The reality is most people could not afford such a lens. And it would have AF difficulties.

[Smeggypants]

DoF changes "very little" between f/1 and f/2... Try it yourself: Online Depth of Field Plotter
There other far more important qualities like out of focus blur and resultant shutter speed...

I already have a DOF calculator bookmarked thanks Online Depth of Field Calculator Comes in very useful for certain situations.

I'm still a fan of narrow DOF and as you can see from my signature I have several wide primes including an A 50/1.2 and others wider than f/2.0.so I'm not sure of your point? What you deem "very little" might be of more importance to others. That is the beauty of a subjective pursuit like photography.

I've seen examples of images taken through f/1,0 and I'd still buy one for k-mount if it existed and I could afford it. Couldn't care less what the DOF calculator says as in real life there's a nice difference.

Photography by numbers doesn't excite me.

[rawr]

People should realize why these lenses were developed in the first place.
It was to produce softer images, especially of portraits.

Indeed. There are very few (maybe none) lenses in that category that are sharp wide open - eg look at the Canon 50 f1.2 resolution charts on lenstip.com. You'd only buy a lens like that for a very specific purpose.

[Aristophanes]

Indeed. There are very few (maybe none) lenses in that category that are sharp wide open - eg look at the Canon 50 f1.2 resolution charts on lenstip.com. You'd only buy a lens like that for a very specific purpose.

Yes...soft wide open. From the Lenstip review on FF:

"The conclusions which can be drawn for the frame centre are, in fact, identical as in the case of 50D results. The images we got by f/1.2 and f/1.4 are “soft” and the good level of focus we reach only after stopping down the lens to near f/1.8."

Here's the modern Tamron 90:



From f/2.8 to f/11 it never strays below 30 lpmm. The 50/1.2 starts a notch above 20 and gets as sharp only about the same as the Tamron.

You have to remember sharp glass was a problem for a lot of film shots, especially portraits. Of course a huge aperture is going to be centre sharp on such a massive and extreme bell curve with huge variation between edge and absolute centre. It's almost impossible not to get that with such a large iris aimed at 135. Newer, digital-ready versions may be designed more for absolute centre sharpness, but their edge sharpness (and vignetting) is average to below.

Would you rather a less extreme curve as aperture increase and less variation between edge and centre with a lens at f/2.8 starting point or all the variability and "softness" of the 1.2?

Heck! For $700 LESS one can get almost equivalent results with less drama between edge:centre from our very own FA43mm:



Hold on. From f/1.9 to 5.6 the FA 43 edges the Canon all the way with less edge:centre gap. The 43 allows for more creative framing at even resolution. And the lenstip review says the Canon only really gets decent at f/1.8. OK. At f/1.9 the FA43 is ahead and stay there.

So for a few inches less DOF (43 vs. 50 taken into account) the price per inch less of DOF is extraordinary. Because that's all you really get out of an f/1.2. That and a much lighter wallet. The COC of the 50/1.2 wide open at 10 ft. is 0.03 on FF while on APS-C the FA43/1.9 wide open at the same 10 ft. 0.02. Yet the FA43 objectively will have greater resolution both at centre and especially at edge.

These 1.2's just aren't a value for all but a tiny niche of shots. They never sold well, they have quirks and aberrations, all of which summarizes why they are so rare, and why the cost and arm and a leg.

[carrrlangas]

I already have a DOF calculator bookmarked thanks Online Depth of Field Calculator Comes in very useful for certain situations.

Congratulations. The one I mentioned allows you to plot and compare different f-stops and let you set the CoC. You are welcome

I'm still a fan of narrow DOF and as you can see from my signature I have several wide primes including an A 50/1.2 and others wider than f/2.0.so I'm not sure of your point? What you deem "very little" might be of more importance to others. That is the beauty of a subjective pursuit like photography.

My point is that no matter how much a fan of thin DoF you are, if you already have a 50/1.2, a 50/1.0 won´t make a big difference, look at the plot. I agree there´s certainly an application for it. I have no idea what subjective persuit is and don´t think anyone would like to persue something subjectively.

I've seen examples of images taken through f/1,0 and I'd still buy one for k-mount if it existed and I could afford it. Couldn't care less what the DOF calculator says as in real life there's a nice difference.

Great, but why "real life" would be different? If you take the proper parameters into account, it should be similar. As I said before, there certainly are differences, just no so much in DoF.

Photography by numbers doesn't excite me.

It doesn´t have to. But photographc equipment is full of them and understanding what they mean can be useful.