[Art Vandelay II]

And whoever said the Nikon G 1.4 50 lens is as good as the Pentax needs to get their eyes tested I think. The lens is not sealed and not as contrasty and sharp wide open.

The Nikon looks good enough at 1.4 to me:

It's not as good as the Canon 50mm 1.2 wide open, but it's good enough. It's certianly in the ballpark of the Pentax 55mm and it's quite a bit better than all the old Pentax 50mm 1.4 and Nikon 50mm 1.4D.

And actually, the Nikon 50mm 1.4G is sealed according to Camera Labs (and others according to a quick google search).

Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G lens review diary | Cameralabs

"Measuring 74x54mm (maximum diameter by length), the new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G is larger and heavier than its predecessor, and the filter thread is also wider at 58mm. It does now however feature weather-sealing and a non-extending design."

[ajuett]

The K-7 probably didn't have a lens on it. Therefore when the camera was switched on it probably showed the default numbers "1/8000 f/1.0". An f/1.0 lens would not be a smart move. Cost and marketing involved would be too high. Pentax, I'm sure has higher priorities atm.

[Steelski]

The Nikon looks good enough at 1.4 to me:

It's not as good as the Canon 50mm 1.2 wide open, but it's good enough. It's certianly in the ballpark of the Pentax 55mm and it's quite a bit better than all the old Pentax 50mm 1.4 and Nikon 50mm 1.4D.

And actually, the Nikon 50mm 1.4G is sealed according to Camera Labs (and others according to a quick google search).

Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G lens review diary | Cameralabs

"Measuring 74x54mm (maximum diameter by length), the new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G is larger and heavier than its predecessor, and the filter thread is also wider at 58mm. It does now however feature weather-sealing and a non-extending design."

You will be interested in this.

Pentax
Pentax Lens: Primes - Pentax 55mm f/1.4 SDM SMC DA* (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Nikon
Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

At 1.4 the Pentax is practically unmatched!!!! not just by Nikon. Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Oly......Well, Lieca maybe.
It has much more contrast than the rest, sharper at the business end (1.4)
Granted we are in the realms of diminishing returns, but I would say that the Pentax is the better lens.

Also the direct links to the test pictures at 1.4. the differance is easily visible!!!!
Nikon
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Nikon50f14G/znikon50f14gsl050f14_d200.jpg
Pentax
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Pentax55f14/zpentax55f14sl055f14_k10d.jpg

Edit, here is also the Sigma on the 20D Canon
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/sigma50f14/zsigma50f14sl050f14_20d.jpg
The Sigma is closer, but sports an ethereal glow to some of the frame, especially in the edges. Which is nice for some things. Also the Sigma is massive.

[Pål Jensen]

The K-7 probably didn't have a lens on it. Therefore when the camera was switched on it probably showed the default numbers "1/8000 f/1.0". An f/1.0 lens would not be a smart move. Cost and marketing involved would be too high. Pentax, I'm sure has higher priorities atm.

But K-mount cameras doesn't do that. They show "F--" when no lens is mounted. It is quite weird if the camera show F: 1.0 if it isn't possible to use it. Why not then F:0.95 or something else unobtainable?

[jeffkrol]

The Nikon looks good enough at 1.4 to me:

Klause would be the first to tell you you can't compare across systems. Part of the lp/mm will depend on camera factors....

[fs999]

It won't cost that much. This is one of the advantages of APS-C format; lenses are cheaper to make as they don't need to cover as large image circle. It believe that Pentax should take all the advantages the smaller format gives. They have done that with the DA Limites which are ultra compact.
My guesstimate is that a DA* 30/1.0 could sell in the $1000 brice brackett give or take a few....

Where can I sign ?

Oh no my LBA is awaking !

But K-mount cameras doesn't do that. They show "F--" when no lens is mounted. It is quite weird if the camera show F: 1.0 if it isn't possible to use it. Why not then F:0.95 or something else unobtainable?

Your answer I think it's pretty simple: with the camera in M or TAv mode the guy set 1/8000 shutter speed and f 8.0 aperture then in Photoshop just removed all but the right part of the figure 8 and left only the right side to look like 1. And now, probably he's just laughing at this thread.

Radu

Btw, you are correct that the K-7 still does whatever K-mount camera does regarding manual lenses or no lens mounted. It shows "F--"

L.E. Make that F11 and he'd never bother erasing as much

[jeffkrol]

But K-mount cameras doesn't do that. They show "F--" when no lens is mounted. It is quite weird if the camera show F: 1.0 if it isn't possible to use it. Why not then F:0.95 or something else unobtainable?

Ever think that it may have been a test lens of some sort (which I'm sure they built at some time )?
As a side note the A mount may include coding for an f1 aperture and this may be overridden by digital communication as well (my own assumption).

110*01 or 110*00
Or is that a binary joke .....

Features and Operation of the Ka Mount
As much fun as it is to speculate on this I seriously doubt any f1.0 lenses are going to come out of Pentaxville..

[jogiba]

I don't think a 30mm F1.0 for the APS-C sensor would be any larger than the Pentax 50mm F1.2 for a FF sensor IMHO.

[DAZ]

I am not saying anything about the idea of a 30mm f/1 lens being good or bad but I used an online DOF calculator and saw some interesting things.

All at 5 feet.

50mm f/1 DOF .12 feet.
50mm f1.2 DOF .14 feet. Almost the same and about 1.5 inches. Very small, hard to use to the point of unusable for some uses. Eyes in focus but not the nose.

30mm f/1 DOF .33 feet.
30mm f1.2 DOF .4 feet. About 4 to 4.5 inches. Easer to use but can still isolate the subject. All of the is face now in focus.

To get this on a 50mm you need f.2.8. With a 30mm f2.8 you get almost a foot.

DAZ

[Art Vandelay II]

You will be interested in this.

These studio tests are great and all, and in ideal conditions when mounted on a tripod yes the Pentax 55mm looks better at 1.4, but in real world shots with a moving subject I seriously doubt anyone would notice the slightest difference unless you are either doing some serious pixel peeping or making extremely large prints. Focus mistakes will come into play more then lens flaws.

Besides, the point was not which lens is better, it was that both have about the same specs, similar build quality, similar results, similar release dates, but Pentax has chosen to charge $200 more for theirs.

These companies are just very inconstant across the board. It's odd. Here is an example in Pentax's favor comparing prices between the Pentax 16-50mm 2.8 and the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. The Pentax lens is $500 cheaper!

[robjmitchell]

F/1.0 is the same as the EXIF info you get any time you use a non A lens, like an old Takumar! no mystery to me.

I am looking forward to a fast 30 with weather sealing and SDM though. After all with video you will need a silent lens so that you can record sound. Thus Pentax have now released and new strain of LBA that I'm calling Video Lens Disease (VLD)! Sure you had all the glass you needed to take photos with, but will they be suited to the video format. All of a sudden i fell like i need to own all the Da* lenses. Darn you Pentax!!!

[huqedato]

You're are all funny with these pathetic rumors.
There is no 30/f1.0 on the way, and there will never be from Pentax.
It would be a giant lens with a giant price, aside of Pentax policy.
Nonsense...

[Pål Jensen]

You're are all funny with these pathetic rumors.
...

This is not a rumor but pure speculation. I made that perfectly clear in the first post...

[cousinsane]

DA30/1.4 sounds more realistic to me. But then again, it probably wont be cheap and will compete with FA30/1.8. Personally I'd rather see pentax make a DA24/2, which is a very very useful focal length on APS.