[twitch]

35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4 are all but a click away on eBay

[Clavius]

If I remember rightly, one of the excuses for switching from M42 to K-mount was to enlarge the throat for an f1.2 standard lens. But Yashica was already selling a 55/f1.2 in M42 for their TL Electro-X. Chinon also had one, possibly from the same source (Tomioka), so that argument didn't really wash. The K-mount's width would probably allow Pentax to go beyond f1.2, and it would be interesting to speculate how far. As far as the Canon 7's f0.95 'Dream'? Or the f1 Noctilux?

Question is, who really wants this speed of glass, and can they pay for it? Would the numbers justify it?

Why is such fast glass so expensive anyway?

The other question is easy, most available light photographers that I know, myself including, prefer the use of fast lenses over super high ISO's.

[Cannikin]

Why is such fast glass so expensive anyway?

- More glass (fiddle with the aperture on the 50 f/1.2, and you'd be surprised at the difference in aperture diameter between 1.4 and 1.2, let alone 1.0)
- Harder to correct for aberrations means more R&D required
- Low production/sales volume dictates higher prices
- They charge more because they can

I think it's very telling that no mainstream manufacturer produces lenses faster than 1.2, only Leica, Voigtlander and SLR Magic (all manual focus, manual aperture). Canon had a 50 f/1.0 before, but they scrapped it because the IQ was crap and the cost was so high. Sales were dismal. All the other manufacturers haven't even tried. They know that betting on people willing to blow several thousand dollars on half a stop difference on an otherwise plain old 50 is just bad business, unless you have fanatical followers with too much money (i.e. Leica).

[Asahiflex]

If I remember rightly, one of the excuses for switching from M42 to K-mount was to enlarge the throat for an f1.2 standard lens. But Yashica was already selling a 55/f1.2 in M42 for their TL Electro-X. Chinon also had one, possibly from the same source (Tomioka), so that argument didn't really wash. The K-mount's width would probably allow Pentax to go beyond f1.2, and it would be interesting to speculate how far. As far as the Canon 7's f0.95 'Dream'? Or the f1 Noctilux?

It should be noted that many of those f/1.2 lenses, for instance the Tomioka and the Konica Hexanon, did not have a round rear element. Those elements were partly blocked by the diaphragm actuation mechanism. So M42 was not really suited for f/1.2 lenses.

[Clavius]

- More glass
- Harder to correct for aberrations means more R&D required
- Low production/sales volume dictates higher prices
- They charge more because they can

Thank you very much. I'm guessing though that the last option is of most influence.

I think it's very telling that no mainstream manufacturer produces lenses faster than 1.2, only Leica, Voigtlander and SLR Magic. Canon had a 50 f/1.0 before, but they scrapped it because the IQ was crap and the cost was so high. Sales were dismal. All the other manufacturers haven't even tried. They know that betting on people willing to blow several thousand dollars on half a stop difference on an otherwise plain old 50 is just bad business, unless you have fanatical followers with too much money (i.e. Leica).

Bad business? So why are the tiny companies doing it then? It should be even harder for them. I would imagine that selling a low volume high cost product would only make sense for the larger companies. They have the recourses, room to stock such slow-moving products, etc.

Hey Pentax has fanatical followers too! What other company has such a crowd of users that has been pleading for FF for over 10 years, and still stay with the brand no matter how often they are dissappointed? If Pentax issues a DFA SMC 50 f1.2 DC WR, not only will those fanatics buy it, they'll be asured again that eventually they'll have a Pentax FF body.

[Kunzite]

If Pentax issues a DFA SMC 50 f1.2 DC WR, not only will those fanatics buy it, they'll be asured again that eventually they'll have a Pentax FF body.

Would they? The same people who are complaining about the DA* 50mm f/1.4 being too expensive?
The trick is to have spending fanatics; and in this regards, I'd say Pentax failed

[Clavius]

Would they? The same people who are complaining about the DA* 50mm f/1.4 being too expensive?
The trick is to have spending fanatics; and in this regards, I'd say Pentax failed

LOL They caught me, didn't they?

I was just joking off course.

[Aristophanes]

- More glass (fiddle with the aperture on the 50 f/1.2, and you'd be surprised at the difference in aperture diameter between 1.4 and 1.2, let alone 1.0)
- Harder to correct for aberrations means more R&D required
- Low production/sales volume dictates higher prices
- They charge more because they can

I think it's very telling that no mainstream manufacturer produces lenses faster than 1.2, only Leica, Voigtlander and SLR Magic (all manual focus, manual aperture). Canon had a 50 f/1.0 before, but they scrapped it because the IQ was crap and the cost was so high. Sales were dismal. All the other manufacturers haven't even tried. They know that betting on people willing to blow several thousand dollars on half a stop difference on an otherwise plain old 50 is just bad business, unless you have fanatical followers with too much money (i.e. Leica).

Another issue is autofocus. Very thin DOF is difficult to AF and people blame the camera.

Sub-f/1.4 glass has always been very rare as it adds little discernible aesthetic value or noticeable difference, particularly in real life shooting.

[RonHendriks1966]

- More glass (fiddle with the aperture on the 50 f/1.2, and you'd be surprised at the difference in aperture diameter between 1.4 and 1.2, let alone 1.0)
- Harder to correct for aberrations means more R&D required
- Low production/sales volume dictates higher prices
- They charge more because they can

I think it's very telling that no mainstream manufacturer produces lenses faster than 1.2, only Leica, Voigtlander and SLR Magic (all manual focus, manual aperture). Canon had a 50 f/1.0 before, but they scrapped it because the IQ was crap and the cost was so high. Sales were dismal. All the other manufacturers haven't even tried. They know that betting on people willing to blow several thousand dollars on half a stop difference on an otherwise plain old 50 is just bad business, unless you have fanatical followers with too much money (i.e. Leica).

Maybe they can just update the 50mm/f1.2 into a modern DM 50mm/f1.2 manual focus lens with nano coating and WR.

[Clavius]

Another issue is autofocus. Very thin DOF is difficult to AF and people blame the camera.

I know what you mean. There's hordes of people that blame their equipment for their own lack of understanding. Fact of life.

Sub-f/1.4 glass has always been very rare as it adds little discernible aesthetic value or noticeable difference, particularly in real life shooting.

I beg to differ, the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is very noticable. Moreover, a 1.2 stopped down to 1.4 is sharper then a 1.4 wide open.

[markku55]

I do see a place for a Full Frame camera to boost the brand into the serieous camerabrand section.

Could that FF be a modified K-01 with EVF, a high end moveable touch screen and WR.
Movies and AF like in the Panasonic G-H2 and the price level under 1800USD.

[eddie1960]

Could that FF be a modified K-01 with EVF, a high end moveable touch screen and WR.
Movies and AF like in the Panasonic G-H2 and the price level under 1800USD.

LOL let's keep feeding the spurious rumour mill shall we

[maxfield_photo]

No touch screens for me, thank you. My screen gets greasy enough with my schnoz bumpin up against it.

[Anvh]

What problem are we trying to even solve? Is it worth solving? At what cost? Is there another way to solve it?

Solving a lack of equiv fast lenses for APS-C by introducing a new mount so a whole new set of very fast APS-C only lenses can be built is, IMHO, completely and utterly insane. There is a far easier way to solve it, and it <hint> <hint> involves changing the size of the sensor.

lol it's not even a problem, it's a thought up idea what Pentax options are if they want to use APS-C to compete against FF Canon and Nikon systems.
The only thing i can think of is a new mount designed for APS-C so that faster lenses can be made for them so that you can get true equivalent.

Sure it will break the compatibility with the K-mount so if it's a viable option for pentax is another question but to be honest i don't see another option and no one has given me another option beside the 645D is the Pentax pro system, that's all good and well but 645D is different.

Indeed getting an FF camera out will be far easier and you keep the k-mount that's actually the most likely options but it doesnt hurt exploring other options right?
Besides do you think that Pentax can directly compete with nikon and canon FF with an FF camera, might it not be easier if they compete an unique product? maybe something indeed for Ricoh to try out.


To go on with speculating what about a mirrorless 645 with a new mount once again but now for the added bonus that you can mount k-lenses on it.

[Anvh]

Question is, who really wants this speed of glass, and can they pay for it? Would the numbers justify it? For most people 85/f2 is plenty fast enough, and so is 35/f2. A 'refreshed' 50/1.2 would be nice though. And so would an 85/1.4... Hmmm, dammit ElJam, you're right!

One of the reasons to get a FF camera is for the smaller DOF you get with the fast 50mm and 85mm lenses.
For there rest for most there isn't much more about it, there is no clear low light advantage. There is a quality advantage with printing but APS-C is suited for most needs these days.

About the fastest lens take the register for the focal length and the mount diameter for the opening this gives you a good idea.