Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2008, 08:56 PM   #31
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by jake.astig Quote
For doctors, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, etc
It could be used to take their portrait when the tax-payers lynch them on Wall Street this week!

Wow. I wonder if that thing is $11,800 better than the FA 50 f1.4?

09-21-2008, 11:49 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tirana, Albania, South Europe, Planet Earth
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 621
QuoteOriginally posted by tcdk Quote
Some sample pictures here :

Rodenstock 42mm F/0.75 Photo Gallery by Belours at pbase.com

Not sure if it's on purpose, but only few of them actually seem to have anything in focus...
I can achieve that even with a crappy lens. Stick it in the freezer, leave it there for 30 min, then take it out and take hazy photos as all it's elements are fogged.
09-22-2008, 05:16 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,882
As I said several posts above - that OOF effect is what happens when you take pics wide open at 0.95 aperture - less than zero mm depth of field - so that is the new Leica look. Case of the HC Andersen fable of The Emporer's New Clothes it seems. The more you pay for a lens the more stunning the resulting image - not!
09-22-2008, 05:51 AM   #34
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
As I said several posts above - that OOF effect is what happens when you take pics wide open at 0.95 aperture - less than zero mm depth of field - so that is the new Leica look. Case of the HC Andersen fable of The Emporer's New Clothes it seems. The more you pay for a lens the more stunning the resulting image - not!
So true. That narrow depth of field is hard to make any pictures sharp in focus. Most 50mm will be sharp at f2.8 with enough depth of field at least with a subject. So this lens will require aperture stopping down to that much to be any use anyway.

09-22-2008, 08:22 PM   #35
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
As I said several posts above - that OOF effect is what happens when you take pics wide open at 0.95 aperture - less than zero mm depth of field - so that is the new Leica look. Case of the HC Andersen fable of The Emporer's New Clothes it seems. The more you pay for a lens the more stunning the resulting image - not!
Mate, that's the only way Leica made money since the release of the Nikon F!
09-23-2008, 03:49 AM   #36
Forum Member
LittleSkink's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 63
according to my calculation (well not mine really, but using this jolly useful web calculator) -
Online Depth of Field Calculator

using an M8 and subject 5m away at f1 the depth of field is 46cm - guess f0.95 would be a knats shallower but sheesh a decent photographer should be able to get a whole person in focus easy enough. f1.4 would give you 65 cm d-o-f so your extra few grand does buy some 'advantage' - does anyone know if this beasty has nice bokeh since that must be its real purpose

Alas I would have to pass on this piece of glass since (apart from not owning an M8) I cant even get pics with my Nokton 58mm f1.4 in focus wide open half the time, best save my money here til I learn to use my kit properly
10-06-2008, 03:06 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Big Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 547
It is amazing how much larger the appeture of a f0.95 is then a f1.2 or f1.4. At that end of the scale, a little increase equals a bunch bigger. My f0.95 makes a f1.2 look like a toy.

Dave

QuoteOriginally posted by ftpaddict Quote
Difference between f/1 and f/0.95 is worth exactly diddly squat.
10-07-2008, 01:04 AM   #38
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
QuoteOriginally posted by Big Dave Quote
It is amazing how much larger the appeture of a f0.95 is then a f1.2 or f1.4. At that end of the scale, a little increase equals a bunch bigger. My f0.95 makes a f1.2 look like a toy.

Dave

Agreed that f/1.4 vs f/0.95 is very noticeable.

But not f/1 vs f/0.95.

10-07-2008, 01:09 AM   #39
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by mithrandir Quote
I figure I will have to live to 160 for this thing to get cheap enough used for me to buy.
I know exactly what you mean
10-07-2008, 07:56 AM   #40
Veteran Member
Big Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 547
Jake,
I think the 35/f2 would be more popular and much smaller.

Dave

QuoteOriginally posted by jake.astig Quote
There won't be focus issues since it's always due to human error hahaha

Leica was probably alarmed by the number of Canon 50mm F0.95 conversions to M-mount so they matched Canon's fastest RF lens.

No photojournalist would use this lens. I'm guessing either or both the 24mm and the 21mm F1.4 would be more popular.
05-04-2010, 11:55 AM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Írebro
Posts: 207
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisN Quote
Actually, Leica had to do this to equal the Canon 50/0.95 rangefinder lens produced by Canon in 1961. There's plenty of those still in use, many converted to Leica M mount, used with the Leica digital rangefinder, and commanding very high prices on the second-hand market. Depth-of-field that narrow is an acquired taste, but they certainly produce a unique look. And the chances are that the Leica is usably sharp at f/0.95.

Come on, admit it. If Pentax made a 50/0.95 we'd be all over it like a pit bull on a pork roast!
I would if I could afford one, photos with this lens look ****ing amazing:










Got to appreciate the humor:


Old 1:








Yeah, out of focus my ass, he must be sooo disappointed with his lens ..
05-04-2010, 02:41 PM   #42
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Írebro
Posts: 207
QuoteOriginally posted by Big Dave Quote
It is amazing how much larger the appeture of a f0.95 is then a f1.2 or f1.4. At that end of the scale, a little increase equals a bunch bigger. My f0.95 makes a f1.2 look like a toy.

Dave
(pi * ((50 / (2 * 0.95))^2)) / (pi * ((50 / (2 * 1))^2)) = 1.10803324
(pi * ((50 / (2 * 0.95))^2)) / (pi * ((50 / (2 * 1.2))^2)) = 1.59556787
(pi * ((50 / (2 * 0.95))^2)) / (pi * ((50 / (2 * 1.4))^2)) = 2.17174515
(pi * ((50 / (2 * 2.8))^2)) / (pi * ((50 / (2 * 4.1))^2)) = 2.14413265

So 0.95 is only 11% more light but 0.95 against 1.4 is bigger difference than 2.8 against 4.1.

(And 0.95 is 35 times more light than 5.6 ;D)
05-04-2010, 02:48 PM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Írebro
Posts: 207
I assume this is a pentax lens (K50/1.2?)
50mm f1.2 : Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


That background look really busy.

Or is it not? This one is indeed the K50/1.2 and look better, though maybe it depends on the object in question to, the guy maybe look harsher?


Cosina 55/1.2 (I assume from http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=34986773)
Look pretty harsh to?




Pentax A50/1.2 at 2.5 look good:


at 2 decent:

At 1.2 not so much:


Is this common / a fact that it look "worse" at wider apertures? Or does it just happened to do here?

More K50/1.2, doesn't convince me:



I like the amazing smoothness in the Leica images.

Really make me long for a Canon 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 24/1.4LII, 85/1.2LII, ... if I would go that route. Would had been interesting to see example photos of those. Too bad they cost so damn much, much cheaper than the Leica though ..

Last edited by aliquis; 05-04-2010 at 03:02 PM.
05-04-2010, 03:14 PM   #44
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Írebro
Posts: 207
Sorry for spamming

But it's an old thread, and I guess the Leica is all about bokeh anyway, and (imho ..) it's interesting to compare bokeh results.

From a Canon-thread (Best bokeh lens you own - Photo.net Canon EOS Forum)

Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Nikkor-S 50/1.4 with a Nikkor to EOS converter.


Rather nice?

Not as good?
185 f/3.5 L Macro

85 f/1.2 L II


Worse?
Canon 35mm f/1.4


Though maybe it's just the shot, they seem to suggest 35/1.4 and 135/2.0(L?) to be good ones and the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 macro to be good ones for price.


"I'm also searching for a reasonably priced Jupiter2 85mm f/2 lens, that has an fabulous boken and no less than 15 diafragm blades!"

Anyone know any third party or pentax lenses with round aperture?

Anyway I like it =P
05-04-2010, 04:00 PM   #45
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
I thought you were going to show as a Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 lens converted to K-mount. Either way, I'll have to keep slumming with my A 50mm f1.2.

Last edited by Blue; 05-05-2010 at 01:29 PM.
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!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc Seaside with a fast 50mm goddo31 Post Your Photos! 12 12-14-2009 07:07 PM
Whats A Better Fast Prime? The Sigma 50mm Or Pentax FA 50MM? Or Another Option? Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 10-01-2009 08:02 AM
Why no fast 50mm macro lenses? SOldBear Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 03-02-2009 09:46 PM
How Fast D-FA 50mm AF voicelit Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-20-2008 09:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 AM. | 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