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.

---

SMC Asahi Pentax Camera 7040385 Lens 1204911 N Flash N Bag N Camera Cover 35mm | eBay

The poster has no idea what he has.

Six hours left, 13 bids, price so far $67.

[panoguy]

SMC Asahi Pentax Camera 7040385 Lens 1204911 N Flash N Bag N Camera Cover 35mm | eBay

The poster has no idea what he has.

Six hours left, 13 bids, price so far $67.

Well, with this crowd alerted, the poster is going to be pleasantly surprised by what he nets. Of course, the cynic in me says "beware the 'I know nothin about cameras' bait-n-switch" where you end up with a 50mm f/2 for $500...

[monochrome]

Well that's that - now that everyone knows.

Damn.

[TropicalMonkey]

What is so big deal about f/1.2? You can get f/1.4 much cheaper (K version). Only difference being in the bokeh effect, would this f/1.2 be so much better than currently available AF/1.4?
If f/1.2 has such huge merits why is Pentax not releasing a newer version?

[MSL]

Certainly a bargain compared to this: SLR 35 mm PENTAX 50 mm F 1.2 lens USED Colection Fuji Canon NIKON contax digital | eBay.
Not that I'm tempted either way. I'm still smiling over a reasonably priced Tak 1.4 I got.

[monochrome]

What is so big deal about f/1.2? You can get f/1.4 much cheaper (K version). Only difference being in the bokeh effect, would this f/1.2 be so much better than currently available AF/1.4?
If f/1.2 has such huge merits why is Pentax not releasing a newer version?

I have ST, S-M-C, K, A and FA 50/1.4's. I sold my M50/1.4.

K50/1.2 is good for low light focusing because it lets more light in with the open aperture. That is especially helpful for older eyes such as I have. All the 1.4's start to get sharp at f/4 and really shine between f/5.6 and f/8. The 1.2's are similar in that regard.

There are many possible reasons an old lens cannot be made any more, including that the glass blanks and other parts might no longer be available.

As far as recent prices for legendary MF lenses (up 100% in a year), apparently people expect a FF from Pentax soon.

[TropicalMonkey]

I have ST, S-M-C, K, A and FA 50/1.4's. I sold my M50/1.4.

K50/1.2 is good for low light focusing because it lets more light in with the open aperture. That is especially helpful for older eyes such as I have. All the 1.4's start to get sharp at f/4 and really shine between f/5.6 and f/8. The 1.2's are similar in that regard.

There are many possible reasons an old lens cannot be made any more, including that the glass blanks and other parts might no longer be available.

As far as recent prices for legendary MF lenses (up 100% in a year), apparently people expect a FF from Pentax soon.

I also have a Super Tak 50mm f/1.4. Wondering if the bokeh on 1.2 would be that much better? Even if it is going to have slightly better bokeh, DOF will be harder to handle wide open, correct?

[MSL]

I also have a Super Tak 50mm f/1.4. Wondering if the bokeh on 1.2 would be that much better? Even if it is going to have slightly better bokeh, DOF will be harder to handle wide open, correct?

Correct. And I have enough trouble at 1.4 as my toddler crawls about.

[johnyates]

What is so big deal about f/1.2?

That they generally sell at upwards of $600?

[TropicalMonkey]

That they generally sell at upwards of $600?

May be I should go ahead and bid as well!!

[Checking...jono]

It went for $330.00. Not too bad for someone. Hope it's in good shape.

[monochrome]

I also have a Super Tak 50mm f/1.4. Wondering if the bokeh on 1.2 would be that much better? Even if it is going to have slightly better bokeh, DOF will be harder to handle wide open, correct?

I had one for about a year. I had a Buy/Try/Sell fetish where I wanted to have every legendary Pentax MF lens I could never afford when they were new, at least have them for a while, so I would know I had. I sold it because I didn't want to have that much money tied up in one lens. It was either only the K50/1.2 or no K50/1.2 and many other 50's.

IMHO (and I will likely attract contrary opinion here) the f/1.2 merely allows you a slightly thinner DoF (@10ft on 35mm film, 0.86 feet vs. 1.02 ft for f/1.4), so your subject can be slightly closer to OOF foreground and background elements and thus achieve isolation or the 3D effect in more settings (closer to backgrounds, for instance). In my case it was very difficult to achieve necessary critical focus in an APSc viewfinder (because I have old eyes and an eye disease), where you only get a tiny bit more than 6" of DoF with either lens at 10 ft. At 5 ft you get about an inch with both lenses, so it is really neither easier nor harder to use the f/1.2 lens than the f/1.4.

On APSc I thought the CoC was so thin wide open (0.02mm) that it wasn't really useable. I'm sure the lens was better in this regard on 135 film. I tend to do my best with bokeh at f/5.6, which is also where most of my lenses get really good. At 10 feet @ f/5.6 you get about 2.75 ft APSc and 4.25ft 135. The standard I was taught is:

• 100mm lens, 10 feet @ f/5.6 on 135 = 1 foot DoF

[EDIT]: Someone pointed out below that the 50/1.2's have a sepcial, ethereal quality to them. I don't beleive that is so much the larger minimum aperture as it is the glass and lens design elements. I tried to briefly address that in the following. The actual quality of the OOF highlights is more the result of the specific lens design, the glass and the number of aperture leaves, whatever the largest aperture of the lens.

I still believe the real advantage of the f/1.2 lenses is low light focusing.

[TropicalMonkey]

I had one for about a year. I had a Buy/Try/Sell fetish where I wanted to have every legendary Pentax MF lens I could never afford when they were new, at least have them for a while, so I would know I had. I sold it because I didn't want to have that much money tied up in one lens. It was either only the K50/1.2 or no K50/1.2 and many other 50's.

IMHO (and I will likely attract contrary opinion here) the f/1.2 merely allows you a slightly thinner DoF (@10ft on 35mm film, 0.86 feet vs. 1.02 ft for f/1.4), so your subject can be slightly closer to OOF foreground and background elements and thus achieve isolation or the 3D effect in more settings (closer to backgrounds, for instance). In my case it was very difficult to achieve necessary critical focus in an APSc viewfinder (because I have old eyes and an eye disease), where you only get a tiny bit more than 6" of DoF with either lens at 10 ft. At 5 ft you get about an inch with both lenses, so it is really neither easier nor harder to use the f/1.2 lens than the f/1.4.

On APSc I thought the CoC was so thin wide open (0.02mm) that it wasn't really useable. I'm sure the lens was better in this regard on 135 film. I tend to do my best with bokeh at f/5.6, which is also where most of my lenses get really good. At 10 feet @ f/5.6 you get about 2.75 ft APSc and 4.25ft 135. The standard I was taught is:

• 100mm lens, 10 feet @ f/5.6 on 135 = 1 foot DoF

The actual quality of the OOF highlights is more the result of the specific lens design, the glass and the number of aperture leaves, whatever the largest aperture of the lens.

I still believe the real advantage of the f/1.2 lenses is low light focusing.

Wow! Now I need to read your post a few times to understand and use that for my practical purposes! I guess, as an amateur, I should be contended with my ST 50mm/1.4 and FA-50mm/1.4. Thanks for such an informative post!

[monochrome]

Wow! Now I need to read your post a few times to understand and use that for my practical purposes! I guess, as an amateur, I should be contended with my ST 50mm/1.4 and FA-50mm/1.4. Thanks for such an informative post!

I'm a complete amateur, but I read a lot and I fool around with whatever new lenses I get just to figure out how they work. Forty [EDIT - 45 - yikes!] years ago I had a High School photography instructor who gave me that f/5.6 rule and it seems to work for me. I rarely shoot wide open, espcially now that we get such good files at high ISO. Even if there isn't enough light to handhold, there's always tripod or monopod

[monochrome]

sniped at $330