|
Discuss how to buy, fix, clean, and use all the old manual focus photography kit you can find. M42, Pentacon 6, Contax, Leica, Canon, Nikkor, Carl Zeiss Jena, Asahi Pentax Takumars etc! |
|
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Pentax K 50mm f1.2 at f1.2:
link to 100%
Pentax K 85mm f1.8 at f1.8:
link to 100%
Both files converted from RAW in Lightroom with no post processing besides the defaults (which I haven't altered). I was focusing on the label of the middle vinegar bottle. Note that the second shot had a second flash unit (on the left). Both were handheld.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-27 17:24:36)
This is some impressive performance of the f1.2!!!
Indeed. Not all that surprising for me. The following are results from an old test of ultra-fast 50's. The Pentax comes out on top (above some very expensive glass). Lower numbers are better:
f/1.2 lenses
Lenses tested -------------f/1.2 -----f/2.8 -----f/5.6 -----Average
Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2 --------101 -------77 ---------50 --------228
Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 ------116 -------73 ---------49 --------238
Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 ----------117 -------82 ---------45 --------244
Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.2 -117 -------75 ---------54 --------246
Canon FD 55mm AL f/1.2 -------117 -------84 ---------51 --------252
Yashica ML 55mm f/1.2 --------124 -------90 ---------51 --------265
Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 -----125 -------90 ---------60 --------275
Nicon Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 -158 ------107 ---------52 --------317
Leitz Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 ----152 -------97 ---------67 --------316
Konica Hexar 57mm f/1.2 ------166 ------129 ---------58 --------353
The Noct-Nikkor was apparently design for wide-open shooting. Not very well, apparently. Imagine paying $3000 for a Noct-Nikkor and $200 for a Rokkor. 
Last edited by cogitech (2008-01-27 13:09:25)
How much would that tak set me bak?
Pentax K 50mm f1.8 at f1.8:
I assume you meant the K 85mm f/1.8. (Looks like a typo - just wanted to clarify.)
@dazed: The 85/1.8 M42 lenses generally run around $400. They are *very* sharp wide open (and at all other apertures); in regards to CA and bokeh it is good but not perfect. Especially in regards to longitudinal chromatic aberration, this lens is a typical Pentax showing noticeable green in the background blur.
Or its the smc Pentax 55mm f:1.8 (I think is the smc Takumar 55mm f:1.8 with a bayonet instead of the screw mount)
By the way, great lens !!! Congratulations.
I agree with carpents regarding the CA and bokeh. Typically, I don't find the CA too bad on the 85mm but it can come up. I'll try some photos outside in the snow. I misplaced my ND4 filter though so it is hard to do right now at max aperture.
This is some impressive performance of the f1.2!!!
I am happy with it! In regular photos the depth of field is so small at f1.2 that it is hard to judge sometimes. I was curious how it would compare to the K 85mm f1.8 and I think it did well.
cvig wrote:Pentax K 50mm f1.8 at f1.8:
I assume you meant the K 85mm f/1.8. (Looks like a typo - just wanted to clarify.)
Whoops. Indeed a typo. Sorry about that!
Or its the smc Pentax 55mm f:1.8 (I think is the smc Takumar 55mm f:1.8 with a bayonet instead of the screw mount)
By the way, great lens !!! Congratulations.
I am keeping my eyes open for 55mm f1.8 lens at a good price but this was indeed the 85mm f1.8. I have heard good things about the 55mm.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-27 17:43:55)
How much would that tak set me bak?
There are two models of the 50mm f1.2 -- the K and the A. The A has auto aperture and seems to go for around $500 while the K seems to go for around $250-$350. For the K 85mm f1.8 the price is about $300-$400. I got lucky and found a good copy of the 85mm in a local shop for $100. Not a steal compared to some of the posts here but it was certainly my steal.
These are internet prices. Offline, there are still many dealers who price more in line with what things were going for a couple years ago.
I didn't know about the 55mm f1.8 versus f2. But if the M 50 f1.7 is better maybe there isn't much point in buying one. I'll have to think about it.
I'm not sure how often I'll use the f1.2 DOF but I was more curious about low light photography at night. At the price of the 50mm f1.2 though it would probably make sense to upgrade to the K100D for image stabilization and use a 50mm f1.4 instead if things aren't moving in the scene.
cvig. I would certainly put the money towards the K100. Big front elements look good but in practice they are not often used. If you already have the f1.4 then fine but I have hardly ever used f1.7 or f2 so wouldn't need a f1.4. Even doing a CU face portrait I doubt you could spot the much difference between f1.2 and f1.7 except the f1.2 may be out of focus!
The K100 is a great camera but see if you can push the boat out for a K10. The K20 is very near and the specs look very good. I expect low noise at 1600 iso and decent results at 3200, it goes to 6400 so I am waiting to see. It seems to be the same body as K10 (A good thing) It has some new features like a real flash sync plug and of course live view (I have no real desire for it) I expect it will be a good price but has to be a lot more than the price of the few remaining K10s. There will also be the new K200 I know nothing about that.
Back to the K100 Noise at 800asa is no problem and 1600 is also excellent, 3200 is OK for good available light BW work. With a 50mm lens you can expect a good 2 stops extra with the SR. 1/25 sec is easy for it below that and it is more of a problem with mirror and shutter vibration than shake.
I do like the idea of the K10 but I also like the high ISO performance of my DL -- it has the same sensor as the K100 except no stabilization of course. I too think 3200 is good for BW. At first, I kept it on ISO 200 as I was coming from a point & shoot but I quickly realized that up to ISO 800 was great and 1600 was great too if the exposure was very close to correct/desired. So my experience is the same as yours with this sensor.
I am leaning towards waiting until the K20 comes out with the thought that the K10s will hit the used market. It is a hard decision as in the USA the K10 body can be brought up to the end of the month for $509 after a rebate.
On the 50mm f1.2, I don't disagree at all. It was definitely an emotional purchase so I'll see how it goes for now. I am happy with the image quality though.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-27 20:55:59)
That price on K10 is just amazing. I've pretty much decided on a 40D, but for $500 I can hardly resist.
That price on K10 is just amazing. I've pretty much decided on a 40D, but for $500 I can hardly resist.
I agree -- it is a steal. There is even a slightly better price. I posted about it in the marketplace forum.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-27 21:21:27)
Good to see that the Nikon 50mm f1.2 put in an excellent performance in that test. It's reasonably priced and easily available.
Good to see that the Nikon 50mm f1.2 put in an excellent performance in that test. It's reasonably priced and easily available.
I'm guessing that is a typo but to be clear it's actually the Pentax model. Here is a shot of it (with K 85mm f1.8 wide open):
I am curious about the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 though too as the Noct-Nikkor seems to get most of the attention.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-27 21:34:33)
That price on K10 is just amazing. I've pretty much decided on a 40D, but for $500 I can hardly resist.
Take a look at the Dpreview of the K20. Ignore all the JPEG stuff go staright to the comparisons RAW. You may again reconsider.
Not a typo, I was just looking at the rating of the Nikon 50mm f1.2 in that chart. The pentax version seems to be pretty rare, but you see plenty of the nikon ones on ebay every day. Great lens, I found it ever sharper than my previous champ at this focal range the Tak 55mm f1.8 Super-Multi-Coated.
Not a typo, I was just looking at the rating of the Nikon 50mm f1.2 in that chart. The pentax version seems to be pretty rare, but you see plenty of the nikon ones on ebay every day. Great lens, I found it ever sharper than my previous champ at this focal range the Tak 55mm f1.8 Super-Multi-Coated.
Ah! That makes sense I was just confused. The Pentax one indeed doesn't seem to come up that often. Now that I look at the chart again that is impressive to see where the regular Nikkor is.
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-28 00:07:29)
I didn't know about the 55mm f1.8 versus f2.
The 55/1.8 and 55/2 are exactly the same lens (6 element in 5 groups). Pentax needed an entry level standard lens, so it put a limiter ring inside the 55/1.8 and sold it as 55/2.0. On the early versions of the 55/2, the ring can be removed to turn the lens into a full 55/1.8.
Cheers!
Sebastien
Last edited by Sebastien (2008-01-28 02:11:16)
I too am amazed by how well the 50/1.2 did compared to the 85/1.8
I've owned both (at seperate times) and allways felt the 85/1.8 is better.Sample variation perhaps.
That said i am amazed by the 50/1.2 in general.While i haven't measured any specific aspects of my 50/1.2 lens i can say it's certainly very good wide open!
cogitech can you explain those results? I'm guessing the intermediate scores are for sharpness,contrast, bokeh or vignetting,etc ? Which is which?
With regards to the comment about f1.2 lenses being more for show than usefullness,i tend to agree.Most f1.4 lenses are super sharp and very inexpensive for what you get.Just recently i was thinking i might sell the K50/1.2 and get a canon 50/1.4usm that better suits my camera.I allways have trouble achieving focus with manual focus anywhere near wide open 
I don't think i could sell it yet though,it's just too good looking,lol
Last edited by Ron Chappel (2008-01-28 04:37:13)
cvig wrote:I didn't know about the 55mm f1.8 versus f2.
The 55/1.8 and 55/2 are exactly the same lens (6 element in 5 groups). Pentax needed an entry level standard lens, so it put a limiter ring inside the 55/1.8 and sold it as 55/2.0. On the early versions of the 55/2, the ring can be removed to turn the lens into a full 55/1.8.
Thank you, very interesting!
I didn't know that, but always wondered what the difference may be.
Regarding the above shots:
Am I the only one who thinks that the photos are quite soft?
I know it's wide open, but I think this should be better, at least in the center.
I don't have an f1.2 lens, only an f1.4 lens which is considerably better wide open.
May be a cheaper solution to those who want a f:1.2 lens for Pentax the Porst / Revuenon would be ok. I think Sebastien owns one ( http://cgi.ebay.de/LICHTRIESE-55-mm-1-1 … dZViewItem , http://cgi.ebay.de/Lichtriese-COSINON-A … dZViewItem ... )
The K200D data sheet is available and looks a K10D combined with a K100D: 10Mpx sensor (from K10D) , the body looks like the K100D , weather-sealed like K10D, it uses AA-R6 batteries like K100D, is has a vertical grip like K10D and customisable RAW button...etc. see : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012 … tk200d.asp , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-74vSaL_YY0
Did some searching to see if I could sell my Zuiko 55/1.2 and buy back another, like the Nikon or the Pentax, thought I'd share it:
Average selling prices:
1: Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.2
May be a cheaper solution to those who want a f:1.2 lens for Pentax the Porst / Revuenon would be ok. I think Sebastien owns one
Yes, it's a nice lens. As this kind of lens is destined to be used wide open (if not, buy a 50/1.7), here are my comments about this lens at f/1.2: it's quite sharp, with good contrast and soft bokeh. Like many superfast lenses, it suffers from spherical aberration (good for portrait). The main problem is that it exhibits some chromatic aberrations when used with certain subjects, but nothing redhibitory.
Here are some pictures taken with the Porst wide open (sorry if you have already seen the pictures):
Full size image: http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p442192408.jpg
Full size image: http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p495467873.jpg
Cheers,
Sebastien
Am I the only one who thinks that the photos are quite soft?
I know it's wide open, but I think this should be better, at least in the center.
I don't have an f1.2 lens, only an f1.4 lens which is considerably better wide open.
No, I also think the 50mm f1.2 shot is soft. But it is sharper than I thought it would be after taking some photos with it. I've gotten back the use of my tripod so I will try shooting again just in case blur is an issue (I suspect not). Did you also think the 85mm photo was soft?
I know Buze has one of these and I wonder what he thinks of it these days. There were some tests posted over at the Pentax SLR forum on DPReview in which the A and K versions of the 50mm f1.2 were compared. Wide open, the conclusion was the K was sharper on the edges. I believe both matched on the center.
Here are some photos I've taken with the 50mm f1.2 (linked to Flickr, unfortunately Flickr has a size too small and a size too large for posting in threads):
f1.2, 1/180, ISO 800
100%
f1.2, 1/60, ISO 800
100%
f1.2, 1/250, ISO 800, quick moving kid so focus probably a bit off
100%
Last edited by cvig (2008-01-28 16:42:31)
|
|
[ Generated in 0.050 seconds, 7 queries executed ]
