K 50mm/1.2 - does it worth the buy?

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by costin_oproiu, May 26, 2008.

  1. The lens is in very good condition. Still noticed it has the same optical
    formula then the current 50/1.4. Does it worth some extra money for this sh lens?

    Thank you,
  2. It's a decent lens but not worth much ($40?).
  3. Hey Mike, On what planet are they selling the 1.2 for $40, I'm want to buy me a dozen.......Jim
  4. The 50/1.4 is $300 here while the 50/1.2 (manual) is $400. The question is if I am getting something special for the extra money.
  5. According to owners at http://stans-photography.info/ not worth it at all. In contrast, good examples of the 50/1.7 M can often be had in Europe for less than EUR25.
  6. Jim, sorry I read it as the f1:2.
  7. stemked

    stemked Moderator

    Speaking only from the film world the two Pentax 50mm f1.2s were said to be a tad soft at f1.2 and 'razor sharp' at f5.6. However why anyone would spend that much, add that much more weight, when the 50mm f1.4 is fantastic and only 1/2 stop slower is beyond me. Looks cool with all that glass, I suppose.
  8. Costin, I have that lens .. made in 1976. It is heavy, and it is soft at 1.2, but otherwise it is pretty awesome. I posted some photos here that I had taken with it, can't find the thread right now, but here's aa couple:
  9. I have this lens too and it's pretty cool. Yes, it's soft at f1.2 but not unusably so. It's a beautifully built lens and of course it will let you go that much further into 'available darkness' territory. Here are a few samples from mine:


    The cat shot is wide open and I think "Andy" is too.

  10. The lens has performed very well for me, and it's a little easier to focus in poor light due to the slightly brighter screen and shorter DoF. Mine came with a nice used LX, and the combination handles well. As with most other Pentax 50mm lenses of the past 40 years its optical design is like the SLR Planars.
  11. i was thinking of trying to hunt down this lens as well.
  12. I have it, and here is some photo I took with it. I got it from evil bay for $320<p>

    @ f1.2<br>
    <img src="http://testing.3dfs.ca/hidden/CherryBlur.jpg"><br>
    <img src="http://testing.3dfs.ca/hidden/CherryBlur2.jpg"><br>
    <img src="http://testing.3dfs.ca/hidden/cherryBL.jpg"><p>
    @f6 I think<br>
    <img src="http://testing.3dfs.ca/hidden/HPpath.jpg">
  13. To me it is quite sharp at f1.2, see #1 and 3. what you need to be sure is that you have really nail the focus, a split screen focus screen helps me alot when I use this lens with my K10D. Therefore, it is of course your call on if you want to spend the $ on it or not :)
  14. One more for you.. <p>
    @1.2, see that edge on the upper right and bottom of the flower? that's how thin the DOF.<br>
    <img src="http://testing.3dfs.ca/hidden/IMGP1404.jpg">
  15. Having used Canon's FD 55mm f1.2's, it's not so much that you want to shoot at f1.2, but that you want the brightest possible viewfinder picture when you are focusing. Even so, f1.2's are generally not worth the premium prices they fetch, compared to the makers' f1.4's.
  16. I'm really surprised by the negative comments people are leaving about the Pentax 50mm 1.2. I have used all the 50mm smc-m (the 50/1.2 is technically just smc in my case, I have not handled the A) and the 50mm 1.2 is hands down the strongest performer and well worth the money, particularly when one considers the cost of 50mm 1.2 Canon or Nikon lenses.
    In terms of sharpness wide open, the 1.2 won't beat the 1.7 or f2 but it is no slouch either. It's pretty much impossible to build a lens that's as sharp at 1.2, or even 1.4 as an f2 lens. If you are looking for maximum sharpness, wide open is not where you want to be on 90% of all lenses anyway so I'm not really sure why that would get such weighty consideration. If you want to talk sharpness, the 1.2 stopped down is the clearest piece of Pentax glass I've ever seen and draws more similarly to pro level Nikons but with a little more character.
    Size and weight? The 1.2 is a bit of a beast and even requires a 52mm instead of 49mm filter thread. Mounting it to my ME Super reminds me just how small the M Series are. But it's not annoyingly heavy or big and is certainly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 50mm 1.2. It's also not THAT much heavier than the Pentax SMC-M 50mm 1.4 yet I find the 1.2's performance at all apertures markedly superior. If you want the fastest compact Pentax 50 manual K-mount, the 1.7 comes out on top. 1.2's are big lenses. As with wide open sharpness, this just comes with the territory. And personally, I never saw weight as a bad thing when it comes to quality camera/lens construction (which is partly why I am not interested in digital cameras.)
    While it is only a fraction of a stop brighter than the 1.4 or 1.7, I find it really brightens up my viewfinders too, making focusing much more easy and accurate. While nailing focus at 1.2 and a close distance can be tricky, even with my poor eyes I am here to report that it's very much possible, particularly with a split screen.
    Here are some of my favourite shots with the 1.2:
    An album containing the larger versions and more can be found here:
  17. I don't have the 1.2, but I do have the A 1.7 and that is a wonderful lens. I got mine for about $100 with a bunch of filters thrown in on eBay. A good value IMO.

Share This Page