Apertures, what is it worth paying for?
Posted 18/12/2006 - 23:08
Link
The larger the aperture, the bigger, heavier and more expensive the lens.
The 50mm f0.95 lens was a Canon for the Canon 7 rangefinder camera system. It was a combination that was called the "Canon Dream" probably because no one could afford it...
Do we need lenses of greater than f1.4? Probably not these days. We can now just alter the ISO on our DSLRs and shoot in pretty much any light.
The f1.2 lens would have been useful for night shots with manual focusing and as a lens it was a very fine one too. You can still buy them (just) and SRS were advetising them at, I think, £399, only this last week.
But do you need one? Well, probably not, but it would be nice to have one!
The 50mm f0.95 lens was a Canon for the Canon 7 rangefinder camera system. It was a combination that was called the "Canon Dream" probably because no one could afford it...
Do we need lenses of greater than f1.4? Probably not these days. We can now just alter the ISO on our DSLRs and shoot in pretty much any light.
The f1.2 lens would have been useful for night shots with manual focusing and as a lens it was a very fine one too. You can still buy them (just) and SRS were advetising them at, I think, £399, only this last week.
But do you need one? Well, probably not, but it would be nice to have one!
Best regards, John
Posted 19/12/2006 - 00:55
Link
I have seen many arguments about the Pentax 50/1.2. Most are based around the cost difference for a neglible increase in speed. Before you could load 200ISO instead of 100 so it wasn't worth it. Now it is just alter the ISO on the D or whatever. I have seen the same argument between the 1.7 and 1.4.
However, the speed as such is not important to me, I don't do that much low light work. The increase in finder brightness and the ease of focussing is noticeable. Again for me, what is most important is the character of the lens. The 1.7 is perhaps the "sharpest" of the 3 and has the best flat field performance. The 1.4's give a much better 3D modeling effect and for general photography, I prefer the look over the 1.7. The difference is even more marked with the 1.2. It is also much easier to isolate the subject using a wide aperture.
If you are using one of the later cameras, the original K version is probably not worth the hassle of using a non A lens. If you need to work fairly wide and like the look, the 1.2 A is a very good investment.
As to the others, Canon produced the 0.95 for both TV and the Canon7. Leica produce the noctilux at F1.0. Both are RF lenses and specfically made for discreet low light work where flash would intrude.
Kim
However, the speed as such is not important to me, I don't do that much low light work. The increase in finder brightness and the ease of focussing is noticeable. Again for me, what is most important is the character of the lens. The 1.7 is perhaps the "sharpest" of the 3 and has the best flat field performance. The 1.4's give a much better 3D modeling effect and for general photography, I prefer the look over the 1.7. The difference is even more marked with the 1.2. It is also much easier to isolate the subject using a wide aperture.
If you are using one of the later cameras, the original K version is probably not worth the hassle of using a non A lens. If you need to work fairly wide and like the look, the 1.2 A is a very good investment.
As to the others, Canon produced the 0.95 for both TV and the Canon7. Leica produce the noctilux at F1.0. Both are RF lenses and specfically made for discreet low light work where flash would intrude.
Kim
Posted 19/12/2006 - 02:21
Link
Why not just a longer exposure?
After all, how much low light work is handheld?
Unless you're photographing football players in England...
After all, how much low light work is handheld?
Unless you're photographing football players in England...
Posted 19/12/2006 - 09:48
Link
Agree with Kim It's not just about maximum aperture.
I find the Pentax 50mm/f1.4 absolutely sublime. As Kim mentioned, the 1.7 is extremely sharp and flat-fielded (is that a word? ). But, the 1.4 with 8 aperture blades (as opposed to 6 of the 1.7) produces such a beautiful soft out of focus rendition I can't match it. I've yet to see anything else like it...
I've had both the SMC-A and the SMC-F. Optically both are amazing. The SMC-A was a delight to use - being wonderfully engineered, but for low light, and with my poor eyesight I had to stick to the SMC-F.
However, shooting in low light with wide apertures you need super critical focus. I'm sure the SMC-A 50/f1.2 is wonderful, but unfortunately I can't justify it's use
I reckon the Pentax f1.4's are amazing value for money, with the SMC-FA available new for around £160. Until you've used one, you don't know what you're missing
Matt
I find the Pentax 50mm/f1.4 absolutely sublime. As Kim mentioned, the 1.7 is extremely sharp and flat-fielded (is that a word? ). But, the 1.4 with 8 aperture blades (as opposed to 6 of the 1.7) produces such a beautiful soft out of focus rendition I can't match it. I've yet to see anything else like it...
I've had both the SMC-A and the SMC-F. Optically both are amazing. The SMC-A was a delight to use - being wonderfully engineered, but for low light, and with my poor eyesight I had to stick to the SMC-F.
However, shooting in low light with wide apertures you need super critical focus. I'm sure the SMC-A 50/f1.2 is wonderful, but unfortunately I can't justify it's use
I reckon the Pentax f1.4's are amazing value for money, with the SMC-FA available new for around £160. Until you've used one, you don't know what you're missing
Matt
Posted 19/12/2006 - 12:23
Link
Matt,
I have an M42 Super Takumar f1:1.4 (Old Yeller) now sun-cured, with 6 blades. I love the results from this lens. I've never been able to express why - but I guess it ain't the Bokeh in my case.
Did Pentax switch to 8 aperture blades when they produced the Kmount SMC?
Was this the only change other than mount and coating - ie: elements and groups still the same design?
Thanks as always and
Cheers
I have an M42 Super Takumar f1:1.4 (Old Yeller) now sun-cured, with 6 blades. I love the results from this lens. I've never been able to express why - but I guess it ain't the Bokeh in my case.
Did Pentax switch to 8 aperture blades when they produced the Kmount SMC?
Was this the only change other than mount and coating - ie: elements and groups still the same design?
Thanks as always and
Cheers
Mac from Montreal
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
Posted 20/12/2006 - 12:07
Link
Well hopefully I'll be able to compare a Super Tak f/1.4 and a SMC-FA f/1.4 later... I'm just off to pick up an FA now.
By the way, I don't know what movie a f/0.95 was used for, but Kubrick used a f/0.7 for Barry Lyndon.
By the way, I don't know what movie a f/0.95 was used for, but Kubrick used a f/0.7 for Barry Lyndon.
Do you know where your towel is?
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
90 posts
21 years
Reading,
Berkshire
We got to talking about the maximum apertures we had come across, but I fail to see why small increases in aperture are so worthwhile.
The light transmission is proportional to the area of the lens and the f number is expressed as the focal length divided by the diameter. So the area doubles for every 1/Sqrt2 change in f, ie f2.0 f1.4, f1, f0.7, f0.5 with half stops at f2.4, f1.7, f1.2, f0.85. I believe Pentax used to have an f1.2 lens, but I can't remember seeing it mentioned recently. My friend was saying that he recalled an f0.95 lens being made for some cinematic purpose, but surely the depth of field would have been negligible? All that cost, and it's only an extra stop from f1.4. It seems to me that the law of diminishing returns must apply here.
Am I missing something, or is it really worth spending vast amounts extra to go beyond f1.4? And these sorts of aperture are only available around 50mm focal length in prime lenses.
Malcolm
Life? Don't talk to me about life!