Someone tell me I don't need a SMC-K 50mm f1.2


whelmed

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 14:19
Gah, someone has a SMC-K 50mm f1.2 in great condition and wants 300GBP for it... I've already got a FA50 f1.4, and I find it too zoomed up!

Someone, tell me I don't need this (and by someone, I don't mean my wife)
K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8

pschlute

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 14:31
You don't need it.....

..... but you buy it anyway.

Actually 300 is a bit steep for the "K" version.
Peter



My Flickr page

whelmed

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 14:40
Hrm, really? I've only seen both the K and A going for obscene amounts on the bay. Where can one get one for cheaper then?
K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8

pschlute

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 14:53
whelmed wrote:
Hrm, really? I've only seen both the K and A going for obscene amounts on the bay. Where can one get one for cheaper then?

Maybe I am a bit behind the times then. i picked up a new A-50 1.2 for 325 about a year and a half ago. Also on ebay from a Japanese seller that had a batch of them.
Peter



My Flickr page

whelmed

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 14:59
O-rly? Hrm, any chance you still have his contact?
K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8

pschlute

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 15:15
whelmed wrote:
O-rly? Hrm, any chance you still have his contact?

Yes this is the chap matsuiyajapan2005@yahoo.co.jp. You can do a search and see if he still sells on ebay.

I also must point out that the lens was priced in dollars, and in May 2008 when I bought it the exchange rate was about 1.9500 , making it cheaper in sterling.
Peter



My Flickr page

iceblinker

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 16:15
No one needs to need a lens to buy it
~Pete

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 16:26
How usable is it wide open? The depth of field would be phenomenal but only if it's sharp and lacking nasty aberrations. Your f1.2 is, by all accounts and outstanding optic!

Regards,

Andrew
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Father Ted

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 16:26
Tell you what.
You buy it and I'll look after it for you. That way your wife will never know
Getting there! Thanks to you guys

Pentax K10d, *istDL, Kit lens ( 18-55mm ), 50mm f1.7 lens, Tamron 70-300mm lens, Prinzflex 70-162 manual lens, Various old flashes.
Last Edited by Father Ted on 09/03/2010 - 16:26

Anvh

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 17:19
whelmed wrote:
I've already got a FA50 f1.4, and I find it too zoomed up!

A change in aperture won't change that
The only thing a f/1.2 does over a f/1.4 is that at f/1.2 the field where in everything is harp is smaller and that more light falls onto the sensor so you could faster shutter-speed and lower iso but there isn't so much in between f/1.2 and f/1.4 though.

If you want a more zoomed out kind of lens you need a wider focal length like around the 35mm.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 09/03/2010 - 17:20

Dangermouse

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 17:47
You could always save around 250 and buy a Pentax-M 28mm f3.5. Great lens, very sharp and with the crop factor it comes out at around 42mm.

That said, I'd love a K 50mm (either version). Nearly bought an M 50mm f1.4 for 55 a few days ago but "thought about it" for too long. Oh well, there'll be another one along eventually and my MX works just as well with the f1.7 version...
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

K10D

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 20:16
Lets not forget that the crop factor is field of view. The magnification stays the same, so a 50mm lens has a field of view of a 75mm but does not have the same lack of focus as a true portrait length.

This is unfortunately the burden of FF lenses with cropped sensors.

A 400mm lens on cropped has a FOV of a 600mm lens yet still only has the 8x effective "closer" view.

The term compromise would come to mind.

Regards

Anvh

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 20:29
Please stop with the crop factor thing, if Whelmed has only use an APS-C camera then a crop factor wouldn't mean a thing for him only complicating things.
And burden, what burden?
An 400mm f/4 is certainly lighter then a 600mm f/4

So Whelmed if you find photography hard enough already and never used an 135 camera then forget what those two guys above me said about crop factor, just forget it since you don't need it then. It makes photography a lot simpler
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 09/03/2010 - 20:30

PG

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 21:33
It's a manual lens isn't it? At f/1.2 you're going to have to be really fast and accurate at focusing or you're going to miss a lot of shots.
PhilipGoh.com - Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 21:43
Not to mention having to hit the green button every time to stop-down meter Is it really worth the expense compared to an M 1.7? Only if you're a collector I guess!

I'd save the money towards a 35*Ltd macro
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.