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


mikew

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 22:36
Quote:
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.

If I understand it correctly the 1.2 is used for 'soft' portraits in very controlled situations. Do you rely on AF for grabbing shots? I don't think I would - I do use AF but if it's going to be grabbed then I tend to pre focus and wait for the subject to be 'in range' but at 1.2 that ain't gonna happen.

Get yourself a nice easy to use Sigma 30/1.4
---------------------------------------------------

You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.

Dangermouse

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 23:00
Pentaxophile wrote:
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!

Not to mention the fact that at some apertures the stop-down metering is a bit off - in my experience it seems that when you go much below f8 you start having problems. At least, that seems to be the case on most manual lenses.

I would be torn between an M 50mm f1.4 and an M 40mm for my MX. The 40mm might just edge it as it'd be more useful in creating a compact SLR, and it was a popular choice for a standard lens on an MX too. However, at the prices charged I see little chance of my getting one. I draw the line at paying over 50 for a mass produced lens that was available for many years and of which plenty were sold!
Matt

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

mowog

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 23:09
Resist, Brother. RESIST!! - The Devil sends these things to tempt us.
Take it from this old sinner; The road to Hell is paved with fast fifties, long telephotos and preposterously priced wideangles! - Take a cold shower.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

mayday

Link Posted 09/03/2010 - 23:16
The first signs of LBA
Regards
David

Retired at last - now all that time for photography - you would think: wink:

whelmed

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 01:15
The last time I got this urge I wound up with a Tamron 500mm SP 55BB mirror lens - I love the beast and actually have used it quite a few times. I think I'll be able to resist, just need to sleep on it.

Well that, and my wife is back at 8:30am tomorrow, so she'll knock some sense into me!
K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8

K10D

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 04:47
Anvh wrote:
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

Anvh, you are ignoring the fact that a FOV equivalent lens does not offer the same magnification or compression effect as the actual lens.

Who mentioned weight of lenses? The comparison is for the magnification factor only.

I agree that for people who have never used FF or 35mm film cameras that they would not need to worry, but what is wrong with knowing the actual effect of using a lens on a camera that it was not designed for?

Regards
Last Edited by K10D on 10/03/2010 - 05:02

K10D

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 05:28
This is of use to those that are interested in "mix & match" lens/camera combinations.

link

It is good reading. IMO.

Regards

timo

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 08:26
whelmed wrote:
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)

I can't comment on the price but the lens is terrific. Wide open it loses some contrast and gains a bit of 'glow' around highlights, but it is still sharp where it is in focus - the super-narrow dof makes focusing close-up a challenge: but LV fixes that beautifully. Stopped down one click the contrast increases dramatically. Used at more conventional apertures it is (as far as I can tell pixel-peeping on a 24-in iMac) as sharp as the M50 1.7 at the centre, but sharper than the 1.7 away from the centre. A great lens for handheld night shots or inside cathedrals, museums etc.

And then of course you can do all those swirly-whirly flower shots ...

But it's heavy - great for knocking out burglars.
Tim

pschlute

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 09:54
Sensible hat on: the M-50mm 1.4 will do the job at much less cost.

Sensible hat off: get the 1.2 and you will fall in love with it. It is a work of art.
Peter



My Flickr page

mayday

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 10:16
Well mine, the A version, has arrived at the post room at work! Purchased it the other day from another Pentax Forum. I am supposed to be fitting the kitchen at the moment (Stopped for coffee etc) Now wondering whether I should go and pick the lens up... Could mean a diversion though from kitchen fitting because of all comments on the lens I would have to go out and try it
It was purchased - without sensible hat on, as I already have the 1.7 and 1.4. However, without sensible head, I have read and re-read about this "Legendary" lens and decided I must get one

LBA Rules
Regards
David

Retired at last - now all that time for photography - you would think: wink:
Last Edited by mayday on 10/03/2010 - 10:18

Mongoose

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 12:28
K10D wrote:
Anvh wrote:
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

Anvh, you are ignoring the fact that a FOV equivalent lens does not offer the same magnification or compression effect as the actual lens.

Who mentioned weight of lenses? The comparison is for the magnification factor only.

I agree that for people who have never used FF or 35mm film cameras that they would not need to worry, but what is wrong with knowing the actual effect of using a lens on a camera that it was not designed for?

Regards

K10D I know you know this, but your last two posts could read confusingly for a beginner so forgive me pointing this out in words of one sylable.

A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. Focal length is a property of the optic and has no bearing on what the image is projected onto. I have a 50mm f/2.8 prime for my Auto110. Within design tolerances it produces exactly the same magnification and depth of field at the sensor as a 50mm in K mount does (the 110 lens would vignette horribly of course but let's ignore that for now).

It doesn't matter if a lens is designed for a DSLR, 35mm film, cine camera or Menkar Imaging Goop from the planet Ceti Alpha 6. If it has a focal length of 50mm, it will still have a focal length of 50mm when attached to your DSLR. (although obviously Menkar lens coatings are optimised for rather redder light than our own Sun produces so the flare will be horrible).


What K10D is getting at is that people who grew up with 35mm film often like to say that a 50mm lens on a DSLR is like a 75mm lens on film. This is true in terms of field of view, but not in terms of depth of field, which is of particular importance when considering a portrait length.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

Mongoose

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 12:31
K10D wrote:
This is of use to those that are interested in "mix & match" lens/camera combinations.

link

It is good reading. IMO.

Regards

good link
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help
Last Edited by Mongoose on 10/03/2010 - 12:31

K10D

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 12:43
No problem.

I do actually have a K 50mm f1.2 as well as the usual smattering of 50mm f/1.4, 1.7 and an f/2. I bought it in Saudi back in 1988 on a black ME Super. Cheap as chips then. The "desire" was FAST glass and LONG glass. Too young and daft at the time. Now older and stupid.

Regards
Last Edited by K10D on 10/03/2010 - 12:49

Dangermouse

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 15:01
Long, fast glass still seems to be desirable. Although the only fast telephoto I own is a K 120mm f2.8 (not aware of Pentax having offered any others with similar aperture apart from the * and Limited series?)
Matt

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

Anvh

Link Posted 10/03/2010 - 15:47
K10D I was only joking
You said burden and I translated that to the burden of carry a FA* 600mm f/4 lens, don't take it so serious

K10D wrote:
I agree that for people who have never used FF or 35mm film cameras that they would not need to worry, but what is wrong with knowing the actual effect of using a lens on a camera that it was not designed for?

That's a yes and no answer in my case since it does not add any value of knowing it if you only use an APS-C sensor.

And then it's about focal length but focal length is lens specific not camera.
An 55mm MF lens would preform the same as a 55mm FF lens on a FF camera and they both act the same on an APS-C camera as well.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.