Thanks, Miserere. Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't wear eye
glasses or contact lenses, so your opinion is that of a sharp eyed man,
is it not? :-)
On 12/4/2012 7:03 AM, Miserere wrote:
I have to agree with Boris here, manually focusing at f/1.2 through an
OVF, even with a split prism screen, is extremely difficult, and even
then there is practically zero tolerance for missplaced mirrors,
screens or sensors. On the other hand, getting sharp pics with an EVF
is child's play, even without focus peaking. I'd relegated the 50mm
f/1.2 to the shelf until it came back to life on the Samsung NX10.
I won't divulge how much I paid either, but I didn't think it was that
much considering what Canon charge for their 50mm f/1.2, AF or not.
Cheers,
—M.
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
On 3 December 2012 23:53, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote:
I ain't no collector, but I agree with Jim completely.
I've developed a bit of a fancy towards 50mm lenses having at this very
moment a bunch of them, including FA 50/1.4 and A 50/1.2. A 50/1.2 is by far
my favorite (even on top of FA 43). In fact, I plan to try it immediately
when my Ricoh Leica module arrives.
You see, it is indeed rather difficult lens to use. Modern DSLR cameras
don't have sufficiently tight tolerances for placing of the focusing screen,
which is a requirement if you wish to shoot (close to) wide open and achieve
precise focusing.
I've been doing all kinds of things in order to achieve that state of
"nirvana". The best effort was Katz Eye screen on my K10D which was spot on.
Then came K-7 saga (took me order of 1/2 year to get it right) and then came
K-5 with special Canon e-SS screen that I bought from PentaxForums. But over
time my eyesight declined and I cannot easily focus with optical viewfinders
any more. So I'm going to try with focus peeking now.
In terms of IQ - I find this lens outstanding. It renders differently than
FA 50/1.4 or FA 43/1.9 but I rather like its rendering. And closed down it's
sharpness is second to none - no issues here whatsoever.
I won't tell you how little money I paid for my copy... ;-)
Boris
On 12/4/2012 4:25 AM, James King wrote:
Krisjanis Linkevics wrote on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:18:44 -0800:
Don't bother with the f/1.2. It is nice and all but
price/performance is totally unacceptable.
Kris, I have to disagree with you on this, at least in regards to IQ.
I have 3 copies of the Pentax 50/1.2 lenses and while they are a bit
dreamy wide open, when stopped down a bit they are very good - as
good as or better than my Pentax 50/1.4 lenses, especially when
considering rendering. As to cost, no argument there - they are very
pricey today.
They are beautifully made examples of the lensmakers' art from the
era before "plastic fantastic" became the order of the day, and as a
collector I'm glad to have them. Of course YMMV…
Regards, Jim
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
