How much is a .2 f/stop worth?

[NB23]

While pricing depends on costs, there are other factors as well. There is NO specific formula to determine price. Demand plays a part. Because people want Apple iPhones more than some others, or Leica for example, manufacturers increase prices, margins and profit all other things remaining equal. Competition is another factor. If you've gotten yourself into a niche market, then you can raise prices higher than usual such as for special lenses. If prices are set too high initially, something that happens often to test the market, manufacturers quickly lower the price, offer discounts and rebates. With the virus, you're going to see a lot of that as sales dry up. .

Of course there are specific formulas. That’s at lease what I learned in my business degree. Lots of calculations, studying models... But of course, you must know better.

 

[NB23]

Likely because Nikon made significantly more 50mm (and 55mm) f/1.2 lenses than Pentax and perhaps, also because the Nikon f/1.2 lenses have a reputation for not performing too well wide open. As Bill noted above that extra half stop (over f/1.4) was mainly seen as helpful for focusing the SLR in dim light.

No, that was not the idea. The viewfinder doesn’t show brighter than f2.8, sometimes even f3.5. This is well documented.
Just test it yourself with the dof lever, for example. Or better yet, why the bokeh is not nearly the same from what you see in tne VF versus what’s captured.

Fast lenses were produced EXCLUSIVELY for low light shooting. Half a stop meant a lot, with film.

 

[StanMac]

It’s 1/2 a stop, not 1/5th, or 0.2 as you say.

Yeah, I realize that - the .2 just stuck in my head as the difference in f/number rather than the 1/2 stop in light transmission.

Stan

 

[Huss]

Due to the design challenges for such a fast lens, they are invariably of worse image quality than their slightly slower siblings. The Zuiko 50f1.2 is well know for being the worst of the 50mm Zuikos.

Maybe for that Zuiko, but not with most other mfgs.
The Nikon 50 1.2 AIS is better than the 1.4 and 1.8 at their max apertures, let alone the fact it can shoot at 1.2.
They pretty much all even out by F5.6-8.

As other have mentioned, the rendering is very different wide open.

 

[Huss]

A SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.2 I was watching on shop goodwill just went for $314 in a bidding frenzy yesterday. For a SMC Pentax-M 50mm that’s well over a 400% premium for that extra half stop of a f/1.2 over a f/1.4. Is it worth that much for a film user or is it more about having that honking big piece of glass on the front of your camera for all to see? Just asking ...

Stan

Seems like a decent price for that lens.

Cheaper stuff tends to be cheaper...

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, That's what made 400 ISO TriX so popular when it came out. 400 was like lightning at the time.

From memory Tri-X was only 160 ASA when first released, but that was more than 20 years before the ASA/BS revision of B&W ilm speeds removing a one stop safetly factor. Also Ilford Hypersensitive Panchromatic plates had been released in 1931 and as a 160 ASA roll & sheet film in 1934, in fact HP2 was launched just before Tri-X..

Ilford HPS a 400ASA and Kodak Royal-X 640 ASA films were available a year before Kodak re-launched Tri-X 200 ASa in 1954, all these speeds doubled when ASA/BS standards were revised.

Ian

 

[138S]

The 50/2 is my least favorite Pentax K mount standard lens. It isn't nearly as good as the 55/1.8 and 55/2 SMC Pentax lenses or the later 50/1.7 SMC Pemtax-M.

Yes... to me the 1.7 is a "best buy" choice, lightweight and very good.

 

[EdSawyer]

I have a lot of vintage lens tests posted, and was pretty obsessed/focused on fast 50s for a while, so there's lots of tests of those:

www.edsawyer.com/lenstets/

"Best" is hard to define, but the pentax is certainly a contender. Coincidentally I have one for sale if anyone is interested. I sort of got over my "fast 50mm" phase, this is one of the last 3 fast 50s I have left I think. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1613088/

 

[ic-racer]

I do most of my 35mm photography with available light and have always wanted a f1.2 lens. However, for my two main 35mm SLR systems, f1.2 lenses were never made. No Nikkor 1.2 Autofocus, no Zeiss 1.2 for Rollei. This thread did cause me to check that B&H does sell NEW non-autofocus Nikkor f.1.2 for about $700. That is not bad for any brand new name brand lens for a film camera.

In fact the selling price of $700 for the f1.2 is ONE-HALF the price of the Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens.

So, I might say that among NEW lenses, the f1.2 NIKKOR can be had a DISCOUNT rather than a premium.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you are shooting low light scenes the half f/stop is worth it. If you are shooting wide open for depth of field, it might not be worth it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.2 I was watching on shop goodwill just went for $314 in a bidding frenzy yesterday. For a SMC Pentax-M 50mm that’s well over a 400% premium for that extra half stop of a f/1.2 over a f/1.4. Is it worth that much for a film user or is it more about having that honking big piece of glass on the front of your camera for all to see? Just asking ...

Stan

I owned another 50 1.2. It was more than 314 USD even used. And it was worth it on film. Especially, if not most, on color.
And not always on f1.2. It was professional series lens with different than in f1.4 glass materials.

Also I wouldn't call lens with 52mm filter size as "honking big piece of glass".

 

[Huss]

Yes... to me the 1.7 is a "best buy" choice, lightweight and very good.

But not the SMC-A version. That may be one of the worst built lenses I have come across.

 

[dynachrome]

Paul,

Konica's fast standard lens was a 57/1.2. It was Minolta which made a 58/1.2. What about the 52/1.7? Konica's 52 was an f/1.8 lens. In 1973 the 57/1.4 and 52/1.8 lenses were replaced by the 501.4 and 50/1.8. The f/1.2 lens was kept a 57 and got improved coating and a rubber covered focusing ring but otherwise was not redesigned. Years later Konica sold the 40/1.8 and 50/1.8. These last two lenses were supposed to have been designed by Konica but manufactured by Tokina. Finally, there was a version of the 50/1.8 with a plastic barrel. Going backward in time Konica made a 52/1.4, a 52/1.8 and a budget 50/2 in the old F mount.

 

[Bill Burk]

No, that was not the idea. The viewfinder doesn’t show brighter than f2.8, sometimes even f3.5. This is well documented.
Just test it yourself with the dof lever, for example. Or better yet, why the bokeh is not nearly the same from what you see in tne VF versus what’s captured.

Fast lenses were produced EXCLUSIVELY for low light shooting. Half a stop meant a lot, with film.

Ok I take it back.

I often use Super Takumar lenses on ES-II which guarantees that I must focus stopped-down. It’s much easier wide open when the microprism is “clear”. This requires the light to come from different angles. It doesn’t have to be “brighter” but it “has to be at least f/2.8”.

I think you are right that it’s not about finder brightness, it’s about getting enough light on film for a good picture by available light.

The Canon Pellix (which uses a semi-transparent fixes mirror) came in a bundle with an f/1.2 lens and you needed the extra half stop because the mirror took either half or a third of the light for the finder. (Depends on source - some say 1/3 some say 1/2. One source - Butkus - calls the mirror “half bans parent” which I am sure is an OCR mistake).

 

[Pflaumesaft]

IMO, not worth it. The wider the aperture, the more likely it is to suffer from focus shift problems.

 

[AgX]

I offered locally 15Euro for my sample of a F1.2 lens, including the camera hanging from it, and got it. So, such is still possible.
I have not got the time to test it, but in general MTF's and image comparisons are bad for those bored-out lenses.

 

[GarageBoy]

No focus shift if you only shoot wide open!

F1.2 was/is super useful when every little bit of light helps (like when you're shooting ASA 100 color slide film into the evening or indoors)

 

[Les Sarile]

Is it a need or a want . . .

One thing not mentioned is the fact that wide open and with ultra narrow DOF is your viewfinder better be big and bright or you won't get perfect critical focus. Which makes these pretty useless on camera bodies with tiny magnifications.

 

[AgX]

I do most of my 35mm photography with available light and have always wanted a f1.2 lens.

If you are shooting low light scenes the half f/stop is worth it.

To make use of this 1/2 stop gain in aperture for rising shutter speed (to avoid blurr) one would need 1/2 stops at the speed setting, which are not available at manual cameras, and for the rest typically only at auto-exposure.

Otherwise it is only about 1/2 stop gain at the shadows.