How much is a .2 f/stop worth?

[StanMac]

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

 

[BradS]

Some optics are for making photos and some are for showing off. That 400% premium is the cost of having bragging rights.

and then there’s supply and demand to consider.

 

[bsdunek]

Some optics are for making photos and some are for showing off. That 400% premium is the cost of having bragging rights.

and then there’s supply and demand to consider.

I think you're right. Back in the day, I had a Retina Reflex with a f1.9 lens. I was told that was a lot better than a f2.0!

 

[StepheKoontz]

There is a bigger difference in light transmission between a f1.2 and a f1.4 than there is between say an f5.6 and an f6.3 lens. And f1.2 vs a f1.4 is actually 1/2 a stop of light. So as you approach f1.0, each 0.2 of a stop requires a much larger and more expensive lens. Also, those super fast lenses many times render very differently than their slower cousins, plus as someone said, supply and demand. When they were new, the f1.2 would have been a LOT more expensive, therefore less were sold. If you wanna see how out of hand super fast normals can get, go price a Noct-nikkor.

 

[NB23]

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

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Image quality plays into it as well. The faster lenses are more difficult to design and manufacture. Getting good quality across the image is not always good. And on some it is. The Noct Nikkor 58MM f1.2 is an example. Sells for big money and worth it apparently. I've no personal experience with one and must depend on other's reports. But the fact it still sells quickly when available says a lot. All that said I will own one.

 

[Ian Grant]

The SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.2 is quite a rare lens so sought after, you rarely see them for sale.

Ian

 

[dynachrome]

I don't remember ever seeing a 50mm f/1.2 SMC Pentax-M. The M lenses were more compact than the earlier SMC Pentax lenses (35mm). There was no realistic way of making a smaller version of the 50mm f/1.2 SMC Pentax so an M version was never made as far as I know. Before Pentax brought out its bayonet mount cameras and lenses in 1975, it was behind the times in other ways. Its fastest 28mm lens in M42 mount was an f/3.5. Its fastest standard lens was the 50/1.4. Tomioka did make a 55/1.2 under the Chinon name (and others). Its fastest 35 was an f/2. I'm still not clear on whether the 35/1.4 K lens shown on the old Dimitrov website was a prototype or a production model. These missing faster lenses caused professional and advanced amateurs to look elsewhere. By the time the 50/1.2 SMC Pentax came out, there were few buyers for it. This lens and some other fast Pentax K mount lenses are expensive mostly because they are rare. The 50/1.4 SMC Pentax is one of my favorite standard lenses. Do I have any f/1.2 lenses? Yes. There are two 57/1.2 Konica Hexanons, a 55/1.2 Canon FL and an older 58/1.2 Canon FL. I don't use these very often but the Hexanons are much better at or near wide open than either of the Canon FLs. The 50mm f/2 SMC Pentax-M is sometimes confused with the 50/1.2 by internet sellers. 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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The extra light was more important in film days. It helped see the subject when you were manually focusing especially when the light was dim. DIgital cameras compensate and you can see the image in the viewfinder with "darker" lenses. ALso, with film, the ISO was a lot lower than you can use with digital. So you may have needed few extra stops of lights due to the lower shutter speeds. Being able to shoot faster could eliminate movement blur. Again, a requirement not necessarily needed today with good digital sensors. Just raise the ISO and shoot faster. As far as DOF, at f/1.2, you're going to get maybe an inch or two DOF which is a little too much in portraits. You'll want to stop down anyway to increase the DOF you you get the whole head in focus. Looking at a focused eye and a blurry nose just doesn;t look right most of the time. Also, heavier lens have more glass that distorts more. A higher f stop lens is easier to make because there's less glass and may more accurately transmit the light. They're also heavier and more expensive.

So it's mainly bragging rights.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the days of Yore the 60s and 70s in photojournalism the rage was available light photography, a reaction to the ever present flash bulb on press cameras in the 40s and 50s. I had a Konica 58 1.2, as I understood it was a 1/2 stop faster than the 1.4, and was optimised to shot wide open. When I was shooting in bright light used a Konica 52 1.7 which at F8 or 11 was sharper than the 1.2 . I still miss the 1.2, but not enough to pay for replacement. I traded in my Konica T and lens for a used Nikon F with motor drive.

 

[Alan Gales]

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

Stan, that lens is in demand for adapting to mirrorless digital cameras. They want it for shooting wide open.

Alan

 

[NB23]

All the glass elements composing a f1.2 lens will be about 50% bigger. It’s a whole other process and production line. It really costs more to produce. And there is less economy of scale with such lenses because of the lesser number produced.

The price is definitely NOT for bragging rights. The price reflects the whole production costs, and combined with demand for specific purposes (call it a niche), it ends up translated as a higher price.

There is a SPECIFIC mathematical formula for price setting all products. The faster lenses have their own specific formula for price setting, and it has nothing to do with bragging.

The used market has no mathematical formula but it has 3 specific rules:
1: price when new (in this instance, a f1.2 lens was double than a f1.4 lens), therefore it will remain double on the used market.
2: condition.
3: demand.


Wether you use it as a bragging device, it is up to you. But the price is definitely a reflection of a mathematical formula for correct price-setting. This is a university subject.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In the days of Yore the 60s and 70s in photojournalism the rage was available light photography, a reaction to the ever present flash bulb on press cameras in the 40s and 50s. I had a Konica 58 1.2, as I understood it was a 1/2 stop faster than the 1.4, and was optimised to shot wide open. When I was shooting in bright light used a Konica 52 1.7 which at F8 or 11 was sharper than the 1.2 . I still miss the 1.2, but not enough to pay for replacement. I traded in my Konica T and lens for a used Nikon F with motor drive.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All the glass elements composing a f1.2 lens will be about 50% bigger. It’s a whole other process and production line. It really costs more to produce. And there is less economy of scale with such lenses because of the lesser number produced.

The price is definitely NOT for bragging rights. The price reflects the whole production costs, and combined with demand for specific purposes (call it a niche), it ends up translated as a higher price.

There is a SPECIFIC mathematical formula for price setting all products. The faster lenses have their own specific formula for price setting, and it has nothing to do with bragging.

Wether you use it as a bragging device, it is up to you.

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. .

 

[johnha]

As mentioned, the lens wasn't produced as Pentax-M it was only available as 'SMC PENTAX' (a subtle difference, earlier lenses often referred to as the 'K' series) or later as an 'A' series lens.

Highly sought after as many think it has great bokeh, $300 ish sounds cheaper than most.

 

[Dali]

Wether you use it as a bragging device, it is up to you. But the price is definitely a reflection of a mathematical formula for correct price-setting. This is a university subject.

For brand-new lenses, maybe, but definitively not for used items. Here, it is just a offer-demand equation.

 

[StanMac]

I don't remember ever seeing a 50mm f/1.2 SMC Pentax-M. The M lenses were more compact than the earlier SMC Pentax lenses (35mm). There was no realistic way of making a smaller version of the 50mm f/1.2 SMC Pentax so an M version was never made as far as I know. Before Pentax brought out its bayonet mount cameras and lenses in 1975, it was behind the times in other ways. Its fastest 28mm lens in M42 mount was an f/3.5. Its fastest standard lens was the 50/1.4. Tomioka did make a 55/1.2 under the Chinon name (and others). Its fastest 35 was an f/2. I'm still not clear on whether the 35/1.4 K lens shown on the old Dimitrov website was a prototype or a production model. These missing faster lenses caused professional and advanced amateurs to look elsewhere. By the time the 50/1.2 SMC Pentax came out, there were few buyers for it. This lens and some other fast Pentax K mount lenses are expensive mostly because they are rare. The 50/1.4 SMC Pentax is one of my favorite standard lenses. Do I have any f/1.2 lenses? Yes. There are two 57/1.2 Konica Hexanons, a 55/1.2 Canon FL and an older 58/1.2 Canon FL. I don't use these very often but the Hexanons are much better at or near wide open than either of the Canon FLs. The 50mm f/2 SMC Pentax-M is sometimes confused with the 50/1.2 by internet sellers. 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.

You are right, Sir! The lens did not sport the -M designation.

My apologies.

Stan

 

[StanMac]

Stan, that lens is in demand for adapting to mirrorless digital cameras. They want it for shooting wide open.

Alan

Yep. The same reason vintage <28mm lenses are basically unaffordable for those of us on a short budget.

Stan

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

Still when the going gets dark and you want to shoot available light the 1.2 will be easier to focus

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I am especially surprised to see a Pentax going for more than the equivalent Nikon. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the best 50 f1.2 is reputed to be?

 

[GRHazelton]

When I bought my Pentax LX - used - these many years ago I also bought the f1.2 50mm, also used. My reasoning, such as it was, that since I was buying the system Pentax camera I'd also treat myself to Pentax's fastest fifty. I have enjoyed the f1.2. Great for available darkness with the LX or my MX or KX, and it makes a great portrait lens on my K 5 DSLR. And yes, there are certain bragging rights among the cognoscenti; even the Canon and Nikon fanboys are impressed.

 

[tomkatf]

To compare apples to apples, the Noct-Nikkor is a much different, specialized, expensive lens... Nikon has had a "standard" 50/55 f/1.2 for decades...

 

[BradS]

I am especially surprised to see a Pentax going for more than the equivalent Nikon. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the best 50 f1.2 is reputed to be?

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.

 

[tomkatf]

I am especially surprised to see a Pentax going for more than the equivalent Nikon. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the best 50 f1.2 is reputed to be?

If you'll accept a 58mm 1.2, reputedly the Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2... Unfortunately for the bank account, they seem to go for $3K+ for a good used example... Unused NOS boxed Unicorns... $8K+...