manual focus lens 50-58/1.2 in M42

[izvar]

Hi all.
my question:
In M42 mount, lens with focal length - 50,55,57,58 with 1.2 maximum aperture or faster?
exist or not?

[atiratha]

Indeed, Tomioka 55/1.2 and I think Yashica was the same. There was I think a Chinon 55/1.2 and maybe Cosina 55/1.2 I think they were basically the same design.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yashinon 1.2/55. There's a Fujinon 1.2/55 too but not sure if that one was available in M42, might have been X-mount only.

[izvar]

Thank you!
As I know Fujinon 55 1.2 does not exist in M42 mount.

[Aanything]

[Aanything]

Oh, I forgot Minolta MD Rokkor 58/1.2: it's not M42, but it's adaptable to some other mounts, with a little work.

[izvar]

[izvar]

Any German? CZJ, praktica, Pentacon, Meyer, Enna etc. ???

[iangreenhalgh1]

No, there is a Pancolar 1.4/50 in PB mount.

Remember, these fast lenses are intended to be shot at full aperture, they are to give you a brighter viewfinder on an SLR in low light conditions and were never intended to be shot wide open. Always makes me wince when I see pictures shot with them wide open, they almost always look crap, what's the appeal in shots where 95% of the frame is out of focus?

[IAZA]

Is this look crap Ian? (shot with Chinon Tomioka 55/1,2 wideopen) not mine it's my friend's, he didnt want to sell it

AFAIK, 50ish F1,2 in M42 only made by Tomioka, which has various brand, Yashinon, Chinon etc. and their price sky rocketing everyday

[iangreenhalgh1]

No, that's a good shot. But I do see lots that do look crap to me, I have never been fond of the 'look' of wide open shooting, it works in some circumstances and subjects but not in all, and I often think 'hmm. that would look better if they had stopped down to 2.8'.

[Pancolart]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Why? It's just my opinion but I really don't like most shots I see wide open with fast lenses, a lot of them look crap to my eyes.

[anscochrome]

[ChromaticAberration]

Well if one buys a 1.2 aperture lens it will mostly be used at 1.2 otherwise a 1.4 or even a nice 1.8 that you can get for a fraction of the price would do the job just fine.

I recently got myself a 1.2, it is the most expensive lens I bought, €50 (yeah, I know, I'm a cheap bastard!), and I plan on making some nice nightlife shots with it. It's big and heavy and it looks huge on my crop sensor low end Canon body, if I want to shoot at 5.6 or even lower I won't take such a big heavy lens with me, a 1.4 or even an Helios would probably do the job just fine.

I look at 1.2 aperture lenses as purpose lenses, they should be used wide open, that is what they were made for anyway even if they are sharper at the same aperture than narrower maximum aperture lenses.

Then there is the simple fact that if you need to isolate your subject you need at least a 2.8 aperture, maybe 3.5 depending on how close is the background, narrower than that and it probably won't look as isolated as you were looking for. But yeah, I must agree that these days most of use do abuse of this technique when we could get much sharper photos were shallow DOF is not required.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Attila]

I disagree , every tool has place wide open , narrow dof has same than opposite thing. Plenty of examples show how magical a narrow dof and plenty of other bad example shows how not to use it all matter from photographer. I like really 1.2 and even 0.95 lenses.

[hoanpham]

[Aanything]

I always seen faster lenses as a chance to let more light in, and then shooting with faster times/lower iso.
The thinning of dof always looked to me as an unavoidable side effect of having grater apertures: a side effect that can be used in a creative way, nevertheless.
I wouldn't spend three times what I pay a 1.4 for a 1.2 lens cause I never really needed that little extra speeed, but it makes sense to me that someone may be needing it.

Then there's the issue of aberrations in faster lenses, but my knowledge about that is really little.

[Smoli4]

my opinion is the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 is noticeable, but between f2 and f1.8 is more delicate, so i guess the same can be said about the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 - it should be less dramatic.
I would buy a fast lens if the price right, but i dont see myself investing in an f1.2 just that extra speed.

and if im after speed maybe a camera that handles high iso better should be on my mind

[ChromaticAberration]

[Attila]

1.2 dof effect is visible different than 1.4 lens I remember for Nikon and Konica lenses where this was very true.
no difference with Pentax and Tomioka

[izvar]

Thank you all. To recap. I understand that in M42 we have one player - Tomioka!
Otherwise the topic turned over in the difference between 1.2 and 1.4, same intriguing, but perhaps subject for a special topic.

TNX!

[zakapior]

[vlousada]