[mgvh]

I've been moving up the chain from a K-x to a K-30 and am now expecting a used K-3 in the mail tomorrow! (Purchased on the forum here)

I've also been accumulating a collection of lenses. (I have no clue how I've ended up with so many...) I've been happy for the most part with how they've paired with the K-30, and I don't feel as if the lenses have outperformed the camera or the camera has been held back by the lenses.

But now I'm wondering a bit how they will pair with the professional grade K-3. On the one hand, I'm thinking lenses that were good on the K-30 should be good on the K-3. On the other hand, I'm also thinking that I should be able to get better quality pictures with the K-3. (As compared to the K-30; not that the camera is going to make me a better photographer) Or is the K-3 only going to start highlight the deficiencies of the lenses? Or maybe should I not expect that noticeable of a difference?

I'll try things out for myself, of course, but from your experience, will any of these lens that I like and use regularly be particularly good or not with the K-3?

• Rokinon 8mm FE
• DA 10-17 FE
• Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
• DA 18-135
• DA 21
• DA 35 f2.4
• F 35-70
• DA 40XS
• SMC 50mm f4 Macro
• M 50 f1.7
• A 50 f.14
• DA 50 f1.8
• Super Tak 55 f1.8
• DAL 55-300
• Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 (v2)
• Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro
• Super Tak 150 f4

Thanks! I'm excited to see how the K-3 does!

[Na Horuk]

Well, better lenses means better photos, but just because you are upgrading camera doesn't mean your lenses will get worse. Even if a lens won't be pixel sharp, as it was on a smaller MP body, the new camera will still record more resolution in total. This means if you make prints or exports of a certain size, they will have more detail than they did before

Your list of lenses is pretty nice, with good reputations

[lithedreamer]

How about this...

I was also using a K-30 and moved to a K-1 and have found that my lenses serve me better than ever, in large part because the new sensor produces more luminance noise and less colour noise than the K-30. I think you'll be happy with what the K-3 + current lenses can do, though your favourite lenses may change.

[Alex645]

There are so many parameters such as lighting, contrast, aperture, etc, that will show you more or less differences between the two sensors. As you wrote, the ultimate answer will come from your own testing and subjective tolerances. But I believe you will start seeing a separation of quality between the digital primes, film primes, digital zooms, and then film zooms...in that order of diminishing returns.

I think most of us are very guilty of overly objectifying technical perfection. For me, there is a happy balance between lens quality (sharpness, color, vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberration) and lens character (flaws). I surprised myself when shooting with some superb Zeiss primes. Optically close to flawless but also, dare I say, boring? And of course the sharpness I may want for a macro portrait of a gecko would not be the same qualities Iʻd prefer in portraits of people.

[pepperberry farm]

I've been moving up the chain from a K-x to a K-30 and am now expecting a used K-3 in the mail tomorrow! (Purchased on the forum here)

I've also been accumulating a collection of lenses. (I have no clue how I've ended up with so many...) I've been happy for the most part with how they've paired with the K-30, and I don't feel as if the lenses have outperformed the camera or the camera has been held back by the lenses.

But now I'm wondering a bit how they will pair with the professional grade K-3. On the one hand, I'm thinking lenses that were good on the K-30 should be good on the K-3. On the other hand, I'm also thinking that I should be able to get better quality pictures with the K-3. (As compared to the K-30; not that the camera is going to make me a better photographer) Or is the K-3 only going to start highlight the deficiencies of the lenses? Or maybe should I not expect that noticeable of a difference?

I'll try things out for myself, of course, but from your experience, will any of these lens that I like and use regularly be particularly good or not with the K-3?

• Rokinon 8mm FE
• DA 10-17 FE
• Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
• DA 18-135
• DA 21
• DA 35 f2.4
• F 35-70
• DA 40XS
• SMC 50mm f4 Macro
• M 50 f1.7
• A 50 f.14
• DA 50 f1.8
• Super Tak 55 f1.8
• DAL 55-300
• Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 (v2)
• Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro
• Super Tak 150 f4

Thanks! I'm excited to see how the K-3 does!

I moved last year from a K-50 to my K-3 and have many of the lenses you list and, initially, everything was worse - it took me a bit to adjust to the K-3.... once the learning curve leveled out, however, all of my favorite lenses are still my favorite lenses...

good glass is good glass, but a better camera body will require more out of you...

[BigMackCam]

good glass is good glass, but a better camera body will require more out of you...

I completely agree, good glass is good glass - especially when staying within the same sensor dimensions.

Some lenses that work well on APS-C cameras do show weaknesses in edge and corner performance when used on a full-frame camera, but when switching from one APS-C camera to another, a lens that worked well before will still work just as well

[TER-OR]

18-135 is good, it performs well for me.
55-300 is OK. The K3 will show flaws in your technique for sure. The K3 seems prone to panning issues with SR on. I leave it off most of the time.
DA21 is great. Simply outstanding.
The Tamron 90 macro should be great too - removing the AA filter means better macro performance.

[Pixelhdr]

I have some of the lenses on your list. I had thought about selling the older SMC fixed focal length lenses, but fortunately I did not. My observations are based on K-3II. These older SMC fixed can be excellent when stopped down to f/8 to f/11, sharp from edge to edge. All versions of 50's (M, A, FA, f/1.4 & f/1.7) are fine. I also have a 55 f/1.8 but have not tried it on K-3 yet; it has a special character that I am still learning how to take full advantage. My copy of Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 was a little weak (may be a bad copy), but Sigma 8-16 is superb on K-3II. The Rokinon 8mm is a fantastic and fun lens if you like UWA. The 55-300 WR (optically same as DA-L) is a great performer. DA 18-135 was good as a general lens on K-5 but I replaced it with 16-85 which is great on K-3II. My workhorse lens is Sigma 17-50 when I don't need WR. My experience with macro lenses (70 & 100) is that they are super sharp and should not have any issue keeping up with K-3.

[robthebloke]

The DA21, at f8, at iso100, with a k-3 is one of the best combinations I've ever used.

[Driline]

But I wanna use my $30 lens and pair it with my $$1,900 dollar K-1 and expect it to perform like a $2,000 lens. :: Tounge in cheek::

[GeneV]

A couple of years ago, when I upgraded to the K3, I went through the same thought process. However my conclusion today is that just about all photos with my old lenses look even better. The only lens that disappointed me was the 55-300, but I think that was more the result of buying the DA*300 about that time, than the K3.

If you start cropping those 24 megapixels down, yes, you will start wanting the very best glass at the sharpest aperture. However, the 18-135, which never grabbed me on the K5II, stays on one of my K3 bodies most of the time. It just looks better.

[pathdoc]

But I wanna use my $30 lens and pair it with my $$1,900 dollar K-1 and expect it to perform like a $2,000 lens.

In the bad old days of film when your $30 lens was born, the camera did not actually record the image - it just held the medium which did.

Now that the camera itself records the medium, your camera and lens together are almost worth $2000... so you have what you wanted.

[GeneV]

But I wanna use my $30 lens and pair it with my $$1,900 dollar K-1 and expect it to perform like a $2,000 lens. :: Tounge in cheek::

Oddly enough, I think the $30 lens may look better in a format where you are reducing the pixel count for viewing. That does not mean it looks good.

I used to wonder how my mom's old Kodak with a fixed focus lens looked as good as it did. Then I realized that her prints of 620 film were little more than contact prints. Blow those negs up, and they were awful. That is a bit like putting a lot of pixels behind a bad lens.

[normhead]

But I wanna use my $30 lens and pair it with my $$1,900 dollar K-1 and expect it to perform like a $2,000 lens. :: Tounge in cheek::

You mean like my FA 35-80 on my K-1?




It's so soft and fuzzy <sarcasrm>
Just because a lot of folks who buy K-1s are big spenders doesn't mean you have to be.
Mind you, just buying a K-1 makes you a big spender... cancel that thought.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

But seriously, when I went from a K-5 to a K-3 there was not one lens that was good on a K-5 that was bad on a K-3. They were pretty much the same. The sharp lenses like the Sigma 70, Tamron 90 and DA* lenses were even sharper and gave me even more detail. The lenses that gave us purple fringing and CA became even worse. A K-3 is just a K-5 magnified about 50%. Think of it as 1.5 TC. Any lens that can't handle a TC ( like my old Vivitar M 135 2.8), isn't going to like a K-3.

However many older lenses, like my FA 35-80, my F 70-210, work fine on a K-3.

The lenses that always sucked, my FAJ 18-35 and FA 28-200, well they always sucked on every camera they were ever put on, and they suck worse on my K-3.

[Blacknight659]

Your lenses are fine, the only one I don't like (and this is my personal opinion) is the 18-135mm. I felt it underperformed on my k-5iis, and if it does so for that camera, you can bet it will be underperforming on your k-3. Now, before the haters melt their keyboards typing a reply, this is me comparing it to my very sharp DA lenses such as the 50-135 and DA 50 1.8. No hate here, just saying my opinion.

Enjoy your new camera, put your sharpest glass on it and go to town!