[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

---

Last edited by LadyRo; 07-01-2010 at 10:44 AM. Reason: clarification

[JeffJS]

LadyRo,

Congrats on your jump into the Manual focus world.. A couple tips if I may.. I see you are using CS4 to process your photos. Shoot RAW+ on your K10d. In ACR, use the Clarity slider (I set mine to about 70%). I find that when photos seem just slightly out of focus or hazy looking, that particular slider cleans things up quite nicely. I don't know exactly what it does but I like the end result. Second, I see you also suffer from the same affliction I do. Shutter Press Camera Tilt-itis (135mm photo). The Align tool (next to the crop in ACR) can be used to get the exact horizon and remove the tilt.

Other than that, a good start on your MF journey. Now get ready to kiss the rest of your money goodbye as you succumb to LBA.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[Class A]

So, what do you all think of these two lenses?

Both have more competent siblings (the 50/1.4 & 50/1.7 and the K-mount 135/2.5) but that doesn't detract from the fact that these are very usable. You already showed how to use them well and I'm sure you'll get a lot of joy out of them.

If you want to know what other people thought of these and other lenses, have a look at the lens reviews.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[Class A]

Um, I'm not really following you... the 135mm I have is a f2.5 K mount.

Yes, it has a K-mount but it is a Takumar Bayonet not the Pentax K lens (these Pentax lenses from this area don't really have a letter prefix like the "M" or "F", etc. lenses, so they are called "K" for K-mount).

It seemed that the consensus was that these were decent lenses, and sometimes excellent used in the right conditions.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said the fact that there are even better ones doesn't detract from the fact that these are very usable.

I read that as far as the 135mm lens goes, any of the M42 Takumar versions are supposed to be much better than the Takuamar Bayonet I have.

Not sure. There are two M42 Takumars and I think the one with just 4 elements is worse than yours. The other M42 is better.

But, I also read that using an adapter put space between the lens and the camera and that wasn't supposed to be good.

Some adapters have glass in them and these degrade the image quality. However, to adapt an M42 lens to K-mount, you don't need glass. The adapter puts the lens in a position that allows you to use it as normal. You can find M42->K-mount adapters for very little money but make sure it either is a genuine Pentax adapter or an equivalent one. There are quite a number of the market which have a flange and that will make it impossible to focus at infinity.

[JeffJS]

I was actually watching eBay for faster lenses, but when I saw I could get 2 decently fast K mount lenses (I read that anything below 2.8 was considered a fast lens... of course the smaller the number the better) and a film SLR for a really good price, I went for it. I figured I needed to start somewhere. Um, I'm not really following you... the 135mm I have is a f2.5 K mount.

I've read the lens reviews, searched these forums, and searched Google. It seemed that the consensus was that these were decent lenses, and sometimes excellent used in the right conditions. At the price I got them for, that's enough for me. I think I'll be better off shooting with these than sitting around not shooting while waiting for better lenses, that I can afford, to pop up on eBay or my local craigslist.

I read that as far as the 135mm lens goes, any of the M42 Takumar versions are supposed to be much better than the Takuamar Bayonet I have. But, I also read that using an adapter put space between the lens and the camera and that wasn't supposed to be good. Are the M42 Taks so much better that using one w/ an adapter would still be better than using the Takumar Bayonet?

Thanks.

He's probably talking about the K135 f2.5, the original K mount lens before the M series. While yes it is a better lens it is also true you would be lucky to find one for under $150 (US). The M135 f3.5 is a good lens but I don't know that I would say it's worlds better than yours. May be Better but by how much is subjective. The f2 50mm is the kit lens of the 50mm lineup but I chose not to piddle on your parade. You can do a lot with the lenses you have and you should enjoy them.

IF you feel the need to upgrade, THE best bang for your buck is the A (or M) 50 f1.7. Look for one however on a camera. Many times you can get the lens and camera for less than the asking price (typical) of the lens alone. I see the M version attached to Pentax ME (not super) cameras all the time for $50 or less on the bay.

For now, put your lenses on your camera and go take some pictures and enjoy the experience of Pentax Primes

[Just1MoreDave]

...I've read the lens reviews, searched these forums, and searched Google. It seemed that the consensus was that these were decent lenses, and sometimes excellent used in the right conditions. At the price I got them for, that's enough for me. I think I'll be better off shooting with these than sitting around not shooting while waiting for better lenses, that I can afford, to pop up on eBay or my local craigslist.

I think this is exactly the right approach. Yes, there are "better" lenses out there - there are always better lenses out there. I bought them and they're nice. It doesn't mean the Takumar Bayonet is not capable of good work.

I did some testing of a few 135mm lenses here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/68032-135mm-le...imes-zoom.html

If you look at all the comparison photos, the differences are not that big. Most people would not see them, and processing could minimize the differences.

I read that as far as the 135mm lens goes, any of the M42 Takumar versions are supposed to be much better than the Takuamar Bayonet I have. But, I also read that using an adapter put space between the lens and the camera and that wasn't supposed to be good. Are the M42 Taks so much better that using one w/ an adapter would still be better than using the Takumar Bayonet?

The answer depends on which lens you're comparing it to. The adapter doesn't affect image quality at all for Pentax cameras, because there's no optical element in it. In fact the M42 lenses are designed to work at the exact same distance from the sensor/film as the K-mount.

There are only a few M42 (or other mount) lenses faster than f2.5. Prices on these put them in a different league. At f2.5, there's a Super-Takumar and two Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. The Super-Takumar is a little sharper in the corners at apertures wider than f5.6. The Super-Multi-Coated versions have better colors, more contrast and less flare. The later version has all that and improved sharpness. These lenses look almost the same and I think they look really cool on the camera. Your lens can focus a little closer than all of them.

The f3.5 135mm lenses vary a little more. Lens coatings make the same difference as above. The optical formulas vary more, and the different designs are better in different areas. I like the SMC Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 instead of the Takumar f3.5 versions, because it's a great size.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[KjetilH]

Pentax items has gotten very overpriced, but I suppose auctions are the way to go.

Regarding the M50/2, it is actually a very capable lens for its price. It is not as sharp at f/2 as the M50/1.7 is wide open, but I found it to be a quite decent performer, and its rendering is different than the A50/1.7 I have now (the M50/2 got a stuck focus ring, and I picked up a near unused sample for $35 a little later).

The worst thing with the 50/2 is that the aperture ring is made out of plastic, and is quite difficult to turn. In situations where I needed to switch between f/2 and e.g. f/4, I used Av for f/2 and had the aperture ring at another f-number for stop-down-metering in M mode.

[JeffJS]

Ohh, okay. Thanks. Is a Pentax M (or A) 50mm f1.7 so much better than the f2 I have that it's worth $50? If it is, what makes it better other than the f1.7? By the way, I haven't seen either of those lens versions with a camera for less than $50 on eBay. I keep seeing all these posts about great lenses being had for next to nothing from there, but I have yet to see any listed. Maybe if I had the patience to deal with auctions, instead of using the buy it now option, I'd be luckier.

It does take some vigilance. There isn't a flood of them. There is also the Marketplace here at Pentaxforums. The answer to your question though is yes, In my opinion, the f1.7 is enough better than the f2.0 to be worth $50. There are people asking $90 and up for that lens. Don't pay it. An f1.4 can be had for that.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.

[LadyRo]

I deleted this post because I no longer wish to be a member of the PentaxForums.