[Rick Clark]

I was reading an article Digital Photo - Lenses | DPmag.com about why you should buy new glass and not use the good old ones from years ago. So I set up in a room with the new 18-55mm on my K5 and I used an Kiron 28-105>3.5. Using natural light from the window and took pictures of my target on the wall each lense set at 35mm, and the camera in full manual ISO 800 and 1/24 SEC wide open, 4 shoots each and gess what? the Kiron lens beat the Pentax lense out all the way around, much better pictures and if you look at 400% you can see a big difference. And the Kiron is 5 times the weight as the Pentax lense, must be the glass and metal they used back then.
I think dpmag must have their hand in the pockets of some of the manufactures to be so bias??? Happy buying

[elho_cid]

While some of my lenses are really old and deliver great images, I'd also recommend the beginners to look for modern ones. Most beginners would struggle with:
1) AF or lack of it
2) AE or lack of it
3) finding a really good lens among tons of mediocre ones.

But sites like this one really help...

[Rondec]

You can put older lenses into situations where they might struggle in comparison with newer lenses, but they are few and far between. I think the "made for digital" label is not as important as some might think.

Still, the kit lens would not be the lens that I would think of first off when thinking of a "sharp as a tack, made for digital" lens. It is good for a kit and it is sealed, but there are an awful lot of lenses out there that are sharper than it is.

[Yugosaki]

I would also keep in mind what you are going to be doing with the photos. If you're making large prints or some other application that would require a very large image, yes you need to worry about everything being sharp as a tack. But I dare say most shooters aren't going to be using their photos for large print applications. Other than maybe printing off an 8x10 for a family member, I tend to downscale my images under 4MP, usually closer to 2MP to show off. I can get away with a touch of softness Which is good because manual focusing can be hit and miss sometimes in poor lighting conditions.

[8540tomg]

These magazines are in the business of selling you new equipment. It is how they make their living so it is not surprising their emphasis would be on new product lines. While older lens may have some limitations a good optic remains a good optic and that is the main reason I stayed with Pentax when I went digital. Granted, not everyone is willing to live with stop down metering and little or no information in the viewfinder but it can be done. There is certainly no good reason, at least in the Pentax line with which I am most familiar, to not give the older Takumar, M, K, A lenses a try. With a little time and effort the results might surprise you.

Tom G

[goddo31]

...There is certainly no good reason, at least in the Pentax line with which I am most familiar, to not give the older Takumar, M, K, A lenses a try. With a little time and effort the results might surprise you.
...

...Or even surpass the results of all but the most expensive modern lenses, in some cases. It's relatively infrequently that I use my M50 f/1.4 on digital, but when I do I have the tendancy to liken it to a limited lens of some sort.

[ddhlee]

So far the only reason I bother with new glass is for SDM or for formulas that just didn't exist at the time (mostly in the Sigma category). The extra IR coating on the lenses does contribute some better colors for me, but since I use a camera that relies on IR shooting, it makes more sense for me to hunt for the older glass anyway since I can get around the same issue by slapping on a filter.

[omega leader]

What a horrible article. The first lens it talks about is "The Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f3.5 prime is a high-quality manual-focus lens available for Pentax, Nikon and now Canon mounts."

But then it talks abouthe Pentax 15mm f4 and says "For shooters who want a wide prime that’s not so extreme, consider the Pentax DA 15mm ED lens. How can a shorter lens have a narrower field of view? Because this ƒ/4 prime is made for smaller APS-C sensors—making it the equivalent of a 23mm lens. "

Now wait just a minute. This is going to confuse beginners, especially without a Pentax 135 offering. They are mixing crop factors and forms left-right and centre and creating a jumbled confusing mess.

[Groucho]

What a horrible article. The first lens it talks about is "The Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f3.5 prime is a high-quality manual-focus lens available for Pentax, Nikon and now Canon mounts."

But then it talks abouthe Pentax 15mm f4 and says "For shooters who want a wide prime that’s not so extreme, consider the Pentax DA 15mm ED lens. How can a shorter lens have a narrower field of view? Because this ƒ/4 prime is made for smaller APS-C sensors—making it the equivalent of a 23mm lens. "

Now wait just a minute. This is going to confuse beginners, especially without a Pentax 135 offering. They are mixing crop factors and forms left-right and centre and creating a jumbled confusing mess.

That'll get their head spinning! I can understand what they're trying to say, but someone who doesn't know it won't understand that explanation.

The big difference in IQ that I see between my old lenses and my new lenses is not sharpness, but aberrations - the old ones have a lot more green/cyan bleeding, purple fringing, etc. Not all, of course, but that seems to be where the difference is. The old lenses are usually pretty sharp, occasionally extremely so. Although, they may be more likely to be soft at the largest aperture, more so than modern lenses.

Of course, we're also usually comparing old primes to new zooms. I don't have much use for old zooms, between IQ issues and not having full SR effectiveness at all focal lengths.

[sterretje]

Stupid question but how is this thread K5 specific? Is more about lenses and should be in the lens section.

Reported; let's see how the moderators feel about it.

[Bramela]

Yes, I agree,, whilst it is a good discussion point, not K5 specific. So, moved to this Forum in lieu.