[DanielT74]

In a recent thread I asked about DA15ltd versus the venerable K15mm and was advised to forget about the K15 which is fully manual, a huge monster and goes for more than the DA15mm. Now of course if you want to shoot film, it's a different story, but I was wonder to what extent are some of the old lenses overpriced and some underestimated.

From my experience I can recommend some gems that I think deliver bang for the buck. Do you want to recommend some others and maybe post a pic or two that showcase their talents?

Legends in M42 mount:

1. Of course the well-regarded Super-Tak 50/1.4 is great. I have the old 8-element version but there is meant to be very little difference between the two. It's small, it's sharp, the colours are rich, great to handle (perhaps a bit too optimistic with focus confirmation on my K20D, I trust the split circle over the confirmation) and it can be had for ~$100. (see some comparisons with Leica 50/1.4 and A50/1.2 in this thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/119918-super-t...ilux-50mm.html)

2. Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 is a poor man's 31ltd, I think. Great little lens that I think might be faster than f2.4 actually. Again sharp and beautiful colours (see
comparisons with 31ltd, Leica 35/1.4 and Leica 35/2 in this thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/121458-ultimate-30-35mm-lens.html). And it can be had at ~$200-$300 - a bargain!

Others:

1. Leica Macro-Elmarit 60/2.8 - this lens can do you portraits and macro and it does an absolutely stellar job at both. Piotr and others have posted some images with it which showcases what this lens https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/56847-leitz-60...elmarit-r.html. As a macro it is amazingly sharp with no issues whatsoever that I've found, and as a portrait lens it produces beautiful skin tones. It is easy to focus and it meters reasonably well with a green button. What's more it can be had for ~400 and leica to pentax conversion is neither expensive nor difficult. If you can't afford Leitax go for Pixco - I found them just as good. But do support Leitax if you can since they provide the best support.

2. Pentax A*200/2.8 - what a fantastic lens! There is nothing bad that can be said about this lens IMO. That said, I am selling mine because I am finding that I either use Tamron 70-200/2.8 or A400 or A*300 for longer reach. But if this focal lens is useful for you - this lens will not disappoint even the most discerning photographer and what's more it can be had for ~$700.

3. Lowly F24-50mm is an excellent zoom that can be had for ~$150. Colours maybe a little muted for some people's liking but it's a very nice lens with a useful focal range on a dSLR and can also be mounted on a film camera as a wide angle.

4. Finally the great DA17-70/4 which is probably the best value for money lens of all, since its AF and AE and just delivers excellent results for under $400. What more could one ask?

---

Last edited by DanielT74; 12-16-2010 at 06:15 PM.

[paperbag846]

I personally don't think the 28mm 2.8 on digital gets the attention it deserves. Granted, it might be much more of a "meh" lens on film, but on digital it's pretty good, wide-normal, and cheap.

[wlachan]

Bang for the buck is rather subjective. What I consider worthless might be bargain to others. In the case of K/A15/3.5, it wasn't that great back then against other rivals like Nikkor/Zeiss/Leica. What the Pentax 15 excel is distortion control, but lacks on light-fall-off & edge sharpness even stopped way down. But if you need something that wide on film, there aren't many choices. And to be honest, Pentax has never been that great in super wide anyway.

[abacus07]

I personally don't think the 28mm 2.8 on digital gets the attention it deserves. Granted, it might be much more of a "meh" lens on film, but on digital it's pretty good, wide-normal, and cheap.

From what I've seen the 28/35/50/55/135 in normal apertures really deliver great value because they are so common (high supply). My breaking point is the 24mm and 100/105mm lenses that almost always are exceeding $100. At $150 it's tough to not consider the digital lenses that are usually lighter and are fully automatic (AF and aperture).

But I find it hard to call the overpriced lenses lemons. They are more collectors items (and for film shooters) and the price is due to rarity. Personally I would find it hard to justify the much talked about 28/2.0 vs the FA31. The 28/2.0 is about 60-80% the cost of the FA31, correct? Same as the K 15 vs the DA 15. The 20mm lenses.

What I would find interesting are some shootoffs with the top legacy lenses with their closest digital comparables. The 28/2.0 vs the FA31, the 85mm vs the DA 70 (or FA77), K 15 vs the DA 15mm and the other legacy lenses that sell for 200-300+.

[DanielT74]

But I find it hard to call the overpriced lenses lemons. They are more collectors items (and for film shooters) and the price is due to rarity.

Yes, I agree. I didn't mean the heading seriously.

Some time ago I tried a K30/2.8 which goes for as high as $550. It was a lovely lens for sure, but I suspect FA28/2.8 would do just as well if not better (with newer coating) and in addition give AF and AE for a fraction of the price or the FA 20/2.8 for the same to get a much wider angle.

So as you say, for some lenses the price reflects rarity more than some incredible value.

[civiletti]

Super-wide film lenses [k15] do not do well on DSLRs generally, because of lens geometry.

The k30 is great, true, but the k28 f3.5 and k35 f3.5 also have excellent IQ and cost much less. Anything that is a legend will carry a price premium.

Any Pentax 50mm is super-sharp at mid apertures. The A50 f2 is not a legend, but will equal the IQ of many lenses that are. It's not unusual to find one for under $50.

I have a 24mm sigma that I enjoy using. Colors are different than with SMC lenses, but I can change that in processing.

[paperbag846]

The 50mm 1.7's are legendary for their awesome value .

But I think this is more about really exceptional rare lenses, which I cannot afford, so I will be quiet .

[pinholecam]

To me a budget but very good complete kit would be :

1. 18-55 WR kit lens (use the 18mm for WA )
2. Cosina 24/2.8 (very good from F4)
3. DA35/2.4
4. A50/1.7 or just a A50/2
5. M85/2
(on digital; I'd boast that its as good as any of the 85mm or even 77ltd in terms of photo taking and good DOF control; only weaknesses being CA and hazing in very bright conditions; a bit loosing in sharpness (edge) vs the others, but no big deal esp. when not pixel peeping; No auto features of course)
6. K135/2.5


Above 135mm, I think its a bit of a pain to handle and get good focus. But up to 135mm, I think will suffice for most general photographers.

My few cents.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

4. Finally the great DA17-70/4

The DA a legacy lens?

[DanielT74]

The DA a legacy lens?

Sorry!

I guess I am asking about which lenses are really good value for money and which aren't.

The "catchy" (?) title is a bit off the mark...

[axl]

Legends among legacy lenses? I'm quite surprised nobody named the obvious:
- K/A50/1.2
- K85/1.8
- K135/2.5
- A*135/1.8
- A*85/1.4
- K28/3.5
- K28/2

I think those are the legends of K land. Any of those above are well regarded and reportedly worth every penny one pays for them. Just shame I only have one

M85? Great lens if you ask me abut I think overall 77 is teeny weeny bit better. But I would love to try 85/1.8 or A*85/1.4

[lawsonstone]

The DA a legacy lens?

My reaction too. Until I dropped it onto a concrete sidewalk (ouch) this thing was the most ridiculously useful lens in my kit. Perfect walk-about zoom range, constant f/4 was perfect for my needs, IQ really good, fast focus. I haven't heard of SDM failures on this lens,

Were it weather-sealed and f/2.8 I think Pentax wouldn't be able to make enough of them.

As it is, I'm studying the new 18-135 as a replacement.

[GeneV]

I personally don't think the 28mm 2.8 on digital gets the attention it deserves. Granted, it might be much more of a "meh" lens on film, but on digital it's pretty good, wide-normal, and cheap.

I also think those are underrated or "meh" on film. I used it constantly for decades as my primary wide angle. The M and A models are excellent performers, and a 28mm on APS-C is about the same FOV as the 40mm I've come to like on film.

I'd add the M 20/4 and the A 20/2.8 as legends. One is sharp and tiny and the other is sharper and fast in a super focal length for film. The M20 is always on one of my film bodies.

[8540tomg]

Legends among legacy lenses? I'm quite surprised nobody named the obvious:
- K/A50/1.2
- K85/1.8
- K135/2.5
- A*135/1.8
- A*85/1.4
- K28/3.5
- K28/2

I think those are the legends of K land. Any of those above are well regarded and reportedly worth every penny one pays for them. Just shame I only have one

M85? Great lens if you ask me abut I think overall 77 is teeny weeny bit better. But I would love to try 85/1.8 or A*85/1.4

Can't argue with your list Axl except perhaps to add the K 200/2.5 to the list. Love this lens and feel it should be in the conversation when talking about the best of the K series glass.

Tom G

[Stringmike]

I picked one up earlier this year and for < $150 this is a fine zoom with a useful range. It is pretty sharp and has good color rendition.

Mike