[dgaies]

Data != numbers.

You may want to switch to Canon, and I'm not saying this in a "you just don't 'get' Pentax way". Pentax is currently a niche player, and right now that niche includes old lenses, WR and Limiteds. To be a serious Pentax user is to acknowledge its shortcomings and work around them - in this case, no new cheap 50, but for a few bucks you can get a gorgeously metal M 50/1.7. The fact that you've soured on Pentax so quickly would indicate, barring an epiphany, that you won't ever be truly happy with them, forever casting your eyes upon a throng of shiny new Canon lenses.

I agree, and again, not in a "you don't get Pentax so buy a Canon" kind of way. There are a number of reason to choose to shoot with Pentax system, but if those reasons aren't ones that appeal to you, then Canon is likely a far better choice. I started with Canon, and in fact the 50/1.8 was the first prime lens I ever owned. I personally choose to switch to Pentax as I liked several aspects of their system; in-body SR, better ergonomics on the body, small high quality primes, WR options. Had my priorities been different (a need for high quality zoom lens or more advanced flash systems) I would have made a different choice and shot with Canon or Nikon.

Anyway, I would just suggest reading up on all these things a little more and then making a decision; there's a ton of info out there both on here and on other forums.

[VaSA]

why would go with mf only lens when i can get an mf/af lens for $80 used
canon 50 1.8 $80 used *sharper/significantly less CA most f-stops including 1.8
pentax 50 1.4 $300 used
pentax 50 1.4 mf-only $70 used (Pentax-M SMC 50mm/1.4 Lens)

I do not know how weigh Bokeh on canon vs pentax, when taken in context with sharp/CA. Are the old 1.4 mf better IQ than the newer 1.4?

This is like asking "Why would you want to buy a stick-shift car if you can get an automatic". It is just more enjoyable to have more control over the behavior of the car, or in the case of photography - lens.

[bob13bob]

And data used without fully understanding what the data itself means, and how the data can be properly interpreted, is often misleading and can cause you to come to a premature and/or incorrect conclusion.

it's easy to broadly critique like this without providing any evidence. No one has even put forward any arguments why the data from dpreview is wrong or has shortcomings. I checked photozone /, canon 1.8 still looks better., even though very interesting to see how different results can get.

in the 30-35mm range. Pentax has the 35/2.4 that sells for under $200, which is competitive with Nikon's slightly faster, slightly more expensive 35/1.8 and Canon's much more expensive 35/2.

Unfortunately, the zenith of Pentax's used lens market has passed, and over the last couple of years the price of used K-mount glass has gone up... dramatically

.

Thanks for the suggestion. After looking at the 35mm. the 35/2.4 is the cheapest and trounces the other lenses in the below comparison on photozone. highest resolution, lowest CA. canon has super ugly bokeh too. All in all, feeling a lot better. would be nice to go f2 if forced though.

new used
canon 35/2 $319 $na
pentax 35/2.4 $175 $122
pentax 35/2 n/a $400

[dgaies]

it's easy to broadly critique like this without providing any evidence. No one has even put forward any arguments why the data from dpreview is wrong or has shortcomings. I checked photozone /, canon 1.8 still looks better., even though very interesting to see how different results can get.

If you really feel that way, please reread posts 17, 19 and 25. In all three posts it was pointed out to you that comparing these numbers between different systems, tested no different sensors was the issue, not that there was necessarily anything inherently wrong with the tests themselves. So I 100% stand by my original statement which you quote above, which was not so much a critique of the data, but in how it is easy to misinterpret the data if you don't understand the limitations of its use.

And, FWIW, the DA35/2.4 is an excellent lens and an excellent value. I can, without any reservations, recommend that lens.

[bob13bob]

you are right, in post 25 you have valid criticisms of their testing.

In this case, I don't set my bar of evidence as highly as you. Mostly because It is the best source of information I can find.

not recognizing all the limitations of something, does not mean you are misinterpreting it. You are implying that I misinterpreting it. That logic doesn't play out.

Data and numbers work as a basis of comparison only when there is strict control of variables. I

Rarely will all experiments be perfect. It doesn't mean you discount the majority of research because of it.

Using critiques in studies to discount large and unproportionate amounts (relative to the critique) data is common method.

[Rondec]

I am not going to weigh in on the already discussed lenses. I just feel that Pentax offers something different from Canon. I just purchased a D FA 100mm WR f2.8 macro lens. The lens is a work of beauty -- all metal construction, tightly made and small! It weighs in at just 12 ounces and because Pentax offers SR with all lenses, I have that feature too. Canon offers two 100mm macro lenses for their cameras, one with IS and on without. The lens without IS weighs 21 ounces. The lens with IS weighs 22 ounces and costs 400 dollars more than the Pentax offering.

It is easy to pick and choose particular lenses where one company has an edge, but I love my limiteds and the overall package from Pentax and would not trade it for a larger (if in some cases slightly cheaper) package from Canon or Nikon.

[Bart]

...In Pentax's heyday, they were a top-notch brand with a lot of industry respect. Their M42 mount, and early K-mount lenses, were in direct competition with lenses produced by Zeiss, etc. A SMC Takumar (or SMC - K mount) 50mm f1.4 is an absolute steal at the price, and being able to mount them on a modern DSLR (with such ease) is *not* possible with Canon or Nikon...

No problem whatsoever to mount and use any AI Nikkor (circa 1977) on a Nikon DSLR . Most older lenses can be 'AI'd' at a minimal cost but in the range of AI and AI-S Nikkors, there is ample choice of very fine glass.

[dgaies]

not recognizing all the limitations of something, does not mean you are misinterpreting it. You are implying that I misinterpreting it. That logic doesn't play out.

In this case, where the people doing the testing explicitly tell you not to compare the data between different systems, you need to accept that. There is no doubt that by ignoring this you are indeed misinterpreting the data. Hopefully that logic "plays out" for you. Below is a direct quote from the photozone website, which is also a link should you want to read it from the source itself.

Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems!

[ripit]

Hopefully I won't anger more active or senior members here with my comments, but aren't we getting off topic of the original question? If you select a specific range and aperture to argue, one brand is going to win in one case and another brand is going to win in another case (I may be a newbie skill wise but I have seen threads with those types of arguments many times).

I have gotten a box full of old glass on ebay over the last couple of months for the price of a cheaper new AF lens. I got primes in 28mm 2.5, 50mm (several of them 1.7, 1.9, 2.0), 135mm 2.8 and 500mm 8.0 (nothing in between 135mm and 500mm as I just didn't have any desire for it. I got several zooms ranging from 35-70 (3 of them, 2.8 constant, 2.8-3.8, 3.5-4.5). I got an auto focus 28-80 3.5-4.7. I have a 28-80mm 3.5-4.5 on the way (good confidence in its condition). A 90-230mm 4.5 constant. There is an 80-200 3.9 constant. I'm thinking there is at least 1 more long zoom but I have bought so many I cannot remember them all off the top of my head.
Roughly adding it up, I'm at about 140$ shipped for it all.
I lens was m42 and needed a 7$ adapter. 1 lens was t4 (haven't got an adapter yet so that one will be a little harder but I can just buy one). One was ricoh and need a simple pin removal. The rest all work with no modification. A couple were garbage, a couple were excellent, the rest were various levels of good (this is referring to condition as well as image quality).
No major modifications to lenses (no modifications at all except the 1 with the ricoh pin). No modifications to the camera. No expensive adapters (except the t4 if you consider 20$ expensive). No adapters that need glass (which is very expensive for a good one). No adapters at all on most. Very few limits on function (for the most part manual lenses work manually, a lenses work in a mode). Stop down metering on a couple.

Can you do this with any other brand? I'm no expert so maybe you can, but I was under the impression you couldn't, and I was under the impression that was the pentax legacy advantage.
As people are comparing primes, how many decent to very good 50mm primes can be gotten on ebay (between 1.7 and 2.0) for less than 20$ or even less than 10$. Sure 28mm or 35mm primes or 50mm 1.4 primes cost more but in at least some cases, not a lot more. Can other brands provide that, with no modifications to lens or camera and in many cases no adapter?

Again I'm a rank amateur here so hopefully you won't get mad at me if you think I am wrong, but I'm very happy with my spending spree over the last couple of months (kind of a spending spree as I also got 21 filters, probably 20 different hoods, caps etc, and maybe 20 non slr type lenses).
All my AF lenses except for the kit lens are also full frame film lenses and while they were not near as cheap as the MF ones, they were all still pretty cheap compared to a new lens.

[paperbag846]

No problem whatsoever to mount and use any AI Nikkor (circa 1977) on a Nikon DSLR . Most older lenses can be 'AI'd' at a minimal cost but in the range of AI and AI-S Nikkors, there is ample choice of very fine glass.

For the most part, there is little basic difference if you have a better body, but Pentax maintains constant functionality in their entry / flagship camera bodies. Also, old lenses have shake reduction with Pentax, which might be important sometimes. Nikon id very good at this (unlike Canon, unfortunately), but I think Pentax wins overall in the backwards-compatibility thing.

[aleonx3]

lens testing may not be perfect, but I personally value data and numbers over a lot of things. Once any one buys in to a system, we all bias ourselves a bit.

Anyone see any sides by sides, that may demonstrate lens better despite having less sharp/more CA.

People generally quoted reviews from websites and treat them as "the truth", when in fact it is not quite true sometimes. User experience (opinions based on real users) values more, I have Canon folks getting buyer remorse on the cheap 50/1.8 glass instead of the L glass because they can't take sharp pictures better than my MF 50/1.4 lens (and plentiful) which are relatively inexpensive and ease of use on Pentax DSLR.

[kanzlr]

missing legacy support was the reason I switched from Nikon to Pentax.
On the big bodies like the D700, old AI lenses are supported as well as AF-D (screw drive).
But the smaller bodies, like the D40x, etc. don't even meter with AI lenses and don't AF with AF-D lenses...So a small D40x + 28mm AI is a no go, although it would be a superb combination.

I have no problem spending € 2000,-- on a body, but I do not want to lug the D700 around. That's why I went with the K-5. Support for legacy lenses and a small professional body, whereas with Nikon you have either a professional OR a small body.

[Anthony Lee]

I moved from Canon ( 40D & 5D) to K5 because of the backward compatibility of legacy lenses. After some 5 months into K5 and some experiences on the use of A, M and K lenses, I still prefer Canon bodies in the actual handling of these lenses plus the advantage to using other old lenses like Leica R, Zeiss Contax, all M42, Olympus OM, Nikon Ai/Ais, and more including all of Pentax M42, A, M and K lenses. Thoguh you need a simple adaptor, the Canon bodies provide full matrix metering, in spot, partial, center weighted average and evaluative when used with any manual focus lens. At M mode, the matrix rule is displayed in both the top LCD andf VF and this alone helps tremendously in metering. With the K5, I am limited to Pentax legacy lenses and I can only use centre weighted average metering for the M and K lenses. I am an old legacy lens freak, so I am disappointed over the K5 limitation in the handling of M and K lenses. The lack of an OEM focusing screen for manual focusing also does not help.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

A SMC Takumar (or SMC - K mount) 50mm f1.4 is an absolute steal at the price, and being able to mount them on a modern DSLR (with such ease) is *not* possible with Canon or Nikon.

This is not a good example, because the 50/1.4 can be mounted without any issues on any Canon camera. Canon has good compatibility as long as you get an appropriate adapter, because their EF mount is wide and has a short registration distance.

Nikon fares worse because of their longer registration distance which requires an optical element in the adapter to maintain infinity focus. It's really the worst mount as far as adapting lenses from other systems goes.

The ability to use any old K-mount lenses without any adapters is really what the backward compatibility is about. It would be great if K and M lenses would work perfectly well, but like Anthony pointed out, the compatibility is limited in their case.

To review, Pentax is better than Nikon - Nikon has the most limiting mount in terms of adapting other lenses. Canon fares very well - as long as you get chipped adapters, the cameras will handle the lenses well - but you can't easily reuse adapters with multiple lenses, because they need to encode the focal length in them. And Pentax provides a simpler adapter story that has limitations in terms of metering, AF confirmation, and ability to switch lenses, but it compensates by allowing a bunch of lenses to work with a single adapter and make use of SR.

No system is really perfect, but Canon and Pentax do pretty well. As for adapting Pentax lenses on Canon, it's not that easy, because the aperture flange of Pentax lenses can interfere with the mirror movement on some Canon cameras. Even some M42 lenses have issues when used on Canon cameras (Mir 1V, for example). BTW, Leica R lenses can be adapted on Pentax - you just need to get a special K mount piece, unscrew the Leica R mount, and screw on the K mount - the process is not destructive and can be reverted if needed.

In the end, if one is an AF user, ability of adapting other lenses becomes irrelevant, because AF is lost in the process.

[ripit]

This is just my personal observations as well as thoughts bases on what others often say in various threads. I'm not trying to state fact, but rather what the case may be.
One point that was just briefly touched on is the availability of old glass. It wasn't more that a few years ago that there was a lot more out there and you could walk into some camera shops and see shelves of budget used glass. I am guessing part of the reason is that people are now adapting anything to everything where possible even if it requires glass to modify the focal distanceor modification to the camera. The information is out there what can be done (even I have ripped the mount of an olympus lens and mounted a pk-m42 adapter). There are 4/3 cameras that can take just about anything and all the good glass has been bought up. Looking on ebay, the majority of auctions say got this at an estate sale (new glass is hitting the market when people die). This is something that effects any brand though, not just pentax. Pentax has had this reputation for a long time because it was factory designed to be that way. If I am not mistaken, others are now trying to get this reputation via people getting creative (aftermarket adapters to do all the adapting they can). There are even a few replacement mounts being sold out there to adapt.

This is just my guess, but if you are the kind of person that spends 500$ on a lens, you might not be happy with the current state of the pentax advantage. The high end pentax brand glass seems to be mostly gone. What is around has gained a reputation and has gotten very expensive. Availability is bad which makes prices high. I made the mistake of moving to a state where day care cost the same as working a full time job at 12$ an hour (so the wife doesn't work and my camera budget is 1/10th or less of what it was a couple of years ago). If you are like me, and can not afford the 500$ lenses anymore (can't even afford the 100$ ebay lenses very often), then there is still a market though not as good as it used to be. People are realizing some off brand glass is good so even that is drying up but right now, there is still a selection of budget glass out there (I'm talking 5-20$ lenses like sears, chinon, ricoh, some of the less appreciated vivitars etc). Who knows how long it will last though. Its more of a gamble with this really cheap glass, but for 10$, even I can afford a little gambling and have won that gamble several times.
In short, the advantage seems to be drying up for any brand.