[eddie1960]

I firmly believe MTF charts and statistics are useless in determining a lens' quality, if it's sharp enough it's sharp enough, what matter is the rendering it gives and no MTF chart is going to give you any insight into that.

HERESY, how will you sell to Pixel Peepers and Brick wall shooters ;p

[iangreenhalgh]

I'm quite fond of being heretical.

I also reckon every lens I own can out-resolve all of the digital sensors I own, and I don't see me owning a 36Mp super-dense sensor so I don't worry about sharpness much...

[Lowell Goudge]

Of course production methods improve over time. And of course that goes for lenses too. But isn't the point of using legacy glass to be using something that otherwise wouldn't be available? Either because there just is no modern counterpart to outperform them. Or either because the modern counterpart is not affordable.

in my mind, legacy lenses have 2 real benefits,
-the first, which probably saved pentax is it was a way to get digital users initially who (self included) had a substantial investment in high quality K mount lenses and was not ready to instantly upgrade to all new lenses to go digital.
- the second, and this is why even takumars are still popular, is to get lenses that are simply not made today, which offer renderings specifically that are different than modern lenses.

Those are my reasons anyway. I use a Porst 55 f1.2 because there is no Pentax SMC DFA 55mm f1:1.2 ED if SDM ltd. And I use a legacy 85mm because I'm nowhere near being able to justify paying for the FA 85 ltd.

i am in a similar position not a question of "afford" as much as can rationalize actually spending it.

And sometimes it's just about taste and personal preference. I've tried more manual 135mm's then I'm willing to count. But there's just something about the rendering of the Tair 11a that I really love.

Anyway, I don't see how it could end up in a heated discussion.

I have a similar preference for a tele lentar 135/2.8 preset, it just has a different out of focus rendering. I also have a preference for manual focus when using primes, and modern primes are not really designed to be manually focused.

[iangreenhalgh]

in my mind, legacy lenses have 2 real benefits,
- the second, and this is why even takumars are still popular, is to get lenses that are simply not made today, which offer renderings specifically that are different than modern lenses.

I agree entirely.

I'm in a similar position with 135mms, I must have shot more than 20, and I kept only a few, the two absolute best in IQ terms were the Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135 and the Topcon RE Topcor 3.5/135, followed closely by a 1963 Jupiter-11, I kept those three and also a 60s Meyer-Optik Primotar 3.5/135, purely because of it's wonderful painterly rendering wide open. I also kept a Pentacon PB 2.8/135 because I liked it's character. I sold many good ones including a Steinheil Auto-Tele Quinar 3.5/135, a CZJ 'Zebra' 3.5/135 Sonnar and many others I forget.

For me, the best lenses are the ones that touch my heart, not the ones with the highest MTF figures or any particular brand name attached.

---

Last edited by iangreenhalgh; 06-20-2012 at 11:23 AM.

[JohnBee]

Hi All,

First proper post on the forums and it's a post likely to promote debate ...

I've long been an advocate of Pentax's partially due to the ease of which legacy lenses on modern bodies. From my point of view the use of lenses like the classic f1.7 50mm manual focus lens is a no-brainer and the images produced are excellent...

It's all about the angle(where you're coming from) really... I mean, someone could very well say(in truth) that they prefer a modern lens "any day" over legacy the glass without any argument. ie. AF, sharpness, colours, bokeh, coatings, build, speed, and so on and so forth.

But then there is the other side of the coin, where old lenses give us something that the new ones cannot. Such as... low cost alternative, bokeh and rendering, colors, spacial characteristics(3D) etc etc. which also can't be disputed.

Having said all that... there can be no real definite conclusions in such things given that elements such as creativity create vast areas of preferences. Though one thing is for certain... legacy glass isn't going anywhere any time soon. ie. I know plenty studio shooters who will likely never part with a select group of old manual lenses(myself included).

[Katier]

Thanks folks - interesting thread and the kind of debate I enjoy

Currently my lens selection is rather limited but definitely plan on getting some more oldies. Currently got a couple of old ( naff ) zooms, then 2x50mm and a mislaid M42 28mm of some sort.

Incidently I haven't had a chance to properly test the M42 yet, but had to get an adapter off ebay which featured a flange to engage with the lens release peg. Am I right in saying this is the only option because the Pentax M42 adapter undoes itself as it doesn't have the aperture lever to stop movement?

Thanks

Kat

[joe.penn]

Incidently I haven't had a chance to properly test the M42 yet, but had to get an adapter off ebay which featured a flange to engage with the lens release peg

You won't be able to get "infinity" focus with the flange'd adapter - the flange'd adapter is good though as it will allow for you to use CIF without the need to foil the automation ("A") contacts, you may want to get a genuine adapter to have on hand though for the shots where you will need to hit infinity focus...

[joe.penn]

Am I right in saying this is the only option because the Pentax M42 adapter undoes itself as it doesn't have the aperture lever to stop movement?

No, the genuine adapter will not come undone from the "K-Mount", there is an aluminum tab that locks the adapter in place once mounted.

[Katier]

Mmm mine was just rotating through - it didn't lock and AFAIK is a genuine one.

[joe.penn]

Mmm mine was just rotating through - it didn't lock and AFAIK is a genuine one.

Post a pic of it...

[joe.penn]

Here is a picture of my genuine adapter, the locking tab is circled, that tab prevents it from coming unmounted while attached to the body...

[Lowell Goudge]

I alway use a hood or as with the teles one is built-in. The 100/4 macro vs the Tamron 90/2.8 is one I see contrast difference. Both are equally sharp. The old Pentax has a more solid close focus feel. Neither need hoods due to the recessed lens.

But the recess is designed based on full frame, with aps-c there is still light that the recess lets in, that does not hit the sensor, it goes some where and can lead to reduced contrast

[Katier]

Mine looks the same ( except it's printed 'Pentax K/M).

[joe.penn]

Mine looks the same ( except it's printed 'Pentax K/M).

Then you probably didn't have it seated/turned-in all the way...

[Katier]

It continues to rotate - clicks but carries on - it's as if it won't 'snag' the next part of the bayonet but instead gets pushed back and allows it to rotate too far.