[boriscleto]

So it sounds like my "retro prime" suggestion is indeed relevent here. And I'm just a dense knucklehead having ideas based on what you guys say! Surely Pentax product developers know this demand exists too? You'd think they'd be monitoring a site like this!

BTW You guys brought up a couple of new terms for me:

Limiter?
CiF?

Thanks

CiF = Catch in Focus

When using a manual focus lens (or AF lens with MF switch), you set Catch in Focus to prevent the camera from taking a picture unless the AF system says it has a focus lock (green hexagon). It's sort of the poor man's AF. This works with all MF lenses as long as the correct contacts are shorted on the mount.

[dms]

For me:
1. As mentioned already for macro: use of extension tubes, bellows, reverse lens for macro.
2. If shoot maual (for my theatre sessions)
a. much faster to adjust w/ aperture ring
b. and if know your starting point (f stop) you know exactly where it is w/o looking
c. and intuitively you can adjust/correct exposure w/o thinking about it after a while

[severalsnakes]

For me:
1. As mentioned already for macro: use of extension tubes, bellows, reverse lens for macro.
2. If shoot maual (for my theatre sessions)
a. much faster to adjust w/ aperture ring
b. and if know your starting point (f stop) you know exactly where it is w/o looking
c. and intuitively you can adjust/correct exposure w/o thinking about it after a while

Agreed. Using the aperture ring has become second nature to correctly exposing the image and obtaining the desired DoF... I can't imagine doing it all by click-wheel, but if that was what I was accustomed to, I'm sure the ring would feel just as foreign. It's all a means to an end and it all works out the same, really. But having old manual bodies (and a new reversal ring that I am enamored with), I'm glad my entire collection is possessed of aperture rings and 90% are manual focus.

I have pangs of guilt, though. I feel like I should be buying some of those new Pentax lenses to support the company, but the omission of a physical aperture ring and the little shorty focus ring throw gives me severe paranoia.

I know it's silly; you don't have to tell me.

[Just1MoreDave]

BTW You guys brought up a couple of new terms for me:

Limiter?
CiF?

Thanks

Macro lenses focus closer, yet still focus to infinity. Something has to travel farther to get all that done. When you add autofocus to a macro lens, if it misses focus, it has to go through that full travel to (hopefully) lock focus. The limiter is a way to make that more tolerable. It can keep the lens within a range. My lens has a limiter switch for just close-up focus, or the full range. About 100% of the time, the limiter is set to the wrong one.

[TenZ.NL]

Sometimes I like to stack and reverse lenses, for instance I use my Tamron 90mm F2.8 with a reversering and put a a50mm 1.7 reversed on it. This gives me a 1:1,8 magnification (90:50). Now my DA35ltd, which in theory would give an allmost 2.6:1 magnification when combined with the 90mm, cannot be used because the diaphragm is closed when the lense is not mounted and I can`t open it due to the lack of an aperturering...

[Ray-uk]

And some of us just dont want to lose control! Give us back the aperture ring with A setting!

I can understand why you want the A setting but these two sentences contradict each other, because using the A setting gives the camera aperture control.
However I do agree with all your other statements.

[glasbak]

Aperture is a parameter of the lens, so the most intuitive and logical place to control it, is on the lens.
This prevents also accidentally changed aperture by the multifunction wheel on the camera body.
But it makes the lens slightly more expensive, so it is removed, because 'we' do always want the cheapest solution.

[Na Horuk]

BTW You guys brought up a couple of new terms for me: Limiter? CiF?

Limiter is usually on lenses with very long focus throw (as in, the focus ring turns many degrees, unlike modern lenses where its often less than 90 degrees from nearest to infinity, or even past infinity since there are no markings and accurate calibration seems to be an afterthought). So you can set up to use the full range, or only look for focus in near range, or only in far range.
And AF/MF switch on the lens can be useful, because it allows you to use CiF. CiF is pseudo-focus, true, but it can also be use for wildlife or street, because it triggers when something enters focus. So its more than just poor man's AF. I find it too bad that modern DA lenses do not allow CiF.
I think the AF/MF switch could also be integrated into a focus limiter, which would be really great on some lenses, like the DFA 100mm macro. A limiter would really speed things up, and CiF would make some shots easier.

And you are right, I think there would be a demand for "retro-primes", as we can see by how popular the FA and FA limited lenses are. (which are made for "film SLRs" and are not optimized for digital). Especially a good 24mm or something, bonus points for WR. But its a dream, most consumers want an easy, hassle free lens, with no confusing buttons and knobs. Just one ring for focus... I think soon even this might disappear

[jatrax]

most consumers want an easy, hassle free lens, with no confusing buttons and knobs. Just one ring for focus...

Well, not all. I handed my camera to a friend to take a shot with and the DA 70 was mounted. They kept turning the focus ring and saying "somethings wrong it's not zooming"

[rbefly]

Hello David,
Back in the Dark ages (film slr's and rangefinders) there was a technique called 'Zone Focusing' and another great trick called 'Hyper Focal'. It would take way too long to explain both here, I suggest you Google them. But they, when used correctly, allowed the photographer to control the depth-of-field in ways we can only dream about with (first) auto-focus, then eliminating the DOF scale, finally removal of the aperture ring completely.
But all these auto features are better, aren't they? Well, in the same way an automatic transmission is 'better' than a manual transmission. It depends on how much comfort versus control you're willing to trade.
Auto-everything makes certain things easier. But does it make them better?
Remember, you're dealing with a very traditional camera (system) crowd here. Pentaxians love their legacy lenses, the fact that we can use FILM SLR's alongside our DSLR's with (mostly) the same lenses. Very few other makers have kept this complete compatability.
Even users new to the brand soon come to understand this tradition and how important it is to the loyalists. Maybe they'll never try a film Pentax body, but it's a comfort to know they could. It is one of the most special aspects of being a Pentaxian. So, being able to use the old glass means understanding (or, at least, respecting) the old techniques for manual focus, manual aperture, DOF scales and lots of other stone age 'tricks'.
Many of which, are still pretty handy!
Ron

[DavidSKAF3]

Hello David,
Back in the Dark ages (film slr's and rangefinders) there was a technique called 'Zone Focusing' and another great trick called 'Hyper Focal'. It would take way too long to explain both here, I suggest you Google them. But they, when used correctly, allowed the photographer to control the depth-of-field in ways we can only dream about with (first) auto-focus, then eliminating the DOF scale, finally removal of the aperture ring completely.
But all these auto features are better, aren't they? Well, in the same way an automatic transmission is 'better' than a manual transmission. It depends on how much comfort versus control you're willing to trade.
Auto-everything makes certain things easier. But does it make them better?
Remember, you're dealing with a very traditional camera (system) crowd here. Pentaxians love their legacy lenses, the fact that we can use FILM SLR's alongside our DSLR's with (mostly) the same lenses. Very few other makers have kept this complete compatability.
Even users new to the brand soon come to understand this tradition and how important it is to the loyalists. Maybe they'll never try a film Pentax body, but it's a comfort to know they could. It is one of the most special aspects of being a Pentaxian. So, being able to use the old glass means understanding (or, at least, respecting) the old techniques for manual focus, manual aperture, DOF scales and lots of other stone age 'tricks'.
Many of which, are still pretty handy!
Ron

Thank you for this information. I got a brand new K-5 a few weeks ago. This week I got my first vintage prime. I think I will understand better when I begin learning how to use the older lenses.

[Pontax]

This is a little of the thread, sorry for stealing. I have just bought the M35 2.8. and I was wondering what the small dot in front of 2.8 on the aperture ring stands for?

Hyper Focal, that's when all the orange settings are in line, right. What is the focal range on a M35?

To comment on this treads topic, I myself find that I loose the important connection when using electronic aperture control. I simply "forget" what it is set on and it works better to see it on the lens.

Thanks all and merry Christmas.

[Na Horuk]

Not sure what you are talking about. The MF Pentax lenses have a little pearl, an IR focusing helper (little red line, IR index), and depth of field scales (Zone focusing/hyperfocal guides, basically the lines connecting aperture and focus ring)

[Pontax]

All of those I know of (the pearl is still a mystery for me)



It is the small dot between 5.6 and 2.8, but closer to 2.8. Does simply indicate 3.5

Do you know the Hyper Focal range for this lens?

[gofour3]

All of those I know of (the pearl is still a mystery for me)



It is the small dot between 5.6 and 2.8, but closer to 2.8. Does simply indicate 3.5

Do you know the Hyper Focal range for this lens?

The white dot indicates F4 on your lens.

You match up the "red" distance with the "red" aperture, for the hyper focal range. So it's F8 and 15 feet/4.5 meters for your lens.

Phil.