[chochichaeschtli]

hi folks,

does anyone know something about this lens? It doesn't look like a Tokina or Vivitar 17mm.

thanks for any hints!

Attached Images

   

[chochichaeschtli]

uh, that was fast, thanks!

Seems there are versions with different focusing rings. I wonder if that thing is worth something compared to modern lenses - e. g. on a new Pentax ff

[vonBaloney]

Any 17mm lens in decent shape will be worth something, not sure what those are going for these days. That's an adaptall (the mount comes off) -- the mount itself has value. Performance-wise, there are better, but I think it is a decent lens.

[chochichaeschtli]

it's the other way round. I'm thinking of buying it, to have a potential ff replacement for my 15ltd - at least to start with. i don't think it will make me as happy, but why not try it. its quite hypothetical, as i don't have a ff and may never will... but if i get it for 100 or so...

Edit: i suppose the 15mm ltd. in crop mode would still be better (sharpness, flares, colours) - except the corner sharpness maybe but its wider.

---

Last edited by chochichaeschtli; 09-26-2015 at 08:06 AM.

[K-Three]

Not sure what you are trying to achieve,
If you like your 15mm FOV on APSc, and want an equivalent FOV on FF, then you need to be looking at the 20-24MM focal length for FF.

17mm on FF is going to look more like 11mm on APSc, lots wider than the 15mm you say you like now.

[Iberia]

uh, that was fast, thanks!

Seems there are versions with different focusing rings. I wonder if that thing is worth something compared to modern lenses - e. g. on a new Pentax ff

I have a feeling that we'll soon arrive to the conclusion that most existing lenses under-perform with a full-frame sensor...but I'm just guessing.

If you're going that way (FF) and don't mind focusing manually get Zeiss or Voigtländer lenses.

R

[vonBaloney]

I don't understand why this misconception keeps being spread.

The pixel density of the rumored 42MP sensor will be less than that of the K-3, which if the sensor was extended to FF size would be 57MP. This means a lens on the FF with its larger photosites will exhibit greater apparent sharpness at the per-pixel level and will allow smaller apertures before diffraction limiting becomes apparent. There's also nothing intrinsic about a FF sensor that decreases contrast or flare resistance or increases chromatic aberrations. The only area where you might see any decrease in performance is with falloff or relatively decreased sharpness in the corners which are cut out of the frame when a FF is used on APS-C bodies. But recall that the lenses we are talking about are already designed for a full 35mm film frame size, so it's not likely any reasonably decent lens will be unacceptable in the corners with a sensor of the same size.

Yes, I would expect pretty much all lenses to look better on FF unless they have severe problems near the edges. I think a 36mp sensor would have been fine, even better, but as you say, the pixel density is less than what we're already looking at with the K-3...

[Iberia]

There's no doubt that centre performance will be similar, only the centre will be smaller on a FF camera.
It's the edges, and the aberrations that could in many cases be the shortcomings of some lenses (i.e. Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Lab Test / Review - Analysis).

Have a look at Welcome to Photozone! where you can compare the performance of the same lenses on APS and FF Canon and Nikon bodies.

[chochichaeschtli]

Not sure what you are trying to achieve,
If you like your 15mm FOV on APSc, and want an equivalent FOV on FF, then you need to be looking at the 20-24MM focal length for FF.

17mm on FF is going to look more like 11mm on APSc, lots wider than the 15mm you say you like now.

You're right in principle. I wasn't looking fort that lens/focal length, just saw it for sale ($70 atm...). Old wide-angle lenses are not that frequent for sale around here. And if its a decent lens, i could still crop to "15mm apsc" without loosing much compared to my k5/15mm. And of course i would get an ultra wide.

Tempting on a FF camera is for me primarily a big viewfinder and fast, lightweight normal primes (for apsc, i don't count the heavy sigma 30mm f1.4 or expensive 31mm ltd., which both are not available here anyway...) - not the image quality. I'm happy with the IQ of my K5 (not so with the screen and autofocus), but with a FF you don't carry more weight/size, but each prime gets a pseudo-zoom, e.g. a 35mm 2.4 would cover a focal range of 35mm-50mm without loss of quality compared to a k5. its more like: if a new camera, why not a ff...

but this shouldn't be another thread about FF and its pro/cons. Was just wondering, what lens it is and if it might be fun to use. Thank you all for your inputs!

[Abbazz]

FWIW, my buddy with an A7mk2 has been quite happy with the M and K series glass I've sold him. He has also been pleased with a lot of Soviet glass , which is notorious for soft corners, as well.

I use a lot of Pentax glass on my Sony A7. My favorite wides are:
- Pentax FA 20-35/4 - I couldn't live without my 20-35. Great focal range on FF, good image quality and quite compact for a wide zoom.
- Pentax M 20/4 - a darling of a lens. Have you ever seen a pancake ultrawide ? As small as it gets but delivers superb images.
- Pentax F 17-28/3.5-4.5 - The father of the 10-17 fisheye zoom. It goes all the way from a 180° full-frame fisheye to the equivalent FOV of a rectilinear 24mm lens with just a bit of easily correctable distortion.

I guess these will also be great on the future Pentax full-frame. And both zooms will autofocus on a Pentax body, which they don't do on my Sony.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[rob1234]

Can't wait to get an FA24/2 on the FF...

[Iberia]

FWIW, my buddy with an A7mk2 has been quite happy with the M and K series glass I've sold him. He has also been pleased with a lot of Soviet glass , which is notorious for soft corners, as well.

One can of course use edge softness creatively.
I guess that either your friend enjoys the "look" he's getting from those (soviet) lenses or he isn't very demanding.

R