[Sandy Hancock]

I'm too lazy for stop-down metering, so have no interest in any lenses before the A series.

My FA*24/2.0, FA43, A50/1.2 and FA135/2.8 will certainly get used more, although they are far from needing revival
The FA31 and FA77 are already my favourite lenses on APS-C, and I expect they will get even more love on the FF.

I am most desirous of sourcing a FA20/2.8 at some point too....

[monochrome]

I'm too lazy for stop-down metering, so have no interest in any lenses before the A series.

I am most desirous of sourcing a FA20/2.8 at some point too....

For my purposes the 'A' will do

[pathdoc]

Well, whether they restore the K mount aperture reporting arm or not, I know my Takumars are almost certainly going to remain limited to stop down metering in Av mode; so after 27 days of seeing just how sharp even a non-SMC Tak can be when the lighting is good, I'm keen to see how they fly on FF digital at their design fields of view.

[osv]

Not really tougher, but certainly different as these old lenses were designed for the early k-mount film cameras and not for a third party digital camera. I can still shoot some 20 ISO b&w film that can rival your Sony for FF resolution.

ADOX | CMS 20 II & ADOTECH II

like the shot, but that b/w film comes with a lot of limitations... an 8000dpi scanner?

here is an ooc jpeg of the k28/3.5 at probably f/10, or whatever the half-stop mark is... it's really not much improved on the sides over the f/8 photo, they are just plain soft... focus point is the "5610" number in the center, try hitting that mark accurately with your film camera i can do it every single time, at 100 yards or whatever the distance is here.

the "5620" number on the left is barely readable, it's sharper with the m28/3.5, click on the pic to view at 100%.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ud8wze185hs0gj1/DSC06268smck283point5f10.JPG?dl

[stevebrot]

that makes sense, because pentax-m was supposed to be the low-price option??

Huh? Who said that? Some lenses in the series were priced and spec'd as consumer lenses (e.g. M 28/2.8, which cost less new than a Vivitar 28/2.8 and half that of the Tamron 28/2.5), but that was not typical for the series.


Steve

[monochrome]

Huh? Who said that? Some lenses in the series were priced and spec'd as consumer lenses (e.g. M 28/2.8, which cost less new than a Vivitar 28/2.8 and half that of the Tamron 28/2.5), but that was not typical for the series.


Steve

For instance, the M28/2 and M*300/4 are exemplary lenses. There are numerous merely outstanding lenses, starting with the M50/1.4.

[stevebrot]

Not really tougher, but certainly different as these old lenses were designed for the early k-mount film cameras and not for a third party digital camera. I can still shoot some 20 ISO b&w film that can rival your Sony for FF resolution.

Thank you, Phil for saving me the trouble of saying this. The intrinsic resolution (800 lp/mm) of the Adox is higher than the A7RII sensor, though there would be unavoidable degradation in the scan or enlargement process. The appropriate real world test would be to use the USAF target and determine the film/lens resolution with a microscope.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-27-2016 at 08:20 PM.

[stevebrot]

There are numerous merely outstanding lenses, starting with the M50/1.4.

Don't forget the M 50/1.7 which was used for comparison testing by the magazines of the time along with the best lenses of the day. I suspect that @osv mixed up the design goal of compactness with aiming for consumer lens quality across the range.


Steve

[stevebrot]

here is an ooc jpeg of the k28/3.5 at probably f/10, or whatever the half-stop mark is... it's really not much improved on the sides over the f/8 photo, they are just plain soft... focus point is the "5610" number in the center, try hitting that mark accurately with your film camera i can do it every single time, at 100 yards or whatever the distance is here.

I think you may have a problem with your lens. OTOH, the performance standard for 28mm lenses of the time allowed for some edge softness. I know...cop out... But truth is that most of the 28mm and shorter lenses on the market in the '70s suffered from field curvature. It was enough of a problem that so-called flat field design was a marketing point and allowed for a premium price point.

As for hitting the mark at 100 yards with my film camera...no problem.


Steve

[gofour3]

like the shot, but that b/w film comes with a lot of limitations... an 8000dpi scanner?

Thank you, Phil for saving me the trouble of saying this. The intrinsic resolution (800 lp/mm) of the Adox is higher than the A7RII sensor, though there would be unavoidable degradation in the scan or enlargement process. The appropriate real world test would be to use the USAF target and determine the film/lens resolution with a microscope.

Agreed, they (Adox) must have measured the resolution of this film in the analog world. I know if I scanned one of those negatives on my home scanner I would be lucky to get 1/1000 of that.

Phil.

[osv]

norm koren went thru the color film vs. digital comparison in agonizing detail, years ago, provia 100f scanned at 4000dpi: "I estimate that a full-frame sensor with 8.3 megapixels would have resolution equal to 35mm film." Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

it looks like you can sharpen the heck out of an 8000dpi scan, really drive the resolution numbers up, but the grain in the film is what hurts the pq.

he uses film to create some of the imatest backlit test targets? it looks pretty impressive blown way up, but gets killed by laser etching, and the edge of a razor blade: Transmissive Chart Quality Comparison | imatest

---------- Post added 01-27-16 at 11:29 PM ----------

Don't forget the M 50/1.7 which was used for comparison testing by the magazines of the time along with the best lenses of the day. I suspect that @osv mixed up the design goal of compactness with aiming for consumer lens quality across the range.

i'm defining consumer level by cost... compact typically means fewer elements, so it's cheaper for pentax to manufacture... pq was never a factor, retail pricing within a prime focal length was based on aperture.

however, minolta also labeled their consumer lineup as "celtic", and they reputedly cut some corners with the coatings... while a lot of the celtic lenses had the same optics as the more expensive glass, i don't think that celtic ever included fast glass... nikon did something similar with "e" series glass.

i'm no pentax expert, but if you don't want to call pentax-m consumer gear, how did they separate the lines, like the other companies did?

---------- Post added 01-27-16 at 11:33 PM ----------

As for hitting the mark at 100 yards with my film camera...no problem.

i'd like to see any film shooter on this forum back that claim up 28mm, 2' target, at 100 yards, post it up

[bjolester]

norm koren went thru the color film vs. digital comparison in agonizing detail, years ago, provia 100f scanned at 4000dpi: "I estimate that a full-frame sensor with 8.3 megapixels would have resolution equal to 35mm film." Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

Well, such claims are just hopelessly misleading. I have looked at some of Norman Koren's speculations about film and resolution, and most of the stuff is really outdated. I shoot Fuji Provia 100F in 135 format, and with the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 scanner, I am sure I could extract the equivalent to 24mp from a well exposed Provia 100F slide, taken with the best lenses, tripod and cable release. A drum scan of the same slide would possibly result in an even better digital version.

For anyone interested in a scientific and thorough discussion about film resolution, including the Adox CMS 20 film mentioned above, you should check out this article by Tim Parkin (from On Landscape Magazine):

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

[zapp]

I'm sure we all have thoughts on this. Maybe some of us have growing stashes of classic Pentax-mount lenses we plan to use with the FF camera.

I've been through this kind of expectant excitement before. Ten years ago, I was a Minolta/Sony user awaiting their new FF, the Sony a900. Although many chose only the top Sony/Zeiss lenses to match their new 24-MP wonder, I stuck with the cheap old AF Maxxum lenses left over from Minolta's long-lost mastery of the early AF market. I loved the results- adding stabilization and Lightroom's image corrections to these 20-year-old lenses made them sing. Among the better-regarded Maxxums, I didn't find one whose performance was unsuitable. Maybe I'm just not that picky? But others raved too about, for example, the 70-210/4 "Beercan," renowned for its smooth bokeh and its beefy, internal-focus build. The Maxxum 24-85/3.5-4.5 was my main go-to lens for the time I shot Sony FF (until last year). Originally a $700 lens (and the first to have two aspherical surfaces), it was pin-sharp. The bokeh was bad, so I avoided that...

What Pentax or other K-mount lenses will be sought after six months from now? For one, I'm betting on the Pentax-F 24-50/4. It's FF, AF and rated in the nines here. The focal lengths are quite useful, and I expect that the FF's croppability will make this lens useful to an equivalent of 100 mm or so. Also, it seems to be one of the rarest Pentax AF lenses. Not at my house, though- I just bought a third copy.

Most of the bargains in older Pentax lenses seem to have already been snapped up already, but what's your vote for a "diamond in the rough?"

None, they all need major improvements - maybe names will survive. Besides that expect the typical set of lenses people demand most. It's like in the late 80's again when Minolta, Canon an Nikon started new lens series and/or mounts.

[r0ckstarr]

M-35 1.4.

[LBEL]

I was thinking about the same thing, I love my old Pentax lenses and I will be excited to test them on the full frame :-) Maybe one day who knows?.
Do you think the resolution of theses lenses will be enough for a full frame?

(I think about my K series ) ( 55, 28f3.5, 105 and 135f2.5) -> Family Portrait - PENTAX K SERIES 1975-1976

I love the K28 and It would be nice to view it come back to its initial use as a landscape lens. (Of course I got some modern lens too, like my 10_20 sigma)
but I would like to test old glass on the FF, I love my old primes.