[clockworkrat]

I'm utterly skint so crusty old lenses are my only option for now.

[Canada_Rockies]

I use two older and three newer lenses as my full kit.

* My bird lens: M 400/5.6 with and without 1.7x AFA rear convertor. Tripod only for this fellow.
* Next short is a DA 55-300. It has somewhat less CA and PF, but is not exempt. It is light weight and convenient.
* Next shorter is an M 100/4 "dental" macro. For macro I fail to see any advantage to AF or AE. Chasing bugs through the flowers will result in too many exposure changes with auto exposure. MF lens with Catch-In-Focus gets more sharp bugs for me than anything else.
* DA* 16-50/2.8. Love it to pieces. My SDM is still going strong after 9 years of use.
* DA 12-24/4. The best and only scenery lens for me. I can crouch down and catch a foreground at 12 mm or shoot at almost APS-C normal at 24 mm.

For fun, I also own a Takumar 55/1.8 and a Pentax branded mount adapter.

If the SDM fails on the 16-50, it won't bother me much. I can either go MF or switch the lens to MF and leave body AF on for Catch-In-Focus.

One old phart's take on the subject.

[john.margetts]

Waiting for someone at come along and talk about the bokeh on a Helios.

I like my Helioses and use them on my Spotmatic but I have never really grasped the concept of bokeh.

[clackers]

I like my Helioses and use them on my Spotmatic but I have never really grasped the concept of bokeh.

Put a subject in front of a backlit tree and prepare to be amazed, John!

You want the light coming through between the leaves as highlights. ☺

[Canada_Rockies]

I like my Helioses and use them on my Spotmatic but I have never really grasped the concept of bokeh.

My take on bokeh: Is the out of focus background attractive or ugly?

[fwcetus]

My take on bokeh: Is the out of focus background attractive or ugly?

Yes -- I'd say that that IS the basic definition for bokeh (IMHO).

[mgvh]

As for bokeh, I evaluate not simply as attractive or ugly but rather does it:

1. distract from the focus of the picture = bad bokeh
2. not distract and simply provide a luscious fore/background = good, creamy bokeh, or
3. enhance or serve as the focus of the picture = unique bokeh effects

But back to OP re: vintage lenses: Some old lenses are engineering and aesthetic marvels. There is just something about my M 50 f1.7 that is just a pleasure to hold and to use.

My old lenses with their limitations (no autofocus, metering, auto aperture) cause me to slow down a bit and be more intentional about and aware of the picture I'm taking. When I can do that and not compromise the quality that newer lenses with better coatings might provide, then it's worth the extra time and effort to shoot with those old lenses.

[Progbusters]

I use Pentax mostly because I can use the vintage lenses. They're affordable, no-nonsense, and it's basic photography. I like shooting manual as well because like mentioned before, you control and judge, and sometimes focus faster. And create.

[clackers]

Well, here's LeRolls' wonderful effort in the Soviet Lenses Club.


The Helios/Jupiters do smooth bokeh as well with backgrounds lacking highlights.

[goatsNdonkey]

The original poster's question reminds us of how extraordinary it is that Pentax lenses going back 40+ years are compatible with as many years of their camera models! If not for that compatibility, this discussion thread could not exist.


Thanks to Alex645, for summarizing those key technical considerations related to these lens types.


I personally don't have an autofocus lens yet for my K110D body, though I have considered some FA models. Still, the question of whether to use a prime or a zoom, or a fast or slower lens, is a consideration, as is it worth the time and trouble to fiddle with the k-mount adapter, in order to mount my old Super-Takumar f1.8 55mm on a K-mount film or digital body.


Bokeh? Isn't that more about whether pattern and tones of the out-of-focus background actually makes the overall image more pleasing? It seems to me that involves more than simply throwing the background out of focus to make the central image "pop." I suspect that some photographers have "an eye" for achieving excellent bokeh, and I may not be among them -- though I can appreciate and sometimes love those pictures. Photographers who are good at bokeh do seem to say that some lenses and some films help them do that better. Of course there are separate threads that explore that better.