[UncleVanya]

Take pictures and show us how bad the old glass is.

[Sagitta]

Primes preferred because, where they any really good older zooms?

This depends on how fussy you are - after all, you ARE buying lenses old enough to have graduated college by now.

Biggest surprise zoom for me was an old Miranda 70-210mm. It has zoom creep out the wazoo, but considering I paid all of 10 bucks for it AND the Chinon it was mounted on, it quickly has become one of my favorite budget finds.









Also worth checking in the 'cheap zoom' category - The Tokina/Sears/Porst/??? 75-260mm close focus. Its big, its heavy, but that close focus setting (on any other lens of that era it would have been branded as a macro, but there was truth in advertising at play here I suppose) is amazing.

[stevebrot]

I forgot to leave my list of what I would look for at yard sales and such

• Tamron Adaptall-2 primes. Most are inexpensive today and many were premium lenses back in the day (Hint: My Tamron 28/2.5 (02B) was priced 2x that of a Pentax-M 28/2.8 when I bought it in 1982.)
• Tamron Adaptall-2 SP primes and zooms. All were premium lenses when new and many still highly regarded.
• Zeiss (Kyocera-made) lenses in Contax/Yashica mount. These may be converted to Pentax K by means of the Leitax kit.
• Any Pentax AF prime
• Any metal-body K-mount or M42 macro prime

To the above one might also consider a a second list that require some judgement and expertise:

• Bona fide Vivitar Series-1 zooms
• Pentax-A primes (some focal lengths)
• Pentax-A, F, and FA zooms (quality varies with most not being as good modern zooms)
• Various Rikenons, Chinons, and such
• Various East German and former Soviet M42
• Various Japanese (including Asahi-made) M42

OTOH, one can simply look for lenses that represent an "empty spot" in the kit, while avoiding sketchy stuff like most vintage zooms and most store brands and stuff that looks and feels like junk.


Steve

[Wheatridger]

Putting old, soft glass in front of a K-1 is like booting a brand new 4 GHz workstation off a 3.5" floppy disk. It might be kind of fun, and you'll definitely end up with some interesting results, but if you care at all about performance, you're just wasting your time.

Old 35mm or longer fast f/2.8+ primes stopped down to f/5.6 will look OK, but the best glass you can get is the current lineup of lenses made by Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang.

Old ultra-wide lenses look terrible and are essentially unusable at any f/stop, in my experience.

If you're interesting is dreamy, soft portraits, then open the lens wide-open and be amazed at the beautiful softness that results from 80s-era optical designs.

My opinion, however, has always been that if you're spending less money on glass than your camera body, you're probably doing it wrong. Since you mentioned you're looking for an ultra-wide, the 15-30/2.8 is the most usable UWA lens you can get for the K-1. If you're really pinching pennies, get the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8, though it's a manual-focus lens, relegating its use to landscapes, inanimate objects, and animals/people that are no longer living.

That's a valid opinion, and a common one. But tell me, have you personally used '80s & 90s lenses on a full frame DSLR? I was doing this 10 years ago, with a Sony a850 and Minolta Maxxum lenses. A great many of us Minoltans sang the praises of lenses, giving them pet names like "Beercan" and "Secret Handshake" (if anyone recognized it on your camera, you were members of the same club). I have a 30-inch wide print of a farm irrigation sprinkler from 100+ away, I can clearly see individual drops of water in flight. The lens? A little 100-200/4.5 worth about fifty bucks.

The old advice was that cameras didn't matter- you just needed the best (and costliest) lenses available. That was true, back when we were shooting slide film with zero possibility of post-processing. Today, camera and PP play an equal, if not greater role in the IQ equation. If a lens has a little CA, that's easy to fix. If you need more pixie dust, try the Clarity slider instead. Aperture a little slow? With four-digit ISOs and five-stop SR, that's not such a problem. And when you step up a format size, while keeping a modest pixel density, the vintage glass gains a huge improvement. With my lenses, sharpness is no longer a dream. Or deep dynamic range without HDR. Or twilight, and the lack of tripod. The only technical challenge that's gotten tougher is depth of field. I just have to use f8-16 more, and that further equalizes the performance of various lenses.

So please get used to hearing about the joys of "mature" glass. Heck, mine isn't even that old. They're all AF, except a pair of Taks that I never use. Believe what you want, but I'd hate for others to doubt that a K-1 was worthwhile unless they couldn't afford a new DFA 2.8 zoom to match. Just use any lens that fits- you might like what you see.

[rcolman]

So, what did I get today at the Camera Show? I bought a SMC Pentax-M 100mm f2.8 in very nice, clean condition for $110.

Trying out this lens on the night sky, whiere I spend most of my time, the star images were tight, very very little COMA to the edge of the field. A little vignetting but correctable in post.
So I would declare this lens "ASTRO B+ grade with full-frame."

Why not an "A" - well, folks, I can't quite achieve infinity focus on the K-1.It is not much, and I am really close, but not spot on. I am having this problem with most older Pentax and newer third-party lenses.

Does anyone know how to move the infinity focus hard stop just a tiny little bit?

-- Rick.

[bdery]

That's a fun topic.

Primes preferred because, where they any really good older zooms?

Well, yes, my first recommendation would be to look for either a F70-210 or, even better, a F35-70.

Apart from that, thinking about what you're likely to find, a F50 F1.7, any 28mm or any M series between 100 and 150mm (primes, that is).

[rcolman]

On most
However, he fact that this affects multiple lenses suggests that the bayonet in your camera body might be out of spec. Have you considered a warranty repair?

It has been suggested that Ricoh changed the distance in between the flange and sensor on the k-1, causing a generic problem. This problem has been reported by multiple users.

[UncleVanya]

It has been suggested that Ricoh changed the distance in between the flange and sensor on the k-1, causing a generic problem. This problem has been reported by multiple users.

I can imagine a slight shift in manufacturing tolerances where the overall distance might be a tiny bit longer than the Previous bodies, but I see no reason this would be done on purpose.

---------- Post added 09-19-16 at 12:13 PM ----------

I think I sound like a broken record continually posting this link. But it is very important to pay attention to the results in this article. The reality is that while camera technology has been massively improved - lens technology has improved but slowly. The changes in fact are more about cost reduction and reduced time to market and aberration control. Given the improvements in post processing the results you can get from old lenses are pretty impressive.

Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

Note that I am NOT saying that you can't find new lenses that exceed the sharpness and the resolution of the older lenses - I'm saying that the delta while there at the Pixel Peeping level may not have any real impact on the usability of the image commercially or artistically. There will be shots that the old lenses fail to capture as well - there are also potentially situations where the coloration of the older lenses may offer a better look than the clinical rendering of a modern lens - but this is where photographic vision comes in - you must choose the right lens for the right job.

---------- Post added 09-19-16 at 12:15 PM ----------

See also:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/330115-pixe...es-almost.html

[rcolman]

If my copy is anything to go by, then they didn't (and why would they? -it makes zero sense). All of my vintage lenses (and I have hundreds) are dead on, as they are on all my other bodies.

I dont want to restart this whole discussion. Let me say that I personally went through three (or four) new Pentax K-1 bodies, several months ago. Two of them would not achieve critical infinity focus on manual. Two of them seemed to be OK, and I kept the last one. By critical infinity focus, I am talking about astrophotography using point-source star images. Tiny variations, like even a change in temperature, that would have no impact on routine photos, can screw up astrophotography.

My method requires that I be able to focus "past the infinity point" and then come back to ensure proper focus. Many modern lenses have no firm infinity stop, so this is easy. My recently purchased SMP Pentax-M 100/2.8 has a hard stop. I can see, from experience, that I do not have "perfect" focus because I can still see a slight disk on the star (at 16x) when I hit the infinity stop.So, I need to find a way to move the stop.

I have done this to two Rokinon lenses, and they make it pretty easy; (if you don't mind critical alignment in the lens being held together with scotch tape ...

[UncleVanya]

I dont want to restart this whole discussion. Let me say that I personally went through three (or four) new Pentax K-1 bodies, several months ago. Two of them would not achieve critical infinity focus on manual. Two of them seemed to be OK, and I kept the last one. By critical infinity focus, I am talking about astrophotography using point-source star images. Tiny variations, like even a change in temperature, that would have no impact on routine photos, can screw up astrophotography.

My method requires that I be able to focus "past the infinity point" and then come back to ensure proper focus. Many modern lenses have no firm infinity stop, so this is easy. My recently purchased SMP Pentax-M 100/2.8 has a hard stop. I can see, from experience, that I do not have "perfect" focus because I can still see a slight disk on the star (at 16x) when I hit the infinity stop.So, I need to find a way to move the stop.

I have done this to two Rokinon lenses, and they make it pretty easy; (if you don't mind critical alignment in the lens being held together with scotch tape ...

But to be fair - that's not a K-1 property - that's a manual focus lens property. Many of them have hard stops because that's what was expected when they were made and this may have drifted since initial adjustment or the critical focus looked close enough back in the day but is not quite accurate now.

[rcolman]

But to be fair - that's not a K-1 property - that's a manual focus lens property. Many of them have hard stops because that's what was expected when they were made and this may have drifted since initial adjustment or the critical focus looked close enough back in the day but is not quite accurate now.

I am not trying to be unfair. I really like the K1. This is just a problem that most shooters will not encounter.

[Topsy]

That is a colorful, if highly obtuse analogy, and quite far from the mark. Booting a modern PC from floppy is perhaps more accurately
comparable to using a first generation SD card to capture images on your K-1. Using old glass on your K-1 is perhaps comparable
to using an old, top end CRT with your modern PC; not the highest resolution and a bit impractical in terms of weight and bulk,
but still capable of good viewing.

And a CRT even has some advantages over an LCD (refreshrate, no dead pixels mainly)

Why buy a K-1 and then look for obsolete, APS-c, or film era lenses.

In my case: If I would have had enough money to buy modern lenses for my k50 I wouldn't have been able to afford a K-1. I most likely also would not have had any FF lenses and so I maybe wouldn't even have had any interest in buying it.
I just shoot slowly and don't come home with 10gb of data everyday either.

All my lenses together cover more range and cost me less than than a new 24-70. And they're slowly but surely paying themselves quite well too.

Oh, and I am having fun



As for a list of lenses..
A decent one that can be had pretty cheap on fleamarkets is the Super Takumar 28/3.5, not the very best but for the price it's very good imo.

Basically if it's cheap and you can afford to pick it up, inspect it thoroughly though.
I'm usually naturally drawn to lenses I've never heard of. You can't lose much in buying it, especially if it's a focal length you haven't got yet or are curious to try. Just look at the , say 10$, as an investment for an experience, worst case if you don't like it at all/it's no good you could still try to to sell it again for 5$ or use it to practice repairs on!

[tvdtvdtvd]

And a CRT even has some advantages over an LCD (refreshrate, no dead pixels mainly)

And we come full circle, as older lenses often have advantages over modern: better build, better MF operation, different
character, which can be better depending on your artistic intent.....

[stevebrot]

It has been suggested that Ricoh changed the distance in between the flange and sensor on the k-1, causing a generic problem. This problem has been reported by multiple users.

Truly? Who suggested that and why would Ricoh do such?


Steve

[stevebrot]

I dont want to restart this whole discussion. Let me say that I personally went through three (or four) new Pentax K-1 bodies, several months ago. Two of them would not achieve critical infinity focus on manual. Two of them seemed to be OK, and I kept the last one. By critical infinity focus, I am talking about astrophotography using point-source star images. Tiny variations, like even a change in temperature, that would have no impact on routine photos, can screw up astrophotography.

Based on what you said above, you want lenses that focus beyond infinity so that you can compensate for environmental and atmospheric conditions. Fair enough. As you are probably aware, very few manual focus primes are intentionally manufactured to provide that feature. Sony A7 users have the option of cheap adapters that tend to be a little short of proper, but that does not help with the K-1. Your options on K-mount are little more restricted:

• Purchase only lenses that allow "past-infinity" movement of the focus ring
• Purchase only lenses that may be adjusted to focus past infinity
• Machine the lens body to provide slightly shorter registration
• Find a source of replacement lens mounts made of thinner material
• Have a competent repair shop shim your K-1 to a shorter registration

The last option may be the most practical, but would likely void your warranty. Swapping out with thinner material on the lens side is a fascinating idea, particularly for lenses without the "A" contacts.

As for reopening the discussion, there is little reason to do that. This has been a fun thread whose usefulness does not pivot on whether you can use your lenses to do critical focus on stars or whether you should go back to Sony.

Addendum: A competent lens tech with an optical bench should be able to determine if the registration distance is other than 46.45mm.


Steve