[joshuamcateer]

Firstly, welcome to Pentax Forums.

Your choice of the K-1 is interesting in that you seem to have aprehensions about the Pentax lens system. Are you looking for a particular combination of focal length and aperture? Or are you looking for quiet auto-focus capabilities? Or a particular zoom range? Or lightweight zoom lenses? How many lenses do you need to fit with your current shooting style and interests?

I think with a bit more research and browsing through this site and others, you'll find that the Pentax Limited lenses are held generally in high regard. While I don't want to be pedantic, "mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned" are rarely used to describe the FA-Ltd or DA-Ltd series. Take a look also at the countless sample images -- I trust you'll see plenty of goodness along with liberal doses of 'pixie-dust.'



No - it's the Pentax look and the Pentax feel.


- Craig

Thanks. Everyone on here seems to vouch for them.

I *was* a little apprehensive about the k-1, but it's an excellent body. I got the two lenses that I really put as the minimum requirements with it, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macro. But I was thinking of getting a few primes at some point as I really like the 50mm fov and something a bit faster than f/2.8 would be nice.

My main reason for calling them "awkward, old-fashioned" (which I now feel might not be completely fair, and reads in a somewhat antagonistic way) was based on the slow af speed (which I understand they tend to have) and I found slightly annoying with the 100mm macro (I know macros are normally slow, but even in cases it doesn't need to hunt it is much slower than the 24-70).

Thanks for you answer

[TER-OR]

The limiteds are not huge fast zooms. That's not their purpose.

You'll need to investigate which ones will suit your needs and style. Not all the Ltd lenses are full-frame compatible - you'll need to do a bit of research there.
Not every lens is designed for every purpose, after all. "Older" optics mean nothing (they still have good coatings), and contrast is often supported by the use or disuse of the hood.

I'm a big fan of the pancake lenses, for instance. Their compactness makes them compelling as a trio. You can use them in crop mode, or just crop the image yourself. The FA series is absolutely worth investigating. If you purchase used, you can usually sell for the same amount if you decide you don't like the lens. There's really only one way to know.

[boriscleto]

Do you realize how many pixies have to be sacrificed to make just one FA Limited lens? Have some respect for the Pixie Holocaust and give the Limiteds the unending praise they deserve.

[johnkrumm]

It's a valid criticism of the system. For a modern full frame camera, there should be plenty of full frame autofocus primes and zooms. I have a hand full of m42 mount lenses, and they're great, but you can't do anything quickly with them. Hell, I mounted lenses off of my pentacon six onto a m4/3 camera, it doesn't mean that it's practical to do for all types of photography.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with K1 owners or prospective owners complaining about the current full frame lens line-up. If I had my way it would have been released with four or five compact WR primes from the start, and zoom shooters would be complaining. Buying used, manual focus lenses is very hit and miss. Even my 31 limited, as nice as it is, is not up to modern edge sharpness standards.

[wildman]

What's so special about the limited lenses?

The people who think the Limiteds are so special.

[brofkand]

The digital rev reviews seemed pretty scathing. Although, I just looked, the review on here for the 43mm do seem very good. However, there seem to be several comments like

"Sharpness:
I gave this a 5 because when it focuses, it's pretty good, especially at screen size. But a pixel peep reveals that the lens lacks the resolution of its FA31 and FA77 sisters. Perhaps the biggest problem with this lens is its poor contrast, even stopped down until you hit f/5.6 or so. Using flash helps a bit but compared to what other lenses can do on the K-1, the FA43 is a huge disappointment.

I'm not even commenting on wide open performance. I'm trying to shoot this at f/3.2 to f/4 and not seeing acceptable results. Flash helps a bit but the off-center performance is quite poor even stopped down a bit. A normal lens like this should really be accomplishing a lot more." from MadMathMind

And none of them are *that* fast. I have a 50mm 1.4 (8 element) takumar that you could say similar things about (although without af, somewhat less sharp, and a stop faster), and it cost about a fifth as much.

Maybe I'll just have to try one and see

Do what you want. I don't know anything about digital rev all I know about is the results I get with my equipment.

[jlstrawman]

It's a valid criticism of the system. For a modern full frame camera, there should be plenty of full frame autofocus primes and zooms. I have a hand full of m42 mount lenses, and they're great, but you can't do anything quickly with them. Hell, I mounted lenses off of my pentacon six onto a m4/3 camera, it doesn't mean that it's practical to do for all types of photography.

OK, Joshua, I apologize for coming on a bit too strong. From my standpoint, I am a bit surprised that you would spend the bucks on the K-1, if you were aware that the Pentax FF autofocus
lineup is still small, and if that was important to you.

[stevebrot]

Lots of people on here, and on other sites seem to rave about them. But in reading the reviews, they generally seem mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned, and extremely expensive. From my understanding, they were designed in Pentax's early digital days, for crop sensor cameras with fairly low pixel densities (but many of the do cover ff), and so you might expect them to be a little soft and not have the best autofocus. Both of which seem to be common complaints.

The "Limiteds" of the true and faithful were made long before digital image capture and the "Age of Resin" to be used with the finest of silver-based media. Translation: The lenses you should be interested in for use with your K-1 are the FA limiteds (three models, 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm) which date to 1997-2001 and which were originally mated to film cameras of the day. AF performance depends on the body driving the lens. General characteristics:

• Stand-out build quality and user experience
• Fast maximum aperture
• Compact design
• Overall excellent optical performance

In addition, the fact that they have aperture rings allows easy use with legacy gear and devices such as bellows and extension tubes. Common criticisms:

• Not made for digital. It might be pointed out that the lenses are unaware of that fact and continue to perform as if Technical Pan were present at the focal plane.
• Expensive. Pentax owners are well-known for being a cheap lot. List price for any of the FA Limiteds is about the same as for Canon "L" primes of similar focal length and maximum aperture. That being said, good deals are not unusual. I paid $500 USD new for my FA 77/1.8 Limited from an established online/brick-n-mortar store.
• Obsolete tech...does not apply to cult classics
• Not Zeiss Otus...see note above regarding price

...people suggest these extremely expensive limited lenses as the saviour of the system.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

Do they capture that quintessentially Pentax light that each epitomises what it is to shoot Pentax (just like the creamy Leica-look. Or that Hasselblad feel)?

The comparison to Leitz optics is high flattery, particularly since the FA 43/1.8 Limited was actually made in M-mount and is highly regarded among Leica shooters. No, to be completely honest with you, the reputation is based mostly on the fact that the lenses, regardless of stamped country of origin, are forged by elves in secret grottos and liberally infused with pixie dust by their makers. As a result, even the most inept photographer find their work universally admired.


Steve

[stevebrot]

But I was thinking of getting a few primes at some point as I really like the 50mm fov and something a bit faster than f/2.8 would be nice.

The FA 50/1.4 is in the current lineup as is the FA 35/2. Both are competent, compact, fast AF primes at moderate price points. If you find your M42 glass cumbersome, you might be better served with manual focus K-mount primes.

In regards to the Digital Rev reference...Surely you jest? Those clowns "jumped the shark" some time ago.


BTW...welcome to the Pentax Forums!


Steve

(...we are generally pretty nice people, but are wary of sarcasm in initial welcome posts...)

[jayman_1975]

In regards to the Digital Rev reference...Surely you jest? Those clowns "jumped the shark" some time ago.


👍👍. Ehhhhhhhhhhhh

[lemonsoda]

I really like the 50mm fov and something a bit faster than f/2.8 would be nice.

That's easy....
Buy a DA 50 1.8 and you have a good performing, fast 50mm at nearly no cost. Or go for the DA* 55 1.4. Both are FF-lenses, despite of the name. Than you have a choice of older F/FA 50 1.4/1.7 lenses, all of them doing well on the K-1.

And last but not least, my FA 43 Ltd. was very, very good on the K-1 even wide open.

[stevebrot]

Buy a DA 50 1.8 and you have a good performing, fast 50mm at nearly no cost. Or go for the DA* 55 1.4. Both are FF-lenses, despite of the name.

I don't own the DA* 55/1.4, but have been singularly unimpressed with the DA 50/1.8 on 35mm film due to vignette (visible on the negative) and poor corner and edge performance when compared with the A 50/1.7 on the same camera and roll of film. Maybe it is just my copy.


Steve

[monochrome]

Thanks. Everyone on here seems to vouch for them.

I *was* a little apprehensive about the k-1, but it's an excellent body. I got the two lenses that I really put as the minimum requirements with it, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macro. But I was thinking of getting a few primes at some point as I really like the 50mm fov and something a bit faster than f/2.8 would be nice.

My main reason for calling them "awkward, old-fashioned" (which I now feel might not be completely fair, and reads in a somewhat antagonistic way) was based on the slow af speed (which I understand they tend to have) and I found slightly annoying with the 100mm macro (I know macros are normally slow, but even in cases it doesn't need to hunt it is much slower than the 24-70).

Thanks for you answer

Hi: If you refer to the FA Limiteds (I believe they are your question), understand they autofocus using a geared screw drive driven by an in-body motor. Though the drive motor in the K-1 is considerably more robust (and the AF alogorithms considerably more evolved) and than the technology available even three years ago on the K-5ll, they are slower to focus and noisier than modern in-lens ring or DC focus motors. The question is whether that matters for wide, normal and short-tele primes. For what I do with them, (I have all three) faster AF won't improve my keeper rate.

AFA lack of available lens choices, in 12 months Pentax should have released 5 or 6 new modern lenses; their catalog should fully cover the vast majority of common focal lengths from wide through telephoto, all covering the 36x24 sensor. If a user really honestly needs a fast 600mm lens (or something else not in the catalog) another brand is a better choice. But for the vast majority of common applications Pentax is competent, and offers a somewhat different feature emphasis than the big two.

Your choice. All cameras are good these days.

[freerider]

Thanks. Everyone on here seems to vouch for them.

I *was* a little apprehensive about the k-1, but it's an excellent body. I got the two lenses that I really put as the minimum requirements with it, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macro. But I was thinking of getting a few primes at some point as I really like the 50mm fov and something a bit faster than f/2.8 would be nice.

My main reason for calling them "awkward, old-fashioned" (which I now feel might not be completely fair, and reads in a somewhat antagonistic way) was based on the slow af speed (which I understand they tend to have) and I found slightly annoying with the 100mm macro (I know macros are normally slow, but even in cases it doesn't need to hunt it is much slower than the 24-70).

Thanks for you answer

Welcome to the forums. Are you aware of Pentax's full frame lens road map?

2016 Pentax Full Frame Lens Roadmaps - CP+ 2016 | PentaxForums.com

Ricoh is currently developing a set of "large aperture single focus" lenses, including a standard FL lens, that are set to be released as early as 2017. If you need something now, I'd recommend the DA* 55mm F1.4 or the Sigma 50mm DG EX F1.4 HSM. There are several threads here comparing the two. The Sigma is a bit hard to find in K mount but runs about half the price of the DA*.

[pinholecam]

Lots of people on here, and on other sites seem to rave about them. But in reading the reviews, they generally seem mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned, and extremely expensive. From my understanding, they were designed in Pentax's early digital days, for crop sensor cameras with fairly low pixel densities (but many of the do cover ff), and so you might expect them to be a little soft and not have the best autofocus. Both of which seem to be common complaints.

I recently got my first Pentax, a K-1, and I do like it, but there still aren't very many lenses for it, and it seems that people suggest these extremely expensive limited lenses as the saviour of the system.

Am I wrong, am I missing something about the system? Is it their nostalgic charm? Do they capture that quintessentially Pentax light that each epitomises what it is to shoot Pentax (just like the creamy Leica-look. Or that Hasselblad feel)?

Thanks awfully,

Josh

What you mention is exactly the problem nowadays with spec/datasheet driven lens reviews and so called 'tests'.
It becomes a game card type hobby where "Wolverine has combat rating 8 vs 5 for Magneto "

What matters is real world use and real world images.
How does the form, fit, function of the lens/equipment make the process of photo taking better and more enjoyable?
How does the lens depict the image?

A datasheet/spec champion of a lens, can be heavy, cumbersome.
A pain to carry.
A pain to change lenses with the large girth.
How many of such lenses do you want to lug around in a bag for a week or two during a tour?

It can also be weak to flare, flat in depiction, ugly bokeh in many situations.

The FA ltds (and many of the better Pentax lenses) is the good balance of size, build, rendering that makes them special.
In fact, for the 31ltd and 77ltd, a 'pictorial' evaluation superseded numerical ones in their design philosophy.

FA31ltd - Smallish for a 31mm (wider than a 35mm) and fast at f1.8 too. Sharp to the edges when its needed (at f5.6-f11), and a dimensional rendering at the wider apertures.











FA43ltd - the size of.... er... I don't think there are many AF options this sized out there that is this sized at a wide normal with a f1.9.










FA77ltd - A short tele, smaller than most brand's 50mm. With rich colors, contrast and rendering to boot.