[Wheatfield]

For me, the A*85/1.4. It's the best lens ever.

[monochrome]

The Pentax-M 120mm f2.8. It seems like the 135/3.5 is close enough and should work fine, while also being cheap and easy to find. While that is true, I like to think the designer faced the same issue with his boss, and made the M120/2.8 good enough to manufacture. It is better than the 135 and has that slight speed advantage too, just slightly smaller. It would make a good telephoto for a DA Limited kit. It replaced a K135/2.5 for me. I maybe paid too much ($130 I think) but it was worth it for me.

The M150/3.5 could have a similar story

[Just1MoreDave]

The M150/3.5 could have a similar story

Yes, bdery had one for sale a few years ago and I almost talked myself into it. I have the SMC Takumar 150mm f4 and it never got me that excited.

[monochrome]

Yes, bdery had one for sale a few years ago and I almost talked myself into it. I have the SMC Takumar 150mm f4 and it never got me that excited.

My copy of the M150/3.5 is sharp and colorful enough that it’s the only M lens I’ve kept.

[catwalk]

I recently bought a bunch of legacy glass instead of new lenses due to budget constraints (plus the lens clubs made me realize that legacy can be really good). One lens I got is the Pentax-A 135. I use this lens more than anything else I own. It's sharp, handles well, and built like a tank (so heavy that if I set my camera down it tilts). I could glue this to my camera permanently and be satisfied forever.

[cyberjunkie]

The Formula 5 135mm 1.8 is a horrible lens that nonetheless can produce impressionistic bordering on surreal results.

The Mitake-made family of fast lenses, like the 1.8/135mm you have (available under different brand names), and also the 2/28mm and 1.8/35mm, are not the sharpest lenses ever, but are well worth experimenting with, if a weird, "artsy" rendition is welcomed.

Re: best high-quality film lenses (on FF, cause I almost never shoot crop since I acquired the K-1), there are plenty of great lenses, including most of the K Series, the M 2/85mm and 4/20mm, the A 4/200mm, all the A Star's, the F/FA macros... but if I'm forced to choose three of my vintage glasses, here they are :

1) Revuenon/Tomioka 1.2/55mm (beats both the Porst/Cosina and the Pentax 1.2/50mm)
2) Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm (leitaxed)
3) Pentax K 3.5/28mm

The price/performance ratio was taken into account. I love my Pentax/Zeiss K 2/28mm, but the price is a bit silly, isn't it?

[BigMackCam]

if I'm forced to choose three of my vintage glasses, here they are :

1) Revuenon/Tomioka 1.2/55mm (beats both the Porst/Cosina and the Pentax 1.2/50mm)
2) Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm (leitaxed)
3) Pentax K 3.5/28mm

And what if you had to choose a single favourite, and why?

[cyberjunkie]

And what if you had to choose a single favourite, and why?

Hahaha, I was asking myself why on earth I left out a few lenses I really love (and get regular use), when I found you are asking me to choose ONE!
Ok, ok. I choose the Revuenon 1.2/55mm. Another pentaxian expressed on this same thread his preference for the Pentax 1.2 50mm, compared with the Tomioka-made Revuenon. This is interesting. I agree that the build is not on par with the great construction of the Pentax (especially the K version.. but the Pentax-A is more practical to use). Though I found the Revue optically superior, with a magic mix of glow and sharpness wide open, and sharpening up nicely once stopped down. It beats the Porst in K mount hands down, and it beats the Pentax by a smaller margin. I own the three lenses, but these are MY impressions, with MY examples. You can't ask vintage lenses to be consistent. Some examples are better, some are much worse. Even modern optics - bought brand new! - show an impressive variance, as the lensrentals tests have proven.
This is the good and the bad of vintage objectives. Some disappoint, some are much better than expected. If we find a lens that consistently surprises us with great pictures, better stick to it and learn to use it at best.

Now I have chosen, let me mention five other lenses I had in mind
Pentax-A Star 1.4/85mm (expensive but still worth buying for its incredible sharpness and great build)
Auto Takumar 1.8 /85mm (one of the best portrait lenses ever)
Soligor C/D P 2/135mm (Tokina-made, another very good portrait optic)
Super Takumar 1.4/50mm 8-elements (the best fast single-coated fifty, great build)
Helios 44 2/58mm M39 (a cheap lens with a wonderful rendering, after sanding down the distancer/washer my example correctly focuses to infinity)

[Ishpuini]

Ok, ok. I choose the Revuenon 1.2/55mm. Another pentaxian expressed on this same thread his preference for the Pentax 1.2 50mm, compared with the Tomioka-made Revuenon.

That would be me...

This is interesting. I agree that the build is not on par with the great construction of the Pentax (especially the K version.. but the Pentax-A is more practical to use). Though I found the Revue optically superior, with a magic mix of glow and sharpness wide open, and sharpening up nicely once stopped down. It beats the Porst in K mount hands down, and it beats the Pentax by a smaller margin. I own the three lenses, but these are MY impressions, with MY examples. You can't ask vintage lenses to be consistent. Some examples are better, some are much worse. Even modern optics - bought brand new! - show an impressive variance, as the lensrentals tests have proven.

You are right. Sample variance can be a important element, but so is personal preference. I like the slightly dreamy effect these lenses provide wide open, but my copy of the Revuenon is a bit too much for my preference. Another element is the bokeh, which is uneven through the frame in the Revuenon, although the aperture might be slightly more rounded. This is a consideration with bright spots in the background especially. Hence, for off center cropping and stitching the Revuenon's bokeh is less practical to me (I crop and stitch a lot). And then there's the 5mm... Bottom line: I can totally understand that personal preference can make a huge difference when deciding between these lenses...


Do note that my K50/1.2 is the second variation of this lens. At Map Camera they had two copies that looked slightly different. The one with the lower serial number was slightly cheaper but had some nearly invisible fungus (kudos to Map Camera for making me take notice) so I got the later copy. Might make a difference?

Wim

[timw4mail]

Oh boy, that's a difficult choice.


For film, my favorite is probably my Canon FD 55/1.2:




Digital and film is great for the Adaptall 55BB:









So, maybe the Adaptall?

[gofour3]

Do note that my K50/1.2 is the second variation of this lens. At Map Camera they had two copies that looked slightly different. The one with the lower serial number was slightly cheaper but had some nearly invisible fungus (kudos to Map Camera for making me take notice) so I got the later copy. Might make a difference?

The two variants of the K50/1.2 are identical except for the name:

SMC PENTAX 1:1.2/50 (1975-1977)
smc PENTAX 1:1.2 50mm (1977-1984)

Pentax did the name change for any "K Series" lens that remained in production after 1977.

Phil.

[monochrome]

Do note that my K50/1.2 is the second variation of this lens. At Map Camera they had two copies that looked slightly different. The one with the lower serial number was slightly cheaper but had some nearly invisible fungus (kudos to Map Camera for making me take notice) so I got the later copy. Might make a difference?

Wim

In my experience the only change between the versions was the naming convention, from SMC PENTAX 1:1.2/50 (1975-1977) to smc PENTAX 1:1.2 50mm (1977-1981). The change brought the naming convention In Line with the new M-series (and subsequent) lenses. I do not believe there was a formula change or a material coatings* change between versions.

* I own a late version 2 (highest Serial Nr. in the database) and it renders slightly warmer than M and A 50’s, as does my K50/1.4. Phil @gofour3 is better informed on K lenses than I though.

[pcrichmond]

I recently bought a bunch of legacy glass instead of new lenses due to budget constraints (plus the lens clubs made me realize that legacy can be really good). One lens I got is the Pentax-A 135. I use this lens more than anything else I own. It's sharp, handles well, and built like a tank (so heavy that if I set my camera down it tilts). I could glue this to my camera permanently and be satisfied forever.

Very nice and how strange you should mention the 135.
I have the FA and an M42 and so rarely bring either one of them out, sometimes even feeling a little guilty as they are both great performers.
Just a focal length I never managed to et my eyes too.
Very nice seeing great photos from this perspective.

And @BigMacCam for starting this thread. Its been great to see the styles from all the different lenses and learn a bit of how people view them.

[ACG]

I love this thread.
I have lba for Pentax k and m series lenses mainly.

Any of the Pentax k lenses would be my favourite. But I'll pick the k28 f3.5. This lens absolutely rocks on the a7r3.

I have to mention the k20 f4 which doesn't get the praise that it deserves.

Pentax gets praise for making the tiny m20f4.

The m50 and 100 f4 macro lenses are also superb with ff digital.

I feel as though a I am with friends in this thread. Photographers who appreciate the character of the old lenses and who are not obsessed with corner sharpness ( how did we get to the stage where sharpness drives the Market?)

I use these lenses preferentially to the modern auto focus lenses that have cost me a fortune. I would be interested to know how many forum members do the same.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I use these lenses preferentially to the modern auto focus lenses that have cost me a fortune. I would be interested to know how many forum members do the same.

The only autofocus lens I own is an 18-55mm WR that I keep purely so I can keep shooting in the rain if I want to. For the type of photos that I like to take, in the majority of situations, having to keep track of what an auto lens has decided to focus on would just slow me down and annoy me.

But then, I usually shoot with wider lenses. If I was into action photography with long lenses, I think I'd probably find autofocus a lot more appealing. Maybe. I should probably give it a try sometime. . .