[pxt]

A lot of time we can hear that Pentax has the best portfolio of legacy lens. I see many of them for small money. Of course comparing old design to new design a lot of times it is asking about troubles on the most demanding condition, it is lost new coating, AW/WR, lack in AF (if it is any!), but sometimes you have to spend a lot of money on studying, repair house after huracane or simply at the specified time you do not have a lot money to buy the most pricey Pentax lens.

So what you will recommend with specific conditions?
1. The least price as possible (less is better)
2. Good IQ on K1 II full frame
3. It is quite common lens and not extra rare item
4. Only K mount (without reduction like M42 lenses)

For me king with this conditions is Pentax M 50/1.7. It has good IQ (Image Quality) on modern full frame. It is fast what get a lot of option. It is very popular lens so you can get it without a lot of troubles.

What is your experience and recommendation?

Postscriptum. I start testing Sigma 28/2.8 too, but at the moment I can say a lot of about it. First impression are very good, but it is too early for recommend it.

[Fenwoodian]

.
I just don't understand photographers who want to put $100 lenses on a $2,000 camera.

If you can afford a $2,000 camera system, and want a great 50mm K mount lens, just spend $997 and get the outstanding Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 lens

[K1N8]

If you can afford a $2,000 camera system

Not everybody can constantly spent that much money on a hobby. I did get a K-1 because i had "some" bucks spare, but since then i am happy using a $40 PK-M 135mm on it.
People have a life and need to eat, you know.

[gaweidert]

I have found that my old screw mount 55mm f1.8 delivers excellent results on my Pentax DSLR cameras. As to the new D FA 50mm f1.4 lens I do not think that it is worth the cost. It is big and heavy and it is not 4 times better than other Pentax 50mm f1.4 lenses. Plus it has no aperture ring! Something I still like to see on a lens.


Why buy a $2,000 camera and put old lenses on it? Because some of the old lenses can still deliver. The extra dynamic range and resolution of the K1 also allows much better post processing options. I own a K5, K5-IIs, K3, K1 and K1-II and it was not until I got the K1 that I stopped missing film. To me, a sample size of one, neither the K5's or K3 delivered images that I considered any improvement over film. They are not bad cameras, but there was no WOW factor until I got my first K1.

[Docrwm]

I get it that not everyone is comfortable spending $1k on a single lens that gets used only occasionally like the new 50/1.4. Here's a cheap lens that is a legacy, works on FF, and has a solid reputation - F35-70/3.5-4.5. Some have referred to it as a stack of primes. You can find them for <$25 at times in good shape. They have the added benefit of doing "macro" at the long end.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-35-70mm-F3.5-4.5-Macro-Zoom-Lens.html

[BigMackCam]

.
I just don't understand photographers who want to put $100 lenses on a $2,000 camera.

If you can afford a $2,000 camera system, and want a great 50mm K mount lens, just spend $997 and get the outstanding Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 lens

With respect, I disagree.

It probably doesn't make a great deal of sense to buy a $2k camera and shoot only inexpensive legacy glass, as the full capabilities of that camera likely won't be realised. So, yes, I think it's a good idea to buy one or more very good lenses in order to maximise the potential of an expensive body, if you can afford to. But it doesn't mean we can't shoot beautiful, appealing images on that same camera with more limited optical instruments.

I'm fortunate to have some very decent glass in K-mount and A-mount for my various cameras, but I get just as much enjoyment - and just as many good photos - using low-cost vintage glass. And I've seen some fantastic photography - much better than I'm capable of - taken with the humble M50/1.7 and other inexpensive optics...

[clickclick]

4. Only K mount (without reduction like M42 lenses)

I don't follow what you mean by reduction. You mean you don't want an adapter? I would include M42 lenses. Lots of nice stuff out there. The SMC Takumar 135/3.5 sitting in front of me is a nice and inexpensive lens you can find easily for not much.

[HarisF1]

The best has to be the SMC A 50mm f/1.7 for its auto aperture and identical optics to the M 50mm. Best wide angle is the Sigma 24mm f/2.8 SW II, being small, sharp and colourful. Best portrait lens at a budget would be the M 100mm f/2.8. Best all round lens combination might include the F 35-70 and 70-210.

Pick up those 5 lenses and you can be proud of your kit.

[pres589]

Sigma 24mm Super-Wide II AF for $150
Pentax F 50mm 1.7 for $125
Tamron 90mm f2.5 AF Macro (the 52E model) for $150

I would probably end up adding an FA 35 f2 in there at some point and then maybe something 20mm or wider as well but the above would at least let me feel like I own a camera system and not just a camera.

[BigMackCam]

Incidentally, as an alternative to the M50/1.7, you might consider an MC Zenitar-K2 50mm f/2, which is the K-mount version of the otherwise-identical M42-mount MC Zenitar-M2. This is a sharp lens with lovely rendering, good contrast and great colour reproduction. The downside is that there's a lot of plastic used in the construction, and you can tell... It doesn't have the heft and precision engineering of the M50/1.7, and generally feels cheaply made (it was!). But it's a little gem optically. You can pick one up for fifty bucks or less. No matter whether you use it on a cheap legacy APS-C or premium full-frame camera, it'll produce nice results

[stevebrot]

Best legacy budget lens on the K-1? That is a pretty broad field of potential answers, though the combination of "best" and "budget" is problematic in that the value proposition tends to overshadow the traditional triad of performance, build, and handling. The OP provided the conventional best answer as determined by several other similar threads in the last few years, that being the Pentax-M 50/1.7. Runner's up would include other Pentax-brand fast-50s followed by the perennial suggestion of the Sigma Super-Wide 24/2.8 (name your variant), one's favorite 28mm, and various lenses from former Eastern Bloc countries.


Steve

[pxt]

I don't follow what you mean by reduction. You mean you don't want an adapter? I would include M42 lenses. Lots of nice stuff out there.

Yes, I wrote about adapter. I exclude M42 lens, because I hear from few sources about stucking on body. I would avoid it.

I just don't understand photographers who want to put $100 lenses on a $2,000 camera.

If you can afford a $2,000 camera system, and want a great 50mm K mount lens, just spend $997 and get the outstanding Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 lens

To be clear. I create this thread for people who looking for options.

I use on my body 77 limited and new version 100 WR macro. Before I will save money for my 70-200 FA*/2.8, 24-70/2.8 WR I want shoot on something budget to be more comfortable with angles and limitation to locate my money with lens for years not for reselling as some people do wasting money for endless buying and selling. I choose 77 limited after 6-7 thousand shots with 50/1.7 M Pentax. I understand where fast prime is good, where are limits of desing, how use it on demanding variacy situation for me, which shots I like and what tool I need it for it. At the same I choose my bodies after about ~15 years shooting on compact, low level K200D body and Nikon F65 film body.

With respect I can not understand ptohographers which first buy the most expensive equipment which can affort before they learn what is their style, favorite angle of view, how fast and when which lens needed and how see by photographic eye not commercial ads. I prefer buy the most quality expensive optics without looking for price only when I fully understand what this particular design give me, how it move my photographic limits and take me on another level.

Some people prefer zooms, others primes, but the most important thing that their make choice for remove limits which they're experienced not by only MTF values and opinions from reviews. I ask here for hobbyst not top level professional which need it only the best tool for job, because they fully understand how equipment work and they can not lost money, because make bad shots for clients. Before you put money you have to be preper for it.

I can not find suggestion for example for younger pentaxian on forum today.When you learn your kids photography before get them the most expesinve body and lens you will be prefer used body, older lens, doesn't you? From other hand you can be sure that this angle is for you etc.

Best wished for all!

I'm waiting for your suggestions. I hope this thread help begginers and people without a lot of money to make journey with Pentax.

[pschlute]

If you are happy with manual focus/exposure, you really cannot go wrong with any of the "K" or M or A series primes. They are cheap and perform well for the most part. The best bit is if you don't like one you can re-sell it at the same price. Just make sure you use a suitable hood as the coatings are not as good as more moden lenses and a hood will always assist in keeping up the contrast.

[pres589]

Any accurately machined K/M42 adapter won't cause the M42 lens to stick or whatever. And I think that in some ways an M42 lens would be easier to deal with than a K or M lens due to the crippled k-mount. They're all a little fiddly compared to an A or later series k-mount lens on a Pentax DSLR.

I also don't have the patience to use manual focus glass on my K-5 and couldn't see not finding the money for lenses with autofocus unless we're only talking macro or ultra-wide stuff.

[Docrwm]

If you want to go MF then the Vivitar 19mm/3.8 is rather nice. I also like the Rokinon 85/1.4 (and the rebagged labels for it) produces some terrific photos if you have the patience.