[ismaelg]

Oooooh vintage glass is AWFUL please just buy the latest whizzy lens. Its much better to leave the vintage glass to us film shooters and it looks better on a vintage camera too.

There you fellow film shooters, doing my bit to keep the prices reasonable for us film fans

Ohhh!! Older lenses are very dangerous! Some of us like Astro-Baby and myself are certified to dispose of them properly...

There is a nostalgia factor but also they handle so nice and smooth since they were meant to be touched. Back in the day, there was no really a big pro vs consumer market segmentation, so usually quality was priority over cost.

Thanks,

[aslyfox]

Nice collection!

thank you

I think I have chosen wisely

[baro-nite]

Pentax is one of the few brands that has kept compatibility with all its lenses (Nikon is another). You can mount any Pentax K-mount lens on any Pentax 35mm-format body and have at least partial functionality. (With appropriate adapters you can even mount Pentax lenses made for other camera mounts: m42, 6x7, 645.) Quite a few of the photographers active on this forum take advantage of this fact to use film-era lenses on their Pentax DSLRs.

As with any lens or other photographic gear, what is valuable or useful to one photographer isn't necessarily so to another. Lots of us on this forum do love using the older lenses, but I'd venture to say that of all the vintage Pentax lenses out there, only a small subset of them have qualities that are in some way superior to or more interesting than modern equivalents. Vintage lens doesn't necessarily or even usually equate to "vintage look" in any meaningful way. The few vintage lenses that really do give unique results tend to be expensive (e.g., either of the 50mm f/1.2 lenses made by Pentax).

As someone who has way too many lenses, my advice is: don't buy a lens unless it fills a particular need for the photography you do.

[MossyRocks]

Older lenses are very dangerous!

I know to be on the safe side you should avoid handling any of them until you know how to deal with radioactive material or are sure that the one you are handling isn't radio active.If unsure there are members here who would be happy to relieve you of these problematic lenses for just the cost of shipping and do their part for your safety. You could die!!!!!

In all seriousness old vintage lenses are fun, and often times a very good value. They may not be as optically perfect as modern lenses but most of the time the quality of the lens isn't the limiting factor of the shot and for more normal lengths those lenses have been a solved problem for a very long time. I only own 3 lenses that are currently made one of which is a film era lens (FA 77mm ltd) the 100/2.8 WR macro I like a lot and should have gotten a real macro lens sooner and the DA 35/2.4 I use sometimes but isn't one I like much but it has its place. Other than those modern lenses everything I have is from the film era with a lot of it going back to the 60s with the Super Takumars. Some of it is junk but junk with a purpose like the 28-300 tamorn I picked up to use a scout events where one shot may be at 28mm and the next is at 300 and overall image quality is less important than capturing the event and moment and if the lens gets damaged it isn't a big deal, others of it is legendary glass like the 8 element 50/1.4 Super Tak, SMC A 50/1.2, SMC A* 400/2.8.

[jcdoss]

As someone who has way too many lenses, my advice is: don't buy a lens unless it fills a particular need for the photography you do.

I'd like to amend this with the corollary: ", or unless you really really want it for unspecified reasons."

[gofour3]

"Vintage" lenses are also better built especially the manual focus primes. That's why people are still using them decades after they were in production.

Phil.

[Ontarian50]

In my experience many younger photographers are picking up vintage lenses and raving about their qualities, mainly because their only other lens is the pair of kit zooms they got with their DSLR or mirrorless. If they were to compare their old manual focus lens to a current AF prime, I think they'd see less of a difference to rave about.

Then there's the videographers using DSLRs or mirrorless. They're often raving about the qualities of certain older lenses for their work, mainly because of their flaws. They don't worry about sharpness, or corner detail, or whatever the 36mp crowd are looking for, but because they capture moving images, lenses that throw flare through a scene for a moment or two as the camera pans are very interesting. Current, super-coated optics may look too boringly competent by comparison. Then there's focusing. Videographers prefer smooth manual focus to whatever motors and gears are in a modern AF lens. Screw mount Takumars are still highly prized by that crowd.

Then there's the still photographers who are truly looking for something unique in vintage glass that you generally can't find in modern optics. Old lens designs had odd out of focus renderings that were designed out over the years. Today, however, those "flaws" are prized as special "bokeh".

But above all, I think many photographers like the idea of sourcing something personal and special that no one else in their photo community has. If it requires finding an oddball adapter, and modifying it a bit so some 1951 vintage lens with a pre-set diaphragm can fit - and all the automatic features of their camera are gone, so it's a total hands-on experience, then so much the better.

If they have to go out of their way to find unusual, creative situations to show off their lens' unique attributes, then it's mission accomplished.

[pepperberry farm]

lots of talk about vintage lenses; what makes a vintage lens actually considered 'vintage', which lens has the best bokeh, which lens has the most character, etc....

part of the fun (for me) with vintage lens is finding the gems, the bonafide jewels that spark joy in your hands and eye, that create art when you shoot through them...

I've learned to not be afraid of not enjoying a lens that you just bought.... even if it's a perfect copy, some lenses just never strike fire with me; I'll shoot with one for the SIC, determine good/bad/ugly, and if I don't like it - sell it on...

[luftfluss]

I'm with @Sandy_Hancock in that I consider "vintage" to be fully manual glass.

While we can wax poetic about the charms of "vintage" or "pre-AF" glass, a very practical aspect is the possibility of saving money vs buying digital-era lenses, and also being able to experience more exotically-specified lenses than is readily available in K-mount.

An example of the former: rather than spending $1500-2000 on the DFA 150-450, I bought the A 400/5.6 for a fraction of the price. The A400 is a good sharp lens, not too large & heavy and a pleasure to use. The only significant flaw is noticeable CA unless stopped down.

An example of the latter: I have the Tamron Adaptall 300/2.8 (360B), 400/4 (65B) and Pentax K 500/4.5... lenses whose specifications are not readily available in K-mount, and despite not being as convenient to use and not as optically "perfect" as modern lenses they are very good and can produce images with a certain "look" that is associated with expensive, high-end glass... at a total cost no more than a used DFA 150-450.

[monochrome]

I see that there is a K1 thread with vintage lenses. How exactly is a vintage lens different from a modern lens? Besides the fact that the vintage lens is no longer made. I plan on buying a K1 myself in the near future and was wondering if a vintage lens gives a certain look.

Film era lenses generally were designed to produce an image that promotes the central subject at the expense of edge and corner sharpness. If you like (or will tolerate) that style of image vintage lenses are your friend. If you are a fan of absolute sharpness across the frame you might be disappointed.

I like them both.

[richard0170]

Yes they do have a certain look. I particularly like the look (and build quality) of the original K glass. For your K1 I would personally go for a K 55mm f1. 8 or 2.0 first. Both reasonably priced with gorgeous colour rendition. Then I would chose the immensely versatile K or M 100mm f4 macro.
Beware though! It is very easy to succumb to LAS, if you catch the legacy glass bug.

[ismaelg]

Film era lenses generally were designed to produce an image that promotes the central subject at the expense of edge and corner sharpness. If you like (or will tolerate) that style of image vintage lenses are your friend. If you are a fan of absolute sharpness across the frame you might be disappointed.

I like them both.

Correct. And that difference may be less noticeable in APS-C DSLRs since you are using a smaller part of the image circle.

Thanks,

[Wasp]

I would respectively extend the definition of " vintage lens " to include those developed during the film era

even though the lenses may still be in production now - the FA limiteds for example

AFAIK the cutoff for a vintage car is 25 years or more - perhaps that could work with lenses too.

I was leaning towards defining a vintage lens as being manual focus, but you make a compelling argument for early auto focus lenses.

[pepperberry farm]

AFAIK the cutoff for a vintage car is 25 years or more - perhaps that could work with lenses too.

I was leaning towards defining a vintage lens as being manual focus, but you make a compelling argument for early auto focus lenses.

1995 is the cut-off then....?

[luftfluss]

The argument of "what's vintage?" is funny to me, because I don't associate the word with lenses. People on Ebay and Etsy like that word because to those folks it means, "I can ask for more money".