[Gary H Perth]

I have a Tokina 17mm RMC f3.5 that I am quite happy with. I bought it in 1980s to use on my LX, now I am using on a Sony A7ii. Here a couple from this morning walking around my garden with the Sony.

There's one of these Tokina lens on that so-called e auction site for 120 euros at the moment.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by Gary H Perth; 04-24-2020 at 07:06 AM.

[Pål Jensen]

Explanation here: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com


Found some interesting sales percentage by focal length in a photo magazine from 1979. This is from japanese manufacturers.


Shorter than 25mm: 0.9% (I'll bet 90% of those are 24mm)
28mm: 8.5%
30-35mm: 3.6%
50-55mm: 67% (!)
80-105mm: 1.7%
120-135mm: 5.6%
Longer than 150mm: 5.6%
Tele zoom: 5.5%
Wide-angle zoom: 3.7%

Read more at: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com

[gofour3]

Explanation here: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com


Found some interesting sales percentage by focal length in a photo magazine from 1979. This is from japanese manufacturers.


Shorter than 25mm: 0.9% (I'll bet 90% of those are 24mm)
28mm: 8.5%
30-35mm: 3.6%
50-55mm: 67% (!)
80-105mm: 1.7%
120-135mm: 5.6%
Longer than 150mm: 5.6%
Tele zoom: 5.5%
Wide-angle zoom: 3.7%

Read more at: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com

Yep the old traditional film three lens kit of 28/50-55/135 has high sales, as well as the over 150mm for those who wanted a longer fourth lens.

Phil.

[stevebrot]

Explanation here: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com


Found some interesting sales percentage by focal length in a photo magazine from 1979. This is from japanese manufacturers.


Shorter than 25mm: 0.9% (I'll bet 90% of those are 24mm)
28mm: 8.5%
30-35mm: 3.6%
50-55mm: 67% (!)
80-105mm: 1.7%
120-135mm: 5.6%
Longer than 150mm: 5.6%
Tele zoom: 5.5%
Wide-angle zoom: 3.7%

Read more at: Interesting lens statistics from the late 70's - PentaxForums.com

I suspect that current percentage sales of ultra-wides are similar. A frequent complaint on this site is that of a dearth of ultra-wides for K-mount, specifically fast rectilinear ultra-wides. The obvious answer why is that the market is quite small unless offered for several mounts and even then is still niche. In addition, ROI may be quite limited due to challenges in design and manufacturing.

Steve

[monochrome]

They are scary prices whatever brand you aim at in vintage glass. For really frightening prices on wides ( never mind ultra wides ) look at what Nikon glass goes for.Minolta glass goes bonkers on price once you start going under 50mm. Horrid plastic Canon FDs likewise.

If you can accept third party glass some of the Tamrons come up cheap enough and seem deceneg enough. I have a Tamron 24mm Adaptall 1. I havent film tested it yet bit it seems well made and the view, at least through e VF is pleasing enough. My only gripe with it is it seems to lack any snap to focus.

How much money is frightening money? I just received a A15 in untouched condition (not the aspheric) for $350. I was shocked by the LOW price. The seller was in New Jersey and it sat there BIN for several days. I couldn’t see anything wrong with it so I took my chance. I bought an A20/2.8 with hood and case in like condition for $240 here. These aren’t (to me anyway) extreme prices for uncommon lenses.

I did pay up for a K28/2 and a Tokina 90/2.5 P/KA Macro with 1:1 Extension and case.

[pepperberry farm]

How much money is frightening money? I just received a A15 in untouched condition (not the aspheric) for $350. I was shocked by the LOW price. The seller was in New Jersey and it sat there BIN for several days. I couldn’t see anything wrong with it so I took my chance. I bought an A20/2.8 with hood and case in like condition for $240 here. These aren’t (to me anyway) extreme prices for uncommon lenses.

I did pay up for a K28/2 and a Tokina 90/2.5 P/KA Macro with 1:1 Extension and case.

nothing wrong with those prices - I paid what I thought were fair prices (or even less than) for the last three 'expensive' lenses I've bought....

there are deals out there, patience pays off....

[northcoastgreg]

I bought an A20/2.8 with hood and case in like condition for $240 here. These aren’t (to me anyway) extreme prices for uncommon lenses.

But, in fairness, $240 for an A 20 is an uncommon price. There's more than a bit of luck in finding those old A ultra-wide lenses at such low prices. A 20's usually run for $400+, and FA 20's for $500. I'm not quite as sure about A 15, but I usually see prices on that lens in the $750 range.

keh.com has an A 20 for $246. It's rated UG -- so who knows what's wrong with it. keh has an EX rated FA 20 for $580. If I didn't already own some quality ultra-wide FF glass, I wouldn't have any problem buying that lens for that price. A new DFA ultra-wide (which is a rather dicey proposition in any case) would almost certainly cost hundreds of dollars more than that.

The old Pentax M 20/4 can usually be acquired for around $300. That's a very good price for an under-rated lens. It's soft in the corners, even stopped down, but that's pretty much the case with virtually all the film era ultra-wides.

---

Last edited by northcoastgreg; 04-25-2020 at 06:37 AM.

[monochrome]

But, in fairness, $240 for an A 20 is an uncommon price. There's more than a bit of luck in finding those old A ultra-wide lenses at such low prices. A 20's usually run for $400+, and FA 20's for $500. I'm not quite as sure about A 15, but I usually see prices on that lens in the $750 range.

keh.com has an A 20 for $246. It's rated UG -- so who knows what's wrong with it. keh has an EX rated FA 20 for $580. If I didn't already own some quality ultra-wide FF glass, I wouldn't have any problem buying that lens for that price. A new DFA ultra-wide (which is a rather dicey proposition in any case) would almost certainly cost hundreds of dollars more than that.

The old Pentax M 20/4 can usually be acquired for around $300. That's a very good price for an under-rated lens. It's soft in the corners, even stopped down, but that's pretty much the case with virtually all the film era ultra-wides.

Yes, your prices are correct for Completed eBay sales from Japan sellers on these less common lenses. My point was these lenses can be had for better prices with patience. If you need a particular lens NOW (say for professional work) immediacy has a cost - but then you would get paid for the work.

I knew I would never see another K28/2 and probably never see another Bokina so I paid the price, but those were wants, not needs. I still haven’t come across a Tamron AD-2 180/2.5 at any price and at this point I probably would pass if I did. I have enough old lenses and cameras - too many to actually use.

BTW, your images show that the lenses matter less than the photographer. I always study them but I can never come close to producing anything like them.

[Jonathan Mac]

I have been looking for a full-frame prime or zoom lens in the 15-20mm area. I once had a K-series 20 mm F4 : it was stolen. Now I find that even old manual lenses like that are offered for several £100s, and more modern used FAs for example are in the £400-500 range. In contrast, I got a mint Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 recently for only £29, and that focal lenght is probably about the same "distance" away from standard, in the opposite direction.

Is it just rarity on the used market? Is it that most users will add a telephoto as the next after the kit lens, but far fewer go on to add a wide angle, let alone an ultra-wide?

(1) They're expensive new, therefore expensive used
(2) They're rarer than other lenses as they're a speciality item

The cheapest lens that wide that you'll likely find is the Cosina-built (but re-branded by many) 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (not too sure those are the real aperture values). They often go for less than 60 GBP depending on mount, condition and whether they're the AF or MF version. I have used my MF version on film, where it's a lot of fun and I don't have to worry about IQ not being fantastic. I've tried it on APS-C digital and it produces very muted images, lacking in contrast, colour and life. But on film it's great stopped down to f/8 or f/11, which is fine for an UWA. Beware some do not mount properly on AF K-mount cameras. Mine doesn't - to try it on digital I used an adaptor on a Fujifilm mirrorless camera.

I haven't used it since I got a Vivitar (Tokina built) 17mm f/3.5, which is also one of the more common vintage UWA lenses. Like the Cosina it's not great on digital but fine on film, and even wider. The Vivitar-branded ones usually go for less than the Tokina-branded ones despite being exactly the same lens. I saw one go on e-bay within the last couple of weeks for around 80 GBP.

[normhead]

I seriously wonder about the wisdom of using 1979 data.

Zooms have pretty much taken over in the last 40 years. They come on every new DSLR kit. You can't even find a DSLR kit these days with a 50 prime as the kit lens.

My guess is, these days that 67% category is made up with 18-55 zooms.
However I have noticed adoption of the DFA 28-105 is very light, compared to what you'd expect.
But, that's because so many already had glass for their Pentax FF before the bought a K-1. Pentax is sort of a outlier in that sense.

If you really need UWA, the DFA 15-30 seems to be an amazing lens.The problem isn't that the lens is unavailable for people who need it, it's that people get all picky (like me) and say "Well ya it's good, but it's not exactly what I want." And that's the difference between want and need. If I need an UWA for any reason, (like for something that would actually make enough money to pay for the lens) the 15-30 is there. If I just want it, I can afford to get all picky and turn my nose up. Which is what I do. But I don't for a half second believe if I truly needed an UWA I can't just buy the 15-30 and make do with it's size.

So many here turn "is there a lens here that will do what I want" into "is there a prime here that will do what I want." (Or "Is there an ƒ4, or variable aperture, or lightweight easy to fit in the bag lens). Lenses are lenses. Pentax didn't make exactly the lens I wanted. But they made something I can buy if I really need it.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to go to the "I'm so helpless because of Pentax" scenarios so quickly.

Like this guy, new to Pentax owned a 15-30 and a 150-450, and had no plans to buy anything else, and loved both lenses. Just saying, some people know what they want, buy what they want, and don't look back. In my mind, those are smart people, and some of them choose Pentax.




I mentioned Pentax forums, and he groaned and said "I went there a few times."



At least that's how I remember it.

[pepperberry farm]

I mentioned Pentax forums, and he groaned and said "I went there a few times."

tone and context can be difficult with the written word - what did he mean?

[normhead]

tone and context can be difficult with the written word - what did he mean?

His basic intonation was that for him, it wasn't a worthwhile experience. Those fo us who are communicators, tend to forget the other shooters, who just take their gear out and take images, without getting all caught up in the camera business, webs sites etc. This guy was just so proud of his Pentax equipment and happy with his results, he had no interest in complainers. His buddy shot Nikon, and they both obviously knew, that his results were just as good. In fact there was no ribbing at all between them. Complete respect for each other's gear. Of course I tried to provoke a little rivalry, they weren't biting.

The other funny thing was that at the start of the day I was shooting with the K-3 and F 70-210. (For them it was big trip up from Toronto to get Pine Martin images, to me it was "I have lots of Pine Martin images, today I'll try something different." You probably won't ever find another two dudes so uninterested in old glass.

I felt like if I wanted to fit in I better go grab my DA* 60-250.

[monochrome]

Old data and old lenses sort of go together, don’t you think?

I fully understand people who use current lenses and cameras and are happy doing it. I occasionally wonder whether it makes sense to sell every piece of old gear I own (it would take two years if I didn’t just box it up and send it to KEH) and buy a small complement of new(er) Pentax gear instead.

Some of us just like to buy and try (and sometimes sell) and talk about old gear.

[normhead]

Old data and old lenses sort of go together, don’t you think?

I fully understand people who use current lenses and cameras and are happy doing it. I occasionally wonder whether it makes sense to sell every piece of old gear I own (it would take two years if I didn’t just box it up and send it to KEH) and buy a small complement of new(er) Pentax gear instead.

Some of us just like to buy and try (and sometimes sell) and talk about old gear.

As a casual observation.... purple fringing CA, lack of range in their focal length and other issues means, my newest more modern lenses get the most use when I have a choice and am shooting carefree. If I'm feeling like fidgeting around I use manual focus. If I'm shooting in flat light where purple fringing and CA aren't going to be issues, I might use older glass, if I'm just killing time.

But my older glass, sits largely unused.

When I go out with my K-1 DFA 28-105 with one or 2 of Rokinon 14, DA 55-300 PLM, DA*200, Tamron 300, DFA 100 macro, DA* 55 1.4, and more an more the FAJ 18-35.
When I go out with my K-3, 18-135, and choice of Sigma 8-16, DA 10-17 fisheye, DA 55.300 PLM, DA*200, DFA 100 macro or K-3 and DA or K-3 55-300 PLM and 21 ltd.

my SMC 50 1.4 and SMC 35 3.5 or Vivitar M 135 2.8, almost never, I really have to be in the mood.

Lenses that almost never go out. FA 50 macro, FA 50 1.7, FA 35-80, Sigma 70 macro, F 70-210

For the most part, I can almost line up my lenses and in the order they were released and use that to predict how much they are used.

The SMC's maybe one a year.
The DA*s maybe 10 times year
The DFAs and DA-55-300 PLM (along with the 21 Ltd.) Maybe 40-50 times a year.

But either the 18-135 ( or 21ltd. and DA 55-300) or 28-105 go out every day there is sun depending on whether I take the K-1 or K-3.

---------- Post added 04-25-20 at 12:47 PM ----------

To me, the Venus Laowa 12/2.8 is probably the best 3rd party UWA prime for the K1
1. Wider at 12mm
2. Fast at f2.8
3. Smaller in size than the 14, 15mm options
4. Lower distortion
5. Better Flare tolerance
6. Larger Image circle such that edges retain better IQ even with image composition adj shifted to the extremes
7. Metal build in case you need to lob it at a robber/bear/MIL









IMHO, if one has the coin, get it before the manufacturer gives up on producing it in Pentax mount (not that many sold where I am due to price )

Excellent work as always.

[monochrome]

As a casual observation.... purple fringing CA, lack of range in their focal length and other issues means, my newest more modern lenses get the most use when I have a choice and am shooting carefree.

I understand perfectly and my order of usage would be similar to yours if my only goal was making (saleable) images. I know I’m an edge case but a fair number of PF members are similar. It’s a hobby, like making furniture with hand tools or making needlepoint pillows and cushions, or doing counted cross stitch, or embroidered pillowcases and sheets.

More than half my actual use is K series manual lenses on K-1 because that is what I like to do. Another 20% or so is film using cameras ranging from Asahiflex to MZ-S. I can fix many faults (PF) in LR fairly easily - in some cases easier than fixing CA from DFA*50/1.4 - or deal with them in advance by choosing not to shoot birds on branches against bright sky with old lenses.

Truth told, the rest is snapshots using KP and DA Limiteds, with a strong bias toward the 20~40.