[psoo]

I own a vintage Sigma M75-300mm, F4.5-5.6 lens. I don't use it very much since I tend to use my walk-around DA18-135. I use the Pentax lens because it has excellent image quality for a reasonable cost (about $400). I recently looked at some old photos taken with my Sigma, which is a manual focus lens, and was surprised at the excellent image quality. It's a long heavy lens but it's really well built and a pleasure to use, so long as you can do without auto-focus. Out of curiosity I checked this Forum's section on lens reviews to see how it compared with the modern Pentax DA 55-300mm, F4-5.8. The Sigma beat the Pentax in every performance category. For Sharpness, the Pentax was rated 8.5 and the Sigma 9.4. For Aberrations it was 8.5 Pentax and 8.6 Sigma. For Bokeh 8.2 Pentax and 9.0 Sigma. For Handling both were 9.0. For Value the Pentax was 9.2 and the Sigma 9.0. However the prices for the lenses were $350 for the Pentax and $53 for the Sigma. My Sigma was probably bought at a yard sale for about $20 and is in mint condition, and in a solid leather case.

I'm sure that some of the legacy lenses are just as good in image quality as modern lenses but may lack some of the bells and whistles that we take for granted these days. For many amateur photographers on a budget a legacy lens may give the image quality we crave for a small fraction of the cost of a modern lens. If I need to buy lenses in the future I'll first check to see what legacy lenses are available. I could save a lot of money and have the pleasure of knowing it came from a cheap old lens.

What say ye, learned Pentaxians?

[tibbitts]

I own a vintage Sigma M75-300mm, F4.5-5.6 lens. I don't use it very much since I tend to use my walk-around DA18-135. I use the Pentax lens because it has excellent image quality for a reasonable cost (about $400). I recently looked at some old photos taken with my Sigma, which is a manual focus lens, and was surprised at the excellent image quality. It's a long heavy lens but it's really well built and a pleasure to use, so long as you can do without auto-focus. Out of curiosity I checked this Forum's section on lens reviews to see how it compared with the modern Pentax DA 55-300mm, F4-5.8. The Sigma beat the Pentax in every performance category. For Sharpness, the Pentax was rated 8.5 and the Sigma 9.4. For Aberrations it was 8.5 Pentax and 8.6 Sigma. For Bokeh 8.2 Pentax and 9.0 Sigma. For Handling both were 9.0. For Value the Pentax was 9.2 and the Sigma 9.0. However the prices for the lenses were $350 for the Pentax and $53 for the Sigma. My Sigma was probably bought at a yard sale for about $20 and is in mint condition, and in a solid leather case.

I'm sure that some of the legacy lenses are just as good in image quality as modern lenses but may lack some of the bells and whistles that we take for granted these days. For many amateur photographers on a budget a legacy lens may give the image quality we crave for a small fraction of the cost of a modern lens. If I need to buy lenses in the future I'll first check to see what legacy lenses are available. I could save a lot of money and have the pleasure of knowing it came from a cheap old lens.

What say ye, learned Pentaxians?

I don't have any experience with any of the variations of this lens. Which variation do you have, and which reviews pertain to the version you have? I would not generalize except to say that probably the best older lenses are still at least fairly competitive today. I hadn't heard of this lens before you wrote about it, but some other film-era lenses, for example the 90-180mm Kiron-built Vivitar, seem to enjoy a very solid reputation.

I don't think you can put too much weight on reviews of older lenses, particularly when there are a limited number of reviews. It seems like reviewers give some credit across-the-board for a lens being a good value. For example, in their text sometimes reviewers will say they gave the lens a 10 for "sharpness for a $50 lens."

I believe that generally, coating technology has advanced, so newer lenses of similar complexity will generally have better flare resistance and contrast.

[Driline]

I learned that spending $40 bucks on a "good quality" legacy lens can yield excellent results. That's where the 3rd Party Pentax lens reviews come in handy. Just take a look and see what this old piece of junk can do.
This is a Tokina SL 400 F5.6. and here it is on the Pentax third party reviews. Tokina ( Hoya ) RMC / SL400 400mm F5.6 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

This image has not been cropped. I used Capture 1 20 editing software. Took about 20 seconds to produce these results.

[luftfluss]

I shoot older film-era glass frequently, and IMO the greatest optical advantage modern lenses have is in aberration control and flare resistance.

I agree with @tibbitts that one shouldn't put much stock in the specifics on lens reviews. When I do look at reviews, it is simply to get an overall impression of the lens in question, and I always check to see who the reviewer is and their contributions to the forum.

[psoo]

I don't have any experience with any of the variations of this lens. Which variation do you have, and which reviews pertain to the version you have? I would not generalize except to say that probably the best older lenses are still at least fairly competitive today. I hadn't heard of this lens before you wrote about it, but some other film-era lenses, for example the 90-180mm Kiron-built Vivitar, seem to enjoy a very solid reputation.

I don't think you can put too much weight on reviews of older lenses, particularly when there are a limited number of reviews. It seems like reviewers give some credit across-the-board for a lens being a good value. For example, in their text sometimes reviewers will say they gave the lens a 10 for "sharpness for a $50 lens."

I believe that generally, coating technology has advanced, so newer lenses of similar complexity will generally have better flare resistance and contrast.

Hi Tibbitts, thanks for your comments. The two lenses I talked about are reviewed in Pentax Forums in the Lenses section. For the Pentax lens review click on Pentax Lens Reviews and select the section on DA zoom lenses where you will find the DA 75-300 mm lens.
For the Sigma lens click on the Third Party Lenses section and then go to Sigma Legacy Zoom lenses. My Sigma is the Lamda II version. It had six reviewers who all thought highly of it. The pictures shown were pretty decent as far as I'm concerned. I recognize that some reviewers tend to rate old lenses more highly than modern counterparts because they are amazed that old glass can be so good for such a low price. Check out the two reviews and see what you think about the Sigma.

[luftfluss]

Another thought: in gear-centric forums like ours, there is a tendency to greatly magnify small differences in equipment. Technique and post-processing generally have a greater impact on the resultant image than the difference between similarly-specced lenses.

[psoo]

I learned that spending $40 bucks on a "good quality" legacy lens can yield excellent results. That's where the 3rd Party Pentax lens reviews come in handy. Just take a look and see what this old piece of junk can do.
This is a Tokina SL 400 F5.6. and here it is on the Pentax third party reviews. Tokina ( Hoya ) RMC / SL400 400mm F5.6 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

This image has not been cropped. I used Capture 1 20 editing software. Took about 20 seconds to produce these results.

Now that bird image is SHARP. I'll bet that lens's image quality is comparable to that from the best modern counterpart lens.

[tibbitts]

Hi Tibbitts, thanks for your comments. The two lenses I talked about are reviewed in Pentax Forums in the Lenses section. For the Pentax lens review click on Pentax Lens Reviews and select the section on DA zoom lenses where you will find the DA 75-300 mm lens.
For the Sigma lens click on the Third Party Lenses section and then go to Sigma Legacy Zoom lenses. My Sigma is the Lamda II version. It had six reviewers who all thought highly of it. The pictures shown were pretty decent as far as I'm concerned. I recognize that some reviewers tend to rate old lenses more highly than modern counterparts because they are amazed that old glass can be so good for such a low price. Check out the two reviews and see what you think about the Sigma.

I did read the reviews, but didn't read them closely enough to count who had which version. It's like with the Sigma 105mm reviews: the forum has clumped the EX with the EX DG, the latter being a different optical design (not just different in the DG coatings, as with some Sigma lenses.) I don't know whether the DL, Apo, or II versions are the same design or different. That would certainly be something anyone considering one of these lenses would want to know. Usually we think of Apo as being a high-end designation, but in the case of some Sigma models, it appears the non-Apo versions get better ratings. I have the 55-300 so I'm familiar with those reviews, although I've found a great deal of copy variation with that lens, so I can see where reviews could vary widely. Certainly if I had reviewed my first copy of the Sigma 10-20mm it would have been a completely different rating than my second copy, just as another example.

[Driline]

Now that bird image is SHARP. I'll bet that lens's image quality is comparable to that from the best modern counterpart lens.

Now my Pentax F*300 was probably the sharpest legacy glass I've ever owned but it cost me $975!

Pentax F*300



---------- Post added 02-13-21 at 10:40 PM ----------

The Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 F4 is also a very sharp zoom lens. I paid $87 dollars for this model. It also has great Pentax reviews.

[stevebrot]

I checked this Forum's section on lens reviews to see how it compared with the modern Pentax DA 55-300mm, F4-5.8. The Sigma beat the Pentax in every performance category. For Sharpness, the Pentax was rated 8.5 and the Sigma 9.4. For Aberrations it was 8.5 Pentax and 8.6 Sigma. For Bokeh 8.2 Pentax and 9.0 Sigma. For Handling both were 9.0. For Value the Pentax was 9.2 and the Sigma 9.0.

Take the ratings in the review section with a grain of salt. The represent owner satisfaction for the most part. As for the comparative usefulness of lenses made more than 20 years ago to current product, the first point of comparison might be suitability to task and there are many tasks for which current products bring few if any improvements. A second point of comparison might be cost for those improvements followed by whether convenience is improved as well.

I have two well-regarded FA-series lenses in my bag with a current model Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) on the camera (K-3). Also in the bag is a manual focus A-series 70-210/4.0 that I have become quite fond of. Everything else in active use (save one) is manual focus and only a few support exposure automation on the K-3. I have no desire to purchase the new D FA 21mm or the recent D FA* 50/1.4 and D FA* 85/1.4 lenses because I have no "pain" for those focal lengths in either APS-C or 24x36mm FF.


Steve

[StiffLegged]

Read the user reviews with discretion. If an old (vintage?) lens has 6 rave reviews over the last 8 years then I’d say it’s as good as it might turn out to be. The exception tends to be really long glass, when owners are so keen to show with images how sharp these ruinously expensive monsters are. A lens with 200 reviews in the last 3 years, mostly recommending it, is likely to be decent. Remember these are unchecked user opinions and one lens getting an 8.4 is not assessed to the exact same standards as another awarded 8.6 - these are averages of various people’s opinions at various different times.

Modern glass is usually very good indeed and ought to be at the prices. Be sure actual owners will let the world and his wife know if that £1500 lens really is a smeary mess, but there’s always one troll willing to diss even a Zeiss Otus because the shop owner’s breath smelled.

[psoo]

Now my Pentax F*300 was probably the sharpest legacy glass I've ever owned but it cost me $975!

Pentax F*300



---------- Post added 02-13-21 at 10:40 PM ----------

The Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 F4 is also a very sharp zoom lens. I paid $87 dollars for this model. It also has great Pentax reviews.

Hi Driline, the photo of the cyclist is pin sharp showing what some legacy lenses can do. I have a Pentax M300* which I recently bought for $400. The Forums rate it 10. I have carried out a few tests on it so far and my shots are sharp, but not as sharp as your cyclist shot. A factor in getting good image quality is clearly one's photo technique. A novice with a $3000 modern lens won't bring out its full potential.

[house]

Modern lenses usually do well under a larger set of circumstances. Vintage glass can be absolutely excellent under circumstances controlled to their advantage. Autofocus, flare resistance, handling of high contrast: those expand what photos will be successful. I like my smc Pentax 135 f3.5 but even with the original hood the whole image quite frequently turns magenta from flare. The manual focus means I get few keepers of my young children and purple fringing can get quite extreme.

So If you have little pressure to perform and photograph mainly for pretty images rather than subjects and situations, vintage lenses can even outperform new glass.

[MSL]

What say ye, learned Pentaxians?

Why do you take photographs?


Is it just for the final image? Is it for the creative process? Is it a way to learn new skills? Do you always have time to compose a perfect shot? Do you ever shoot events?

Maximum sharpness out of an image will depend on the optics. But getting to that will depend on technique and circumstances. A lens that may be too heavy for one person to hold rock steady may be just right for another, for example.

Sometimes I'm shooting a event (school, joyous gathering - you know the things we all did pre-covid). Under those conditions I don't want to think about my gear as I'm too involved in what is going on around me. Tack sharp isn't a requirement either. But sometimes I just want to be creative. In those cases, being more interactive with a lens is part of the process. I don't want to be in full automatic mode. Sometimes you also want to exploit the quirks of lens. That was one of the motivations for the new contest series "Something special about that less" currently featured on the homepage. For example, some aspects of bokeh have little to do with the sharpness and more to do with the number of blades. How many lenses today are made with 10 or more aperture blades?

Also in the bag is a manual focus A-series 70-210/4.0 that I have become quite fond of. Everything else in active use (save one) is manual focus and only a few support exposure automation on the K-3. I have no desire to purchase the new D FA 21mm or the recent D FA* 50/1.4 and D FA* 85/1.4 lenses because I have no "pain" for those focal lengths in either APS-C or 24x36mm FF.

I had to smile reading this. One of the earliest lenses I bought was an a A70-210/4 along with a A28/2.8 and then later a A35-105 all from the same seller. As something different to the kit, the 70-210 got some use, but I never really took to it. In contrast, after a long period of not buying anything, I did manage to get a DA 21 (all for use on APS-C) and I've been loving the field of view it gives me. I wish I could get into the 70-210 more, but its lack of sharpness at the long end has often been a disappointment. It is, however, a heavier and longer lens, so technique at maximum zoom does become a much bigger factor.

[Lowell Goudge]

Define modern, I really only have 3 “Modern” lenses. I define modern as AF and digital coatings. These lenses are the sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 DC, the tamron xr di 28-75 F2.8 and just recently added the Pentax DA 560/5.6

Every other lens I own is either manual focus or a film era lens (of which I have more than 50)

You can divide my lenses into 3 broad kits.

I have an AF kit, which covers the range of 10mm to 400mm with zooms (and a couple of AF teleconverters) plus the 560

I have a K mount MF kit that covers the range 8mm through 1000 mm with primes, and 17-500 mm with zooms

I have an M42 mount kit that is exclusively primes from 16mm fisheye through 300 mm

My AF kit is the every day setup, the manual focus lenses are for the enjoyment of taking photos at my own speed