Who else uses MF lenses for your "Main Squeeze"?

**rparmar** · 07-12-2009, 07:08 AM

Sounds great J! Many would be very happy with such a kit.

K-9 · 07-12-2009, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

Every lens I own is MF. Quite frankly, most of the Pentax AF lenses were cheap crap, with the exceptions of the "*" lenses, which usually had poor availability and/or excessive prices. All of my cameras except for my dSLRs are manual focus anyway, and I wouldn't buy any APS-C lenses since I couldn't use those on my film bodies.

F 50mm 1.4, F 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, FA 50mm 1.7, F 135 mm 2.8, FA 135m 2.8, F 50mm 2.8 Macro, F 100 mm 2.8 Macro. Just about all the F and FA series primes are not "cheap crap"; they're not "*" lenses; they had plenty of availability; and reasonable prices when new.

I do agree with you on the DA lenses. I won't buy them either, due to their non backward compatibility and high prices.

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

With just a couple of exceptions, a "standard" 50mm and a 15mm (so I had SOMETHING that vaguely resembled a "wide" angle on the damn APS-C dSLRs), I have nothing but zooms, since I prefer the framing control and the "seamless" focal length coverage. I prefer MF lenses, since many of the AF lenses had those godawful skinny little focusing rings that you could hardly find, much less actually use, and many were poorly damped due to the need to accommodate the AF mechanisms. While I think that recent vintage AF lenses are much better in that regard, I prefer my entire range of lenses to work in a similar fashion, so I stick with MF lenses, and I've gone to the used market to fill out my lens collection as necessary. My old MF glass will last as long as I do; I doubt I would be confident that AF lenses would have similar durability - too many "features" to malfunction like motors, chips, drive screws, etc.

You can get the same thing by taking a step forward or backward. A 35-70 is useless, IMO, especially since a standard 50mm will always be sharper, and you can obtain the 35mm by taking a step back, and the 70mm by taking a step forward. Too many photographers suffer from the "let's stand still and zoom in and out" syndrome. Try moving your feet and being a part of the action, not just a scarecrow.

**Canada_Rockies** · 07-12-2009, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by K-9

F 50mm 1.4, F 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, FA 50mm 1.7, F 135 mm 2.8, FA 135m 2.8, F 50mm 2.8 Macro, F 100 mm 2.8 Macro. Just about all the F and FA series primes are not "cheap crap"; they're not "*" lenses; they had plenty of availability; and reasonable prices when new.

I do agree with you on the DA lenses. I won't buy them either, due to their non backward compatibility and high prices.

I have three DA lenses. They were pricey but not exorbitantly so. All one need do is check our the price of the Nikon 12-24 and 14-24 lenses to realize that the prices I paid were not serious drawbacks.

Quote:

You can get the same thing by taking a step forward or backward. A 35-70 is useless, IMO, especially since a standard 50mm will always be sharper, and you can obtain the 35mm by taking a step back, and the 70mm by taking a step forward. Too many photographers suffer from the "let's stand still and zoom in and out" syndrome. Try moving your feet and being a part of the action, not just a scarecrow.

Sometimes, you cannot step forward or back. Check out the Spineback 2007 photo set here, most taken with the MZ-S and 24-90. I would have very much liked to have gotten somewhat closer to Island Lake, visible in the far down on some images, but as you can see from others, that was not an option.
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/sparwood-hiking-club/photos/album/0/list

Also, perspective changes when you move forward and back. Sometimes I want the huge daisy in front of tiny mountains, sometimes I want big mountains. If you are happy with prime lenses, that is your prerogative, your personal choice of equipment. I spent many years happily photographing with a manual camera and two lenses: 55 mm and 135 mm. I found, however, that scenics sometimes demand lenses of wider view than the 55 mm, and it was very difficult to take a photograph of an Osprey with a 135mm lens.

Of my current lens list, only one is crap (FA 28-80) mechanically, if not optically. The other seven are optically and mechanically at least decent. I still own and use two prime lenses - my 100 macro and my 400. Using my zooms, I have possibilities of framing the way I want with the perspective I want with the other six lenses.

Do not assign mindless framing habits to those of us who appreciate the ability to get the exact perspective and framing we want. I recall apologizing to a friend of mine at a garden park for taking so much time on a photograph of water lilies with the FA 24-90 on MZ-S. He said he was pleasantly amused by the up/down/forward/back I did while zooming and framing to get the exact image I wanted. I am absolutely certain that there are numerous other members of these fora who also carefully select the perspective and framing to give the image desired. Sometimes the neither 28mm nor 55mm gives the desired image.

I respect your choice of equipment, and your choice of what you want to use for your photography. Please respect the choices of those of us who have different priorities.

K-9 · 07-12-2009, 01:13 PM

I brought up a 35 to 70mm and called it useless. I never said anything about a 24-90 or something like that, because obviously you can't get as wide a perspective with a 50mm, even taking a step back, as you can with a 24mm focal length. You also can't compare a prime 50mm to an 18-270. There are always exceptions. I was merely offering a perspective to someone who uses nothing but zoom lenses, as I've encountered many photographers who are too lazy to work with primes when all it took was a few simple steps forward or back. It's a staple of most how to's and instructional courses in photography, about moving to get the shot you want, rather than zooming. It's a typical and sound suggestion and practice.

I didn't specifically say you or "those of you" or anyone in particular. I'm sure there are many like you who use zooms and move all around to get that precise framing. However, there are those who do not and will not. My comments were to them (if they're reading this

). Sorry you took it so personally.

**Canada_Rockies** · 07-12-2009, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by K-9

...<snip>... I'm sure there are many like you who use zooms and move all around to get that precise framing. However, there are those who do not and will not. My comments were to them (if they're reading this

). Sorry you took it so personally.

I'm sorry my post was offensive. I apologize.

K-9 · 07-12-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

I'm sorry my post was offensive. I apologize.

No problem.

Getting back on topic, I just scored a Pentax-A 35mm f2.8 on craigslist pretty cheap. Can't wait to test it out. I don't know why some criticize the A series and says it's not as nice as the M. This one is nearly the same build quality as my M 50f1.4, and it should have no issues with exposure on my k20.

Arjay Bee · 07-13-2009, 06:16 AM

I now have a nice series of primes that I am using for personal work.
I plan to get an 85mm at some point but use the following on a regular basis:
28/2.8 Vivitar K02
35/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/4 Macro, 105/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4 Super Takumars
360/5.5 Schneider Kreuznach
Less used are 28/2.8 Tokina, 50/2.8 CZJ Tessar, and 135/3.5 Isco Tele Westenar
All but the 28 are M42
When trying to get some PJ Sports shots or an event with unpredictable movement I take the autozooms: 16-45, 50-200 or if on a rugby field the 80-400 Tokina
I have tried to stick with a single lens for an extended period but end up needing to swap out to something else. I try to stick with one mount for a specific gig as it is a hassle moving between ks and adaptor.

2Thumbs · 07-13-2009, 07:19 AM

I do. Only because my tak's have tainted the build quality of my 18-55mm IS lens therefore currently refuse to use it.

Don't get me wrong, it's sharp at optimal apertures and the IS can be a life saver but the wobbly focus ring and 'sticky'/undampened zoom ring is shockingly terrible.

Damn you Asahi Pentax and your tank-like lenses.

séamuis · 07-13-2009, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by 2Thumbs

I do. Only because my tak's have tainted the build quality of my 18-55mm IS lens therefore currently refuse to use it.

Don't get me wrong, it's sharp at optimal apertures and the IS can be a life saver but the wobbly focus ring and 'sticky'/undampened zoom ring is shockingly terrible.

Damn you Asahi Pentax and your tank-like lenses.

I assume you shoot canon?

2Thumbs · 07-13-2009, 07:29 AM

I do indeed.

Body I use is a 20D.

J.Scott · 07-14-2009, 03:28 AM

IS?

Sorry, but I'm confused. Are you saying you use Tak's on your Canon?

2Thumbs · 07-14-2009, 07:54 AM

Image stablisation. Like SR but it's in the lens, not the body.

Yes I do use tak's on it, using an AF confirm adapter. Works excellently on Av mode with some exposure compensation.

A Canon 50mm f/1.4 would have cost me £280, I picked up a mint Tak' 50mm f/1.4 for £60 including shipping. That's less than what I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 for.

séamuis · 07-14-2009, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by 2Thumbs

Image stablisation. Like SR but it's in the lens, not the body.

Yes I do use tak's on it, using an AF confirm adapter. Works excellently on Av mode with some exposure compensation.

A Canon 50mm f/1.4 would have cost me £280, I picked up a mint Tak' 50mm f/1.4 for £60 including shipping. That's less than what I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 for.

but god forbid, you try and tell a canon fanboy how good that little 50 really is.

Igilligan · 07-14-2009, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by J.Scott

IS?

Sorry, but I'm confused. Are you saying you use Tak's on your Canon?

Yes it is one of the 'unspoken' truths... We talk about pentax and the backwards compatability like it is somehow special among cameras. But actually most bodies can use old lenses and some have even more lens mount options than Pentax.

My good friend in SF, has a Canon DSLR. He saw the results I was getting with all these old lenses and was envious to say the least... He had a two kit combo.
I told him how great the Pentax was because of the backwards compatability... And the fact that I could get these wonderful lenses on craigslist and ebay, cheap!

We did an online search and found out the Canon has even more backwards compatibilty than the Pentax. We got him a couple of adaptors with AF confirm... He now has more Pentax lenses than I do! Rich Bastard!

2Thumbs · 07-14-2009, 10:06 AM

Indeed, the advantage to having the mirror so far back on crop body EOS camera's is they're compatible with almost all old maunal lenses without any adverse effect on image quality (ironically this doesn't include Canon FD mount lenses)

Using old AI/AI-S Nikkor lenses on a Canon body sends shivvers down both hardcore Nikon and Canon users. The look of digust is only marginally better than the results you get.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 is good optically for the price, but yeah some people think it's some second-coming of jesus or similar. It's really not worth the praise it gets IMO, good for dipping your toe though.

07-14-2009, 09:48 AM	#89
Igilligan Guest	Shhhh Originally posted by J.Scott IS? Sorry, but I'm confused. Are you saying you use Tak's on your Canon? Yes it is one of the 'unspoken' truths... We talk about pentax and the backwards compatability like it is somehow special among cameras. But actually most bodies can use old lenses and some have even more lens mount options than Pentax. My good friend in SF, has a Canon DSLR. He saw the results I was getting with all these old lenses and was envious to say the least... He had a two kit combo. I told him how great the Pentax was because of the backwards compatability... And the fact that I could get these wonderful lenses on craigslist and ebay, cheap! We did an online search and found out the Canon has even more backwards compatibilty than the Pentax. We got him a couple of adaptors with AF confirm... He now has more Pentax lenses than I do! Rich Bastard!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version)	dgaies	Sold Items	5	12-28-2009 07:58 AM
Original "K" and "M" lenses	wlank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Looking for a new "main" lens for my istDs	Karl Inge S	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	12-13-2007 01:38 AM

07-12-2009, 07:08 AM	#76
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Sounds great J! Many would be very happy with such a kit.

07-12-2009, 07:37 AM	#77
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by 24X36NOW Every lens I own is MF. Quite frankly, most of the Pentax AF lenses were cheap crap, with the exceptions of the "" lenses, which usually had poor availability and/or excessive prices. All of my cameras except for my dSLRs are manual focus anyway, and I wouldn't buy any APS-C lenses since I couldn't use those on my film bodies. F 50mm 1.4, F 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, FA 50mm 1.7, F 135 mm 2.8, FA 135m 2.8, F 50mm 2.8 Macro, F 100 mm 2.8 Macro. Just about all the F and FA series primes are not "cheap crap"; they're not "" lenses; they had plenty of availability; and reasonable prices when new. I do agree with you on the DA lenses. I won't buy them either, due to their non backward compatibility and high prices. Originally posted by 24X36NOW With just a couple of exceptions, a "standard" 50mm and a 15mm (so I had SOMETHING that vaguely resembled a "wide" angle on the damn APS-C dSLRs), I have nothing but zooms, since I prefer the framing control and the "seamless" focal length coverage. I prefer MF lenses, since many of the AF lenses had those godawful skinny little focusing rings that you could hardly find, much less actually use, and many were poorly damped due to the need to accommodate the AF mechanisms. While I think that recent vintage AF lenses are much better in that regard, I prefer my entire range of lenses to work in a similar fashion, so I stick with MF lenses, and I've gone to the used market to fill out my lens collection as necessary. My old MF glass will last as long as I do; I doubt I would be confident that AF lenses would have similar durability - too many "features" to malfunction like motors, chips, drive screws, etc. You can get the same thing by taking a step forward or backward. A 35-70 is useless, IMO, especially since a standard 50mm will always be sharper, and you can obtain the 35mm by taking a step back, and the 70mm by taking a step forward. Too many photographers suffer from the "let's stand still and zoom in and out" syndrome. Try moving your feet and being a part of the action, not just a scarecrow.

07-12-2009, 08:29 AM	#78
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by K-9 F 50mm 1.4, F 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, FA 50mm 1.7, F 135 mm 2.8, FA 135m 2.8, F 50mm 2.8 Macro, F 100 mm 2.8 Macro. Just about all the F and FA series primes are not "cheap crap"; they're not "*" lenses; they had plenty of availability; and reasonable prices when new. I do agree with you on the DA lenses. I won't buy them either, due to their non backward compatibility and high prices. I have three DA lenses. They were pricey but not exorbitantly so. All one need do is check our the price of the Nikon 12-24 and 14-24 lenses to realize that the prices I paid were not serious drawbacks. Quote: You can get the same thing by taking a step forward or backward. A 35-70 is useless, IMO, especially since a standard 50mm will always be sharper, and you can obtain the 35mm by taking a step back, and the 70mm by taking a step forward. Too many photographers suffer from the "let's stand still and zoom in and out" syndrome. Try moving your feet and being a part of the action, not just a scarecrow. Sometimes, you cannot step forward or back. Check out the Spineback 2007 photo set here, most taken with the MZ-S and 24-90. I would have very much liked to have gotten somewhat closer to Island Lake, visible in the far down on some images, but as you can see from others, that was not an option. http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/sparwood-hiking-club/photos/album/0/list Also, perspective changes when you move forward and back. Sometimes I want the huge daisy in front of tiny mountains, sometimes I want big mountains. If you are happy with prime lenses, that is your prerogative, your personal choice of equipment. I spent many years happily photographing with a manual camera and two lenses: 55 mm and 135 mm. I found, however, that scenics sometimes demand lenses of wider view than the 55 mm, and it was very difficult to take a photograph of an Osprey with a 135mm lens. Of my current lens list, only one is crap (FA 28-80) mechanically, if not optically. The other seven are optically and mechanically at least decent. I still own and use two prime lenses - my 100 macro and my 400. Using my zooms, I have possibilities of framing the way I want with the perspective I want with the other six lenses. Do not assign mindless framing habits to those of us who appreciate the ability to get the exact perspective and framing we want. I recall apologizing to a friend of mine at a garden park for taking so much time on a photograph of water lilies with the FA 24-90 on MZ-S. He said he was pleasantly amused by the up/down/forward/back I did while zooming and framing to get the exact image I wanted. I am absolutely certain that there are numerous other members of these fora who also carefully select the perspective and framing to give the image desired. Sometimes the neither 28mm nor 55mm gives the desired image. I respect your choice of equipment, and your choice of what you want to use for your photography. Please respect the choices of those of us who have different priorities.

07-12-2009, 01:13 PM	#79
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	I brought up a 35 to 70mm and called it useless. I never said anything about a 24-90 or something like that, because obviously you can't get as wide a perspective with a 50mm, even taking a step back, as you can with a 24mm focal length. You also can't compare a prime 50mm to an 18-270. There are always exceptions. I was merely offering a perspective to someone who uses nothing but zoom lenses, as I've encountered many photographers who are too lazy to work with primes when all it took was a few simple steps forward or back. It's a staple of most how to's and instructional courses in photography, about moving to get the shot you want, rather than zooming. It's a typical and sound suggestion and practice. I didn't specifically say you or "those of you" or anyone in particular. I'm sure there are many like you who use zooms and move all around to get that precise framing. However, there are those who do not and will not. My comments were to them (if they're reading this ). Sorry you took it so personally.

07-12-2009, 01:23 PM	#80
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by K-9 ...<snip>... I'm sure there are many like you who use zooms and move all around to get that precise framing. However, there are those who do not and will not. My comments were to them (if they're reading this ). Sorry you took it so personally. I'm sorry my post was offensive. I apologize.

07-12-2009, 03:25 PM	#81
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies I'm sorry my post was offensive. I apologize. No problem. Getting back on topic, I just scored a Pentax-A 35mm f2.8 on craigslist pretty cheap. Can't wait to test it out. I don't know why some criticize the A series and says it's not as nice as the M. This one is nearly the same build quality as my M 50f1.4, and it should have no issues with exposure on my k20.

07-13-2009, 06:16 AM	#82
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	I now have a nice series of primes that I am using for personal work. I plan to get an 85mm at some point but use the following on a regular basis: 28/2.8 Vivitar K02 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/4 Macro, 105/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4 Super Takumars 360/5.5 Schneider Kreuznach Less used are 28/2.8 Tokina, 50/2.8 CZJ Tessar, and 135/3.5 Isco Tele Westenar All but the 28 are M42 When trying to get some PJ Sports shots or an event with unpredictable movement I take the autozooms: 16-45, 50-200 or if on a rugby field the 80-400 Tokina I have tried to stick with a single lens for an extended period but end up needing to swap out to something else. I try to stick with one mount for a specific gig as it is a hassle moving between ks and adaptor.

07-13-2009, 07:19 AM	#83
2Thumbs Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 25	I do. Only because my tak's have tainted the build quality of my 18-55mm IS lens therefore currently refuse to use it. Don't get me wrong, it's sharp at optimal apertures and the IS can be a life saver but the wobbly focus ring and 'sticky'/undampened zoom ring is shockingly terrible. Damn you Asahi Pentax and your tank-like lenses.

07-13-2009, 07:26 AM	#84
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by 2Thumbs I do. Only because my tak's have tainted the build quality of my 18-55mm IS lens therefore currently refuse to use it. Don't get me wrong, it's sharp at optimal apertures and the IS can be a life saver but the wobbly focus ring and 'sticky'/undampened zoom ring is shockingly terrible. Damn you Asahi Pentax and your tank-like lenses. I assume you shoot canon?

07-13-2009, 07:29 AM	#85
2Thumbs Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 25	I do indeed. Body I use is a 20D.

07-14-2009, 03:28 AM	#86
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	IS? Sorry, but I'm confused. Are you saying you use Tak's on your Canon?

07-14-2009, 07:54 AM	#87
2Thumbs Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 25	Image stablisation. Like SR but it's in the lens, not the body. Yes I do use tak's on it, using an AF confirm adapter. Works excellently on Av mode with some exposure compensation. A Canon 50mm f/1.4 would have cost me £280, I picked up a mint Tak' 50mm f/1.4 for £60 including shipping. That's less than what I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 for.

07-14-2009, 09:46 AM	#88
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by 2Thumbs Image stablisation. Like SR but it's in the lens, not the body. Yes I do use tak's on it, using an AF confirm adapter. Works excellently on Av mode with some exposure compensation. A Canon 50mm f/1.4 would have cost me £280, I picked up a mint Tak' 50mm f/1.4 for £60 including shipping. That's less than what I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 for. but god forbid, you try and tell a canon fanboy how good that little 50 really is.

07-14-2009, 10:06 AM	#90
2Thumbs Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 25	Indeed, the advantage to having the mirror so far back on crop body EOS camera's is they're compatible with almost all old maunal lenses without any adverse effect on image quality (ironically this doesn't include Canon FD mount lenses) Using old AI/AI-S Nikkor lenses on a Canon body sends shivvers down both hardcore Nikon and Canon users. The look of digust is only marginally better than the results you get. The EF 50mm f/1.8 is good optically for the price, but yeah some people think it's some second-coming of jesus or similar. It's really not worth the praise it gets IMO, good for dipping your toe though.