[amorificus]

Hello everyone,

I just switched to Pentax from Canon because Pentax gear is much more affordable than others and k-5 is the best camera in its price range.

Here's what I've ordered so far:

New K-5 body
Used K10d body

New Lenses:

• Pentax da 17-70
• Rokinon (Samyang) 14mm f2.8

Used Lenses:

• Hannimex 28mm f2.8
• Super Albinar Auto 28mm f2.8
• Kamero auto 35mm f2.8
• smc pentax 50mm 1:2
• Takumar-A 70-200mm macro
• Takumar-F 70-200mm
• Tamron SP 35-80mm f2.8-3.8

What do you think? I still don't know much about pentax lenses, but i know that there are a lot of really good old prime lenses for it.
Can anyone suggest a good, but old prime that will be good on either k-5 or k10d? Thank you.

---

Last edited by amorificus; 01-23-2012 at 12:01 PM.

[Adam]

Welcome! If you have a 50mm F1.2 then it's a killer lens (opposed to the 50mm F2). Your new lens choice looks pretty good, but it looks like the 17-70mm has quite a lot of overlap with the used lenses. If I were in your place, I would sell all the used lenses on that list and except for the 50mm (and maybe one of the 28mm's) and pick up a DA 55-300mm, which will deliver better IQ than the Takumar zooms. (unless, of course, you want to have a set of lenses for each body)

If you already have that 50mm lens, it's among one of the best manual-focus primes from Pentax! You can browse more here:
Pentax Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[bkpix]

I'll second Adam's suggestion. The 50/1.2 is the only really amazing one of your manual-focus collection (though the rest could be very interesting!)

If you're not already broke you might buy the 55-300, for convenience, and keep the MF lenses, at least until you sort out what you like.

What do you photograph, and what Canon gear did you use?

[amorificus]

Thanks Adam and bkpix. I didn't know the current 55-300 was better than those old primes. Everywhere I read, the primes had higher ratings than the new 50-200 and 55-300. I've also looked at so many pictures taken with all those lenses and pictures taken with the old primes were surprisingly very nice and sharp while I thought the ones from 50-200 and 55-300 didn't look as sharp.
Here are some examples:
Super Albinar (on Nikon D70)
Hannimex
I've also read that the tamron 35-80 was a 'legendary' lens that produced stunning pictures (examples)
And here are some taken with the Takumar-F 70-200(on K-x): https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/157041-people-men-black-...ml#post1630176
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/144374-people-grown-up-kid.html#post1508381

I know most of those pictures were probably later processed in a computer program, but there's still so much detail. Is there something I'm missing?
I did think about just spending money on new lenses, but I couldn't resist the low prices of old ones lol

I'm not a professional photographer (far from it). I'm just starting, but I do know Photoshop well and other adobe programs. but, I just love photography and I'm really passionate about it.
I haven't received most of my pentax gear yet, but before Pentax I had a Canon 60d and before that, a konica film slr. The 60d was just not good enough and I outgrew it fast and I decided to buy a 7d or even 5d mark II and get serious about photography. Then, after reading lots of reviews, I decided to get a Nikon D7000, but then I saw K-5, read more about it and fell in love with it lol. It's just perfect for me. I've always wondered if there was a camera with auto ISO program and the k-5 seems to have it.
I mostly photograph wildlife and landscapes and sometimes city life(but mostly parks).

---

Last edited by amorificus; 01-23-2012 at 12:07 AM.

[Adam]

The issue with the Takumar-F/A lenses is that they don't even have multi-coating. This is their "non-budget" brother which is a quite good lens even by modern standards:

Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

But with the Takumars, you can expect more flare and CA than with other lenses.

One note about the lens database: in a lot of places, we've removed the "SMC" prefix from lenses because of its redundancy. For older lenses, you can verify that it has SMC by looking at the full lens name in the table that contains the sub-ratings and averages.

[DSims]

The smc 50/1.2 is a special lens. Perhaps you've already seen the photos on the Pentax Photo Gallery:

PENTAX : Select a PENTAX interchangeable lens camera or a lens model

I have a K-5 and a K200D (which is similar to the K10D). I find it much easier to get accurate manual focus on the K200D, especially with lenses like the 50/1.2.


Search the this forum's reviews and the PPG, amongst other sources (such as PBase.com and Pixel-Peeper -- Over a million full-size sample photos from lenses, SLR cameras and digicams.) to see what you like.

Some good ones I own or have owned are the A24/2.8, A100/2.8 (non-macro) and K200/2.5. The Takumar-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 I own is also very good, and is similar to the more expensive F 70-210. You'll have to try the F 70-200 for yourself. It's reportedly not as good as the F 70-210, although I've never had the chance to use one.

[amorificus]

Hmm, I see.

Maybe I should just sell all the old ones except for the 50mm and then save up for a 50-135mm(I think it's a very very good lens) and also get the new DA 35mm.
And the 50-135 will be plenty of zoom for me. I don't usually need more than 135mm. I would rather have fewer quality lenses than a lot of junk. But of course I will test the old lenses and see if I like any of them. Thanks for the replies

[Mike Cash]

Are you sure that 50 is a 1.2 and not a "1:2"?

[amorificus]

Are you sure that 50 is a 1.2 and not a "1:2"?

It's the crappy and cheap 1:2. The 1:1.2 costs like $400

[Frogfish]

Welcome Pendulum !

You have already bought two excellent cameras in the K5 and K10 though you'll notice quite a difference if using them together in low light.

Lenses - you have quite a bit of overlap already and I'd seek advice (start a new thread) on each lens you are looking at, for each specific task, to get the best advice - and don't forget to give us a budget for each and tell us what you like/want to photograph with it !

Your 17-70 is going to be better than pretty much all the others you have bought in the same FL range (except for the 50/1.2) so I'd ditch them.

There are literally hundreds of great older primes out there so if you tell us what you need there are many very knowledgeable posters on here who can give you great advice.

[Frogfish]

Hmm, I see.

Maybe I should just sell all the old ones except for the 50mm and then save up for a 50-135mm(I think it's a very very good lens) and also get the new DA 35mm.
And the 50-135 will be plenty of zoom for me. I don't usually need more than 135mm. I would rather have fewer quality lenses than a lot of junk. But of course I will test the old lenses and see if I like any of them. Thanks for the replies

The 50-135/2.8 is a great lens, so is the Sigma 50-150/2.8 which also has the faster HSM though isn't WR (it's no longer in production but it does come up every now and again - say once a month on average as it's a much in-demand lens - on Pentax forums or EBay).

[Mike Cash]

It's the crappy and cheap 1:2. The 1:1.2 costs like $400

We get this sort of post every now and then, and always with people getting vicariously excited over the 1.2 without stopping to reflect that a 50/1.2 just is not a lens you find yourself accidentally in possession of. Anybody who has one damned well knows what he has, as an almost universal rule. Hope springs eternal, though, so exuberant salivating praise always gets expressed. I suppose everybody is afraid to jinx it by asking, even though it always turns out to be a 50/2.

It's the Lucy-and-the-football phenomenon as engaged in by adults. We're all sure this time it'll really be a guy who serendipitously found himself holding a 1.2. (And we'll do it again the next time too).

Oh! And let us be clear that the Takumar lenses in K-mount were not deserving of the Takumar name and, in fact, are an abomination before the Lord. M42 screw mount Takumars are what Jesus uses. To paraphrase Rain Man, "K-mount sucks".

[cbope]

M42 screw mount Takumars are what Jesus uses.

[amorificus]

I knew I didn't have the good 50mm because it only cost me about $50.
I sort of thought the old primes would be decent despite their prices, but it seems like the only primes worth buying nowadays are 35mm f2 and 50mm 1.2, but they're both around $400 each.

Anyway, at first I just wanted to start out with 2 good zooms from about 18-135/200mm(combined), a fixed wide angle which I already have (rokinon 14mm) and a couple of primes preferably with large aperture for indoors and low light. My budget for lenses is about $1500 give or take, but I've already spent $1200 on all those lenses I listed. I plan to take pictures of landscapes, nature and wildlife mostly.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

[rtpguy]

You could have picked up a much better SMC 50mm/f1.7 for $50-$100, or possibly a used F50mm/1.7 for $200-ish.
I'd probably keep the 17-70, one 28, 35 and the 50 from the use collection for now, to see how you like those particular focal ranges and keep the best of the lot, then sell everything else off. Keep one of the 70-200s, whichever you're happier with, sell the other, until you eventually replace it with a modern 70-200/2.8, a cheap $100-$200 70-300, a not so cheap DA* 60-250 or 50-135.