Lenses now considered retired by K-5

TOUGEFC · 11-19-2010, 10:11 PM

Ok i dont have a K-5 yet

but im reading in threads that some owners of the K-5 are noting that certain lenses are now not so good and not sharp anymore on the K-5 because the k-5 has amazing abiltity to resolve detail.
Could the owners start posting what lenses they are now considering "retiring" since having the K-5.

Im curious to know what lenses they believe are "not up to standard" on the K-5...

Last edited by TOUGEFC; 11-20-2010 at 04:33 AM.

Abstract · 11-19-2010, 10:14 PM

Hmmm Really? I am guessing this goes for both digital and manual lenses? I hope high quality older manuals are in the safe zone....

**Digitalis** · 11-19-2010, 10:24 PM

It is pretty safe to say the FA limited lenses should be fine with the exception of the FA43 at apertures under f/2.8 (that lens tends to be softer in the corners at wider apertures, but at f/4 the resolution should be absolutely phenomenal) - the DA limited lenses should be OK too. Some of the older FA, A and K series zoom lenses could find themselves coming up short on terms of image quality.

how certain lenses perform also is highly dependant on the conditions, if you're using a FA77 with a subject that has a lot of specualrity you are going to get purple fringing no matter what camera you use it on. The higher resolution is just gong to make certain optical flaws more apparent. Which is why I will laugh if Canon photographers do get a 1DsMKIV with a sensor more than 30Mp, because many of canon's lenses including certain L series lenses will be completely written off because of the high resolution.

And let us not forget about the technical demands high resolution cameras put on photographers.

Smeggypants · 11-19-2010, 10:36 PM

At wide apertures it doesn't matter if the corners are soft. The whole point of shooting wide is to get the depth and creamy bokeh.

If you want everything in focus then shoot stopped right down.

Rick Clark · 11-19-2010, 10:56 PM

I just hope my prime Pentax 50mm 1.2 still gives me the wonderfull pictures as it has for the past 25 years. I think all my manual glass should be even better with my new K5 as I have never dropped or bumped any of them. But if they are not up to parr they will be for sale, keep watching :-).

SteveM · 11-19-2010, 10:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people are worries that the K7 is sharper than the k5 (from the recent posts). Now we hear that you can't get a sharp image from an older lens. Perhaps this is good...then we won't see people bastardizing Pentax lenses to cram on their Canons and Nikons.

Joking aside, if you put a crappy older lens on your camera, then perhaps, but isn't that the same as buying a cheap new lens? Some older lenses are expensive and there is a good reason for it. Since they were designed for better quality FF film, do you really think those lenses can't produce sharp shots? Are you saying that a lower resolution camera can produce sharper shots with these lenses than a high resolution camera? Isn't that the fault of the camera and not the lens? Are you saying that things are so razor sharp with the K5 that previous photographic expectations are obsolete?

Abstract · 11-19-2010, 11:05 PM

Seriously if my Vivitar Series 1 zoom and Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 put out bad images on the K-5 I will be severely disappointed.

kevinschoenmakers · 11-19-2010, 11:13 PM

How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin.

**Digitalis** · 11-19-2010, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin.

no it doesn't render the lenses useless, if the lenses aren't up to snuff then it makes buying the K5 waste of money, especially when they could get a lightly used K7 and be perfectly happy..people tend to get upset about wasting over $1000 on equipment like this...humans are funny creatures aren't they?

kevinschoenmakers · 11-19-2010, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

no it doesn't render the lenses useless, if the lenses aren't up to snuff then it makes buying the K5 waste of money, especially when they could get a lightly used K7 and be perfectly happy..people tend to get upset about wasting over $1000 on equipment like this...humans are funny creatures aren't they?

The increase of MP is hardly the biggest improvement over the K-7.

**Digitalis** · 11-19-2010, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

The increase of MP is hardly the biggest improvement over the K-7.

no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is.

Abstract · 11-19-2010, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin.

Which equals out to basically a tiny mega pixel difference when compared to the K-7 or K20D? So basically the image quality will be the same...?

If not I am gonna jump on a K20D...Since someone I know is offering for one for 350...

kevinschoenmakers · 11-19-2010, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is.

I upgraded to a K-5 from a K10D and the increase in resolution was the least of my interests. I'm sure if you polled this the high ISO improvements are far more important to the most upgraders.

---------- Post added 11-20-10 at 08:50 AM ----------

Originally posted by Abstract

Which equals out to basically a tiny mega pixel difference when compared to the K-7 or K20D? So basically the image quality will be the same...?

If not I am gonna jump on a K20D...Since someone I know is offering for one for 350...

There's far more to the K-5 than more megapixels.

Abstract · 11-19-2010, 11:53 PM

No what I meant is if its gonna give me worse quality shots based on the fact that its picky with not as good lenses or older lenses(Which is what I will mainly use, 70,80,90's era). Would it be worth it is my point if I am not using top of the line newer lenses...?

My outfit for a while will consist of just the kit lens and a Pentax M 50mm 1.4 and Vivitar 70-210 series 1 3.5...

SteveM · 11-20-2010, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is.

I went from the K10d to the K20, then the K-7. Every time I have been happy with how the camera handles and didn't see a degradation from my manual glass from the upgrades. Thinking that the K-5 will render quality older glass ineffective is wishful thinking. It's great, but it, and new glass, is not "that" good.

11-19-2010, 10:11 PM	#1
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Lenses now considered retired by K-5 Ok i dont have a K-5 yet but im reading in threads that some owners of the K-5 are noting that certain lenses are now not so good and not sharp anymore on the K-5 because the k-5 has amazing abiltity to resolve detail. Could the owners start posting what lenses they are now considering "retiring" since having the K-5. Im curious to know what lenses they believe are "not up to standard" on the K-5... Last edited by TOUGEFC; 11-20-2010 at 04:33 AM.

11-19-2010, 10:24 PM	#3
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	It is pretty safe to say the FA limited lenses should be fine with the exception of the FA43 at apertures under f/2.8 (that lens tends to be softer in the corners at wider apertures, but at f/4 the resolution should be absolutely phenomenal) - the DA limited lenses should be OK too. Some of the older FA, A and K series zoom lenses could find themselves coming up short on terms of image quality. how certain lenses perform also is highly dependant on the conditions, if you're using a FA77 with a subject that has a lot of specualrity you are going to get purple fringing no matter what camera you use it on. The higher resolution is just gong to make certain optical flaws more apparent. Which is why I will laugh if Canon photographers do get a 1DsMKIV with a sensor more than 30Mp, because many of canon's lenses including certain L series lenses will be completely written off because of the high resolution. And let us not forget about the technical demands high resolution cameras put on photographers. Last edited by Digitalis; 11-19-2010 at 10:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
retired packard	trev99	Monthly Photo Contests	0	03-03-2010 05:12 PM
A Retired USMC Captain (First portrait on the street)	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	16	08-28-2009 06:59 PM
Retired Rail Switcher	areidjr	Post Your Photos!	13	09-23-2007 05:59 AM
Retired Warriors.	NLAlston	Post Your Photos!	4	05-27-2007 10:00 PM
*istDS is now retired - last images	flash1100	Post Your Photos!	3	01-25-2007 03:01 PM

11-19-2010, 10:14 PM	#2
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Hmmm Really? I am guessing this goes for both digital and manual lenses? I hope high quality older manuals are in the safe zone....

11-19-2010, 10:36 PM	#4
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	At wide apertures it doesn't matter if the corners are soft. The whole point of shooting wide is to get the depth and creamy bokeh. If you want everything in focus then shoot stopped right down.

11-19-2010, 10:56 PM	#5
Rick Clark Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Provo, Utah Posts: 128	I just hope my prime Pentax 50mm 1.2 still gives me the wonderfull pictures as it has for the past 25 years. I think all my manual glass should be even better with my new K5 as I have never dropped or bumped any of them. But if they are not up to parr they will be for sale, keep watching :-).

11-19-2010, 10:57 PM	#6
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Correct me if I'm wrong, but people are worries that the K7 is sharper than the k5 (from the recent posts). Now we hear that you can't get a sharp image from an older lens. Perhaps this is good...then we won't see people bastardizing Pentax lenses to cram on their Canons and Nikons. Joking aside, if you put a crappy older lens on your camera, then perhaps, but isn't that the same as buying a cheap new lens? Some older lenses are expensive and there is a good reason for it. Since they were designed for better quality FF film, do you really think those lenses can't produce sharp shots? Are you saying that a lower resolution camera can produce sharper shots with these lenses than a high resolution camera? Isn't that the fault of the camera and not the lens? Are you saying that things are so razor sharp with the K5 that previous photographic expectations are obsolete?

11-19-2010, 11:05 PM	#7
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Seriously if my Vivitar Series 1 zoom and Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 put out bad images on the K-5 I will be severely disappointed.

11-19-2010, 11:13 PM	#8
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin.

11-19-2010, 11:21 PM	#9
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin. no it doesn't render the lenses useless, if the lenses aren't up to snuff then it makes buying the K5 waste of money, especially when they could get a lightly used K7 and be perfectly happy..people tend to get upset about wasting over $1000 on equipment like this...humans are funny creatures aren't they?

11-19-2010, 11:23 PM	#10
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	Originally posted by Digitalis no it doesn't render the lenses useless, if the lenses aren't up to snuff then it makes buying the K5 waste of money, especially when they could get a lightly used K7 and be perfectly happy..people tend to get upset about wasting over $1000 on equipment like this...humans are funny creatures aren't they? The increase of MP is hardly the biggest improvement over the K-7.

11-19-2010, 11:44 PM	#11
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers The increase of MP is hardly the biggest improvement over the K-7. no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is.

11-19-2010, 11:45 PM	#12
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers How does this make sense actually? The lens is just oursolved, that doesn't make them useless. It just means the maximum print size has not improved with the increase of sensor resolutoin. Which equals out to basically a tiny mega pixel difference when compared to the K-7 or K20D? So basically the image quality will be the same...? If not I am gonna jump on a K20D...Since someone I know is offering for one for 350...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2010, 11:49 PM	#13
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	Originally posted by Digitalis no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is. I upgraded to a K-5 from a K10D and the increase in resolution was the least of my interests. I'm sure if you polled this the high ISO improvements are far more important to the most upgraders. ---------- Post added 11-20-10 at 08:50 AM ---------- Originally posted by Abstract Which equals out to basically a tiny mega pixel difference when compared to the K-7 or K20D? So basically the image quality will be the same...? If not I am gonna jump on a K20D...Since someone I know is offering for one for 350... There's far more to the K-5 than more megapixels.

11-19-2010, 11:53 PM	#14
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	No what I meant is if its gonna give me worse quality shots based on the fact that its picky with not as good lenses or older lenses(Which is what I will mainly use, 70,80,90's era). Would it be worth it is my point if I am not using top of the line newer lenses...? My outfit for a while will consist of just the kit lens and a Pentax M 50mm 1.4 and Vivitar 70-210 series 1 3.5...

11-20-2010, 12:00 AM	#15
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by Digitalis no it isn't the most important factor, but for those upgrading from the K10 it is. I went from the K10d to the K20, then the K-7. Every time I have been happy with how the camera handles and didn't see a degradation from my manual glass from the upgrades. Thinking that the K-5 will render quality older glass ineffective is wishful thinking. It's great, but it, and new glass, is not "that" good.