[WPRESTO]

looks like I'm now pretty well covered [ check profile or follow the link for list ]

check list -

a wide lens
a telephoto lens
an old lens
a new lens
a prime or two
a zoom or two
manual focus
auto focus
a light lens
a heavy lens
a large lens
a small lens
Pentax brand
third party lens

with my soon to arrive zoom - Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

time to concentrate on gaining knowledge and technique - you know the hard stuff

How many lenses do you have? - PentaxForums.com

Let me test myself against your list:

a wide lens = 12 mm Venus/Laowa
a telephoto lens = DA 300mm f4
an old lens = 200mm f4 SMCA (there's a much older M42 50mm f1.4, but that is never used)
a new lens = Panasonic 200mm f2.8
a prime or two = 50mm f1.7 FA; Tokina 90mm f2.5 macro
a zoom or two = Pentax 16~85mm; Panasonic 50~200mm
manual focus = Voigtlander 180mm f4
auto focus = Pentax 35mm f2.8 macro
a light lens = Panasonic 25mm f1.8
a heavy lens = Olympus 300mm f4
a large lens = Tamron 150~600mm (Canon mount)
a small lens = Pentax 40mm f2.8
Pentax brand = Pentax 60~250mm f4
third party lens = Tamron 70~200mm f2.8

I might add
a high-speed lens = Matigon Speedmaster 25mm f0.95
a modest aperture lens = Nikon 600mm f5.6
a lens other Pentaxians wish they had = 200mm F4 EDIF macro
a lens that isn't much desired = Tamron 28-105mm (1980's vintage)

[ivanvernon]

I like my Kino Precision Japan Kiron 28mm F2 MC P/KA

Your comments inspired me to take a couple of test shots with one of the 28s in my collection, one shot out my front door and the other looking through our solarium dining area. This lens is the Kiron 28mm f 2.0/55/MC (Kino Precision/Japan), No.30112699. Smallest aperture is f 16.0. Seems to do a nice job and handles flare quite well with no hood in place. In these trial shots, I discovered that the hood I had in place was too small and causing 4-corner vignetting, so I need to look for a wider hood.

[aslyfox]

Interesting list. I have all of the above. In fact, more than one in all instances bar none.

Let me test myself against your list . . .

don't get me wrong, I don't think my collection is unique nor comparable to those of others

I just meant that I had covered my personal " check list "

my " fast " lens [ F1.4 ] cannot compare to yours

Your comments inspired me to take a couple of test shots with one of the 28s in my collection, one shot out my front door and the other looking through our solarium dining area. This lens is the Kiron 28mm f 2.0/55/MC (Kino Precision/Japan), No.30112699. Smallest aperture is f 16.0. Seems to do a nice job and handles flare quite well with no hood in place. . . . .

nice, very glad you were inspired. it appears to be the same lens but I have the PK/A version

[cyberjunkie]

Well, I bought a silver 80-320 about 15 yrs ago, to go with the MZ/ZX-5N, on the basis of various good magazine reviews - but, TBH, I was totally less than impressed it with for 2 reasons:
- I could never get any decently sharp shots.
- Over time (and not a lot of that) the lens barrel developed a pronounced looseness and "wobble" when extended, due to wear of the plastic parts inside, and that wasn't and isn't repairable (it became quite well known for that issue) - if you get one like that, send it back if you can, or bin it if you can't!

PS: just read cyberjunkie's post, and my opinion of the FA28-80 was much the same as for the 80-320 - although it didn't "wobble"

Still waiting for the 80-320mm... will post my opinion as soon as I have the chance to test it properly.
I have a special liking for the last generation of Pentax-FA zooms. The 28-80mm and 100-300mm are decent lenses, better than what you'd expect, considering the price and the (questionable) build. Both have plastic mount, and were cheap consumer zooms... not expensive nor fancy.
All in all, both are more than decent lenses, if used at their sweet spot. Compared with similar objectives of previous generations of Pentax AF lenses, the build is worse but the optical quality is better.
This is especially true of the 28-105mm. There are many versions of the same focal length, including two other FA ones, if I'm not mistaken.
Well, the 28-105mm "silver" is a hell of a lens. I've read a post from a pentaxian who also owns the new DFA: the difference in price is huge, but the IQ is quite similar.
If the 80-320mm proves to be half as good, I'd be satisfied
If you want a zoom with very good IQ past 250mm, or good build quality, better look elsewhere.
Personally I'm fine with low cost and plenty of extension, and I'd call myself happy if it gives good quality at medium apertures from 80mmm to around 200/250mm.
At 300/320mm I'd be fine if it has the same performance of the 100-300mm 'silver'.
I've extensively used the latter zoom at its extreme end to photograph a race for vintage flat keel boats. It's nowhere close to the performance of its shorter 28-105mm sister, but it's better than the old Pentax-F version. With some PP the results are more than acceptable.
Few old zooms are BOTH sharp and well made. Those which happens to be comparable to a good prime usually have short range (usually 2x) and are not very fast. The old Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm Flat Field is an example. It works OK in pseudo macro, it's practical and quite sharp... but has a 2x range and a max aperture of f/4.5!
I shoot 80% of my pictures with primes, almost always in manual focus. With very low light, and at macro range, AF is likely to slow me down.
When I NEED AF, I am prepared to raise the ISO, stop down to medium apertures, and use the lens I can carry with me.
Many times I don't want to be burdened by the Sigma 2.8/24-70mm or 120-400mm, so I go for the Pentax-FA "silver" or other similar low-weight consumer zooms.
The Tokina AF AT-X 20-35mm and the Pentax-FA 3.2-4.5/28-105mm proved to be more than satisfying, I'm still looking for a long zoom with the same kind of performance. The best one is the Pentax-F 70-210mm, but it's still too short for my needs. This is why I will try the 80-320mm.

[niblue]

Oddly enough I had both the 28-80 (think I still have one somewhere in fact) and 100-300's and wasn't impressed with either. I'd heard the 28-105 was decent but I've haven't had one of those. I found the Sigma 70-300 much better that the Pentax 100-300.

Like yourself I don't really like manual focus zooms but I do like decent AF ones, of which I have many. Also still looking for a really nice long lens but I don't really use those long enough to justify the big prices. Best option for me at the moment is a ATX-Pro 80-200 F2.8 with a 2x on it, although that combination suffers from a fair bit of CA.

[WPRESTO]

The old Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm Flat Field is an example. It works OK in pseudo macro, it's practical and quite sharp... but has a 2x range and a max aperture of f/4.5!.

I remember when that lens was introduced and also what the photomags (Popular Photo; Modern Photo) thought of it. The general opinion: it was very good as a macro. but not comparable to prime macros (commonly among the sharpest lenses on the market at any time), and it was very handy, versatile and at 180mm longer than the vast majority of macros available at the time. However, at normal shooting distances, IQ was only so-so compared to much faster zooms with a greater FL range (ubiquitous 70/80~200mm f2.8 optics). I think it was one of only two long-range zooms specifically designed to function as macros, the other being a Nikon (80~200mm f4 AF as I recall).

[ivanvernon]

Oddly enough I had both the 28-80 (think I still have one somewhere in fact) and 100-300's and wasn't impressed with either. I'd heard the 28-105 was decent but I've haven't had one of those. I found the Sigma 70-300 much better that the Pentax 100-300.

Like yourself I don't really like manual focus zooms but I do like decent AF ones, of which I have many. Also still looking for a really nice long lens but I don't really use those long enough to justify the big prices. Best option for me at the moment is a ATX-Pro 80-200 F2.8 with a 2x on it, although that combination suffers from a fair bit of CA.

Interesting comments. I have the FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, which I have heard said was the kit lens on the MZ-S. It is quite a good performing lens with great image quality, but suffers from flimsy build. I keep it, use it, like it, and hope it stays in one piece.

[niblue]

Interesting comments. I have the FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, which I have heard said was the kit lens on the MZ-S. It is quite a good performing lens with great image quality, but suffers from flimsy build. I keep it, use it, like it, and hope it stays in one piece.

Not had one of them but suspect it might well be useful - I much prefer standard zooms that go to 24mm rather than to 28mm (like you I use the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 as my walkabout lens on the K1). I used to have a 24-135mm F2.8-4.5 Sigma back in my film days and now really wish I'd kept it as it'd have been useful on the K1.

[ivanvernon]

Not had one of them but suspect it might well be useful - I much prefer standard zooms that go to 24mm rather than to 28mm (like you I use the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 as my walkabout lens on the K1). I used to have a 24-135mm F2.8-4.5 Sigma back in my film days and now really wish I'd kept it as it'd have been useful on the K1.

Yep, it is a great walk around lens. I just checked eBay, and shocked how expensive, three copies at $275/295/320. It's a good lens, but that is absurd for an old FA with such iffy build quality. Mayb I should sell mine!

[cyberjunkie]

Regarding the Panagor 28, accepted rule of thumb says that Vivitar lenses with a serial number starting 28******* are made by Komura.

There is an active Vivitar lens thread should you wish to contribute.:-)

I like the way that Panagor looks, and I think Panagors can be great deals... but it's not Komura
I am a Sankyo Kohki/Komura collector, and I started the big Komura thread on mflenses.com forum.
No Komura lenses had that kind of aesthetic, and Panagor does NOT share the same serial system with Vivitar.
Could be Komine, or Sun. Most Panagor lenses were made by Kino (Kiron), but in this case I'm dubious. Could really be Komine-made, like the two Panagor Macro lenses (55mm and 90mm) that were sold during the same period (the PK mount and the barrel style scream late seventies).
A careful examination of the lenses listed on the "Vivitar 28mm bestiary" page could give the final answer.

I have a special fascination for rebranded lenses, like Soligor and Vivitar, and I've spent some time trying to figure out the original lens makers from the serial numbers.
Soligor lenses can have the same first digit of the serial, and have different provenance. It depends on the length of the serial, I found a few new "rules" myself (for example Y + four digits means Fujita, not Tokina or Sun).
I guess the same could apply to Vivitar... but Vivitar serials are more mysterious, and personally I haven't figured out anything. I tried to find which maker made the Vivitars with serials starting with "19", spent a lot of time comparing pictures, but I still have no clues

Btw, I have never seen a Komura-made Vivitar. Well, never seen a Schneider-made one either! I wouldn't take the famous Vivitar serial list as gospel
Very few Komura lenses were sold under other brands, and most of them were in LTM mount (like Soligor, Kyoei Acall, Super Acall, W Acall, Bittco/Vemar, etc).
I have just seen a Telesar in SLR mount (Exakta) that looks practically identical to a Komura... but it's not a common sight. Most rebrands were in Leica screw mount.

---------- Post added 25-01-19 at 10:19 PM ----------

Interesting comments. I have the FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, which I have heard said was the kit lens on the MZ-S. It is quite a good performing lens with great image quality, but suffers from flimsy build. I keep it, use it, like it, and hope it stays in one piece.

I have that lens. Should remember to give it a try on digital full frame.
Unfortunately the two generations of FA zooms (plus a couple of odd Tamron/Pentax) have a much worse build than the F line.
Pentax-F lenses, albeit plagued by an almost unusable manual focus ring and apparently quite wobbly, have old-school innards.
There are weak spots too, IIRC the 70-210mm F has an optical "cell" encased in a plastic mold (if fungus gets inside it's un-cleanable), but on average the construction is as good as the AF motors of the time allowed to be.
I think that a few F and FA zooms are still very usable, even by today's standards, especially if bulk and weight are of concern.
I bought a couple of SMC Pentax lenses for cheap, knowing that they had haze and fungus. They cleaned up nicely.
I would be more careful with AF lenses. I tried once with a Pentax-F, and I have been fortunate that the fungus was not in the wrong place! With a Pentax-FA I found that there was an unaccessible/unrepairable cement separation!
In general, better refrain from buying "project" AF lenses.
Though I don't see any reason to refrain from buying a gently used example, especially if it can be returned.
It takes a lot of use to wear off the plastic parts, if there are no "accidents".
Yes, those I own are wobbly and most seem to be rather poorly made, but I guess they won't self-destroy anytime soon...

[Gary H Perth]

This AMU madness is running amuck! Next, the mythical Aussies will be demanding the inclusion of Tim Tams and the Japanese will add Pocky chocolate sticks.

How about agreeing on the following requirements for AMUs:

Ingredients: must contain chocolate, gluten, lactose, sugar, and fat -- no vegan cardboard wafers allowed!

Geometry: must be stackable to the height of the DFA 150-450 -- as tasty as chocolate rums balls may be, they make a poor basis for metrology.

Dimensions: must be K-mount compatible -- the diameter should be should be similar to K-mount so that the cookie stack presents a pleasing and tempting counterpoint to the lens without being larger than the lens.

All in favor, say YUM!

It's Australia Day so here's the suggested Tim Tam shot. A few lenses purchased in the last week or so, ready to play around on the holiday long weekend:
M50mm/f2, M50mm/f1.4, K55mm/f1.8, M135mm/f3.5, M200mm/f4 and Tamron CT300 300mm/f5.6. All compared to a stack of one box of caramel Tim Tams.
All of these in great condition, so I have three days to test their sharpness and compare the images. So far the best have come from the K55, but that lens has a reputation for greatness.


Today is also Republic day in India, so let's see if we get any jelabis as AMUs.

[Sliver-Surfer]

I wearily bid on a Thrift store auction based on terrible pictures with lenses with caps obscuring identities and cases obscuring camera models and conditions. It was worrisome so watch the video to see my outcome.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[aslyfox]

. . . A few lenses purchased in the last week or so, ready to play around on the holiday long weekend:
M50mm/f2, M50mm/f1.4, K55mm/f1.8, M135mm/f3.5, M200mm/f4 and Tamron CT300 300mm/f5.6. All compared to a stack of one box of caramel Tim Tams.. . .

well the proposed AMU ( Alterative Measuring Unit ) does look tasty I will give you that

but apparently not chocolate :confused: :hmm: :(

based on newly gained knowledge they do have chocolate


maybe they are an acceptable AMU ( Australian Measuring Unit )

but that would ruin world wide uniformity just like a certain country refusing to submit to that foreign metric system

the lenses are certainly nice though

[Gary H Perth]

well the proposed AMU ( Alterative Measuring Unit ) does look tasty I will give you that

but apparently not chocolate

maybe they are an acceptable AMU ( Australian Measuring Unit )

but that would ruin world wide uniformity just like a certain country refusing to submit to that foreign metric system

the lenses are certainly nice though

Tim Tams are a chocolate-coated biscuit sandwich, in this case with a caramel cream filling. There's a huge range of flavours (fillings, including a sugary chilli cream in a special release), this variety has quite pale chocolate, others have dark, milk or white chocolate.

So I think they meet the criteria- with all the major food groups (sugar, salt, fat/oils, chocolate). The original had chocolate between the two biscuits and then the whole thing dipped in liquid chocolate. I think they qualify as Alternative MU, but I will defer to the international tribunal for a final decision. I can bite one and send a pic of the cross-section if subpoenaed to do so.

And yes, the lenses are a nice collection - all six for less than 200USD.

[aslyfox]

Tim Tams are a chocolate-coated biscuit sandwich, in this case with a caramel cream filling. There's a huge range of flavours (fillings, including a sugary chilli cream in a special release), this variety has quite pale chocolate, others have dark, milk or white chocolate.

So I think they meet the criteria- with all the major food groups (sugar, salt, fat/oils, chocolate). The original had chocolate between the two biscuits and then the whole thing dipped in liquid chocolate. I think they qualify as Alternative MU, but I will defer to the international tribunal for a final decision. I can bite one and send a pic of the cross-section if subpoenaed to do so.

And yes, the lenses are a nice collection - all six for less than 200USD.

sorry about my lack of knowledge I will correct that part of my earlier post

nice of you to volunteer as a test subject

on my short trip to Australia, 2011, I did not get to the experience of trying any