[enoeske]

I do wonder with the plethora of cheap, old, not really all that good manual lenses people have and the cheap, newer AF, but still not all that good lenses people have also been posting that they have in the "how many FF lenses do you have thread while they are saying they are ready for FF, realistically, if you've got mainly crap lenses that you have because they are cheap are you going to spend 2k+ on an FF? Probably not.

What makes a lens "not really all that good"?

[luftfluss]

What makes a lens "not really all that good"?

+1

Many "cheap" old lenses are actually quite good... as is the majority of Pentax's current AF lineup.

[jatrax]

I do wonder with the plethora of cheap, old, not really all that good manual lenses people have and the cheap, newer AF, but still not all that good lenses people have also been posting that they have in the "how many FF lenses do you have thread while they are saying they are ready for FF,

I have been wondering the same thing. I'm totally ready for FF as far as having a bag of lenses but how many of them are really going to produce well enough to match with a $2,000 camera? I don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

[VoiceOfReason]

What makes a lens "not really all that good"?

Soft, CA, flare, lack of microcontrast. I'm sorry, but that mass produced JC Penny zoom isn't going to hold up well on a new FF.

[rawr]

I don't understand this mystification of the Pentax FF.

Many of those folks who have been using old Pentax glass already on FF Sony A7x (and even Canon bodies) seem to be happy with the results.

Not all lenses are great just because they are new.

[reh321]

I do wonder with the plethora of cheap, old, not really all that good manual lenses people have and the cheap, newer AF, but still not all that good lenses people have also been posting that they have in the "how many FF lenses do you have thread while they are saying they are ready for FF, realistically, if you've got mainly crap lenses that you have because they are cheap are you going to spend 2k+ on an FF? Probably not.

I am very pleased with the sharpness displayed by my 1980's Pentax-M and Pentax-A lenses on my "new" K-30.
They were cheap "kit" lenses back then, they are old lenses today, but I would not call them "not really all that good",
and I would never use the term "crap" to describe them.

If I had the funds to buy a FF today, then hopefully I would also have the funds to buy a new lens or two also.
But, if I had to put off buying lenses for whatever reason, I would be comfortable using older lenses until I could get new ones.

And that is the point as far as I am concerned.
Because of the compatibility over time maintained by Pentax, they don't have to release a flood of new lenses to support this new camera.
The new camera will fit into an existing ecology of lenses, and will be practical until new high-quality lenses can be developed.

[Mikesul]

I do wonder with the plethora of cheap, old, not really all that good manual lenses people have and the cheap, newer AF, but still not all that good lenses people have also been posting that they have in the "how many FF lenses do you have thread while they are saying they are ready for FF, realistically, if you've got mainly crap lenses that you have because they are cheap are you going to spend 2k+ on an FF? Probably not.

Crap? DA*300 DA*200 DA* 55 the FA ltds etc. etc? Have you tried any of these on a full frame? I have and they and many others from the manual era are anything but crap. Check out the Pentax lenses on FF lens club. Yes I will buy the FF unless something goes very wrong with it.

[monochrome]

Here's my lens list. I admit I skew to the collector side of the balance.

Tell me which of them will be 'cr@p' on the Pentax FF. Sure seems to be a lot of them on the 'Pentax Lenses on FF' thread.

[Na Horuk]

I think VoR didn't mean it as harsh as it sounded. The thing is, usually it makes more sense to invest in lenses before in cameras. Some people say Pentax FF will be a flop because no matter how good the camera is, there isn't a lens lineup for it - and I don't agree with this. There area already a bunch of modern FF lenses, some more are on the way, and there is third party support as well (and probably more of it is on the way, as well). But some Pentaxians counter the claim that "derp you only have crop lenses how can you use FF camera" with the answer that they actually have many older FF lenses. And true, maybe not all of them are the best quality, but remember that if they can be useful on APSC, they can still be used for something on FF. Many people like the character of older lenses, their low contrast, colour rendering, blurred edges.. And those lenses will still benefit from FF camera.

So while I agree that not all old lenses are gold and that it makes sense to invest in good glass, there is still room for people who want a different look. They have the right to use those ancient lenses, pinholes, or even the bottom of a bottle. It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, with my goals and budgeting, but for someone else it might be their thing. I think VoR mainly wanted to say that a better camera quickly becomes more demanding of the lenses. And unless you want that look, you would be wise to first buy some good FF glass and not just lenses from the bargain bin (whatever series or brand or age they may be)

[jatrax]

Crap? DA*300 DA*200 DA* 55 the FA ltds etc. etc?

Tell me which of them will be 'cr@p' on the Pentax FF.

I think the point was not "all old lenses are cr@p" but rather "not all old lenses are great". Many of the older lenses will do just fine, maybe even excel. But not all. How many of my line up will be worth using on a 36mp FF? The primes most likely. The 24-50 and 35-70. Maybe the 70-210. The others? I'm not so sure it will be worth it. If I get up before first light, drive 20 miles and hike 3 to get to the shot I want the best shot I can get. I'm not going to waste that opportunity on a 30 year old consumer lens. But I would have no hesitation using any of the Limiteds or any of the F series primes.

[VoiceOfReason]

Some people got what I was saying, and seems quite a few didn't. Would my 28-80 do good on a new FF? Probably not. Would that soft JC Penny 50 f/2 do good? Not likely when compared to much better glass. How about that old Vivitar 70-210 push pull lens? Nope.

I do have some decent stuff for FF though. I have a Sigma 12-24 EX, a Sigma 24-70 HSM f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Pentax F 50 f/1.7 to name some. Those will likely do fine on the upcoming FF that will show you every single flaw in your lenses and magnify every weakness.

[y0chang]

As long as Pentax doesnt release a 50 mp FF, old lenses will work fine. 24 mp APS-C moire filterless is actually more demanding on CA and resolution. Vignetting and distortion is correctable in software. There of course will be lenses that fail but most of them got weeded out when the market shifted to digital from film. Whatever worked on film will work on FF digital, unless you want to pixel peep at 1:1

[luftfluss]

Some people got what I was saying, and seems quite a few didn't. Would my 28-80 do good on a new FF? Probably not. Would that soft JC Penny 50 f/2 do good? Not likely when compared to much better glass. How about that old Vivitar 70-210 push pull lens? Nope.

I do have some decent stuff for FF though. I have a Sigma 12-24 EX, a Sigma 24-70 HSM f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Pentax F 50 f/1.7 to name some. Those will likely do fine on the upcoming FF that will show you every single flaw in your lenses and magnify every weakness.

People didn't get what you were saying because you painted with a very broad brush. Many Pentaxians have sub-$100 K/M/A lenses and Taks that have already demonstrated their worth on digital FF by Sony and Canon.

Soft, CA, flare, lack of microcontrast

CA can be somewhat ameliorated in PP, and is also much less when stopped down by a stop or 2. Flare shouldn't be an issue if the lens is used intelligently. Many older lenses have decent microcontrast when stopped down a bit, and there are certainly scenarios that a photographer may appreciate the gentler rendering of older glass.

[RockvilleBob]

My hope is that Pentax releases a FF with the most resolution possible with an eye to the future and with improved lenses in mind. I feel the performance of old lenses should not be a consideration in setting the number of MP. I have some old lenses and accept their limitations when I use them. However when I buy a new camera and a new lens I would like to get the best results possible with today's technology. For that reason it would be great to have a 50MP Pentax FF (or more) if it can be made and sold in traditional "more bang for the buck" Pentax style.

[clackers]

Those will likely do fine on the upcoming FF that will show you every single flaw in your lenses and magnify every weakness.

You know, if you put a cheap lens on FF, it won't actually turn your $2000 body to dust like a vampire exposed to sunlight. :-)

I've tried various and they are what they are.

If you wouldn't put them on your K-3, you wouldn't on your shining new K-One or whatever it will be.

Wide-angles at full aperture can be soft at the edges in a way that was hidden by APS-C.

Good legacy glass can be expensive (FA*24, FA 85, etc) or cheap (K55 f1.8/M 50 f1.7, K28 f3.5).

They might serve to tide someone over after they max their credit card buying the new body.

It'd be great to spend $2000 (or whatever it will be) on a camera and $4000 on new lenses but rare would be the person who could do that in one hit! ☺