New glass - old glass. Which lenses should Pentax revisit?

reh321 · 03-26-2016, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

And THIS is why I do not under any circumstances want DC motors put into the Limited primes, from any generation.

By all means build an equivalent D-FA* lens and make the housing large enough to fit all the bits in, but you cannot put a DC motor into a Limited prime and retain the small size that gives these lenses so much of their charm and appeal. Make mine a screwdrive.

You may keep your screw-drive. I used Pentax 1979-95, but moved to Canon when I went with AF, because I found their USM lenses to be vastly superior to what Pentax was doing. I came back to Pentax last summer because Pentax bodies are clearly superior to Canon bodies, but I still do not like the screw-drive AF, I bought the 18-135 DC lens even though it duplicated the focal lengths I already had bought in AF because I found the screw-drive to be as annoying now as I remembered it to be.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-26-2016, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

I didn't think Pentax made an f/1.2 prior to the K-mount. I know some others did. Source?

Make that a 2.2. Good catch.

pathdoc · 03-27-2016, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

Make that a 2.2. Good catch.

And here I was thinking we had another secret unknown prototype lens like the 35/1.4 M on our hands!

**monochrome** · 03-27-2016, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by reh321

You may keep your screw-drive. I used Pentax 1979-95, but moved to Canon when I went with AF, because I found their USM lenses to be vastly superior to what Pentax was doing. I came back to Pentax last summer because Pentax bodies are clearly superior to Canon bodies, but I still do not like the screw-drive AF, I bought the 18-135 DC lens even though it duplicated the focal lengths I already had bought in AF because I found the screw-drive to be as annoying now as I remembered it to be.

The simple solution (if the market will bear it) is to make another batch of traditional SMC FA Limiteds (as is rumored to be in process) and develop HD D-FA* DC/SDM versions (without screw drive). Designate them * lenses to distinguish.

jsherman999 · 03-27-2016, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

The simple solution (if the market will bear it) is to make another batch of traditional SMC FA Limiteds (as is rumored to be in process) and develop HD D-FA* DC/SDM versions (without screw drive). Designate them * lenses to distinguish.

I'm continually hitting refresh on Amazon Prime until I see these ^ appear.

John Poirier · 03-27-2016, 12:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by HopelessTogger

Before going any further I'd urge members to read this . . .

The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG

This supports the notion that, rather than going to all the trouble and expense of designing new lenses for the K-1, Pentax should revisit old designs since discontinued from the manufacturing line, not least because new glass for digital seems not all that it's cracked up to be. Certainly this has been my experience with the expensive Sony Zeiss primes, which also suffer dreadful QC (I mean really bad, like I want to cry bad).

So which lens designs should Pentax revisit? The FA's, the A*'s the FA*'s? Which ones?

How could Pentax improve these lenses for digital (i.e., ELD elements, lens coatings etc), getting rid of the purple stuff (CA/LoCA) without affecting their character?

What other qualities should the updated versions have (i.e., weather sealing, focus limiters, in-lens stabilisation for the long glass . . . )?

Could some of them be corrected to be genuine apochromatic lenses? Like those £5000 Leica 50/2's and the rather lovely Zeiss 135/2.

Love to hear members thoughts on this. I have no clue as to coatings and the effects of special elements, combinations of elements and really technical lens stuff. Interested to learn.

I too like the idea of revisiting old lens designs. Unfortunately, due to EU regulations, there is considerable uncertainty about the future of leaded glass, which was used in old lenses. If I were Pentax I would not invest in old designs before this is sorted. See this article: RoHS recast: implications for optical materials

jeverettfine · 03-28-2016, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by W412ren

This is it; spot on. A24, A50, A135 and occasionally the A200 with the 15/35/70 & 18-135. Excellent set up. ��

Thank you for the confirmation. If I ever get a K-1 I may want to acquire at least one FF AF WR lens (the D FA 24-70 looks pretty nice) but I am sure the A lenses would serve me just fine. K-1 with that D FA 24-70 would cost 3K. Not in a hurry to spend that kind of money.

pathdoc · 03-28-2016, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by John Poirier

Unfortunately, due to EU regulations,

I am hoping that cooler heads will eventually prevail in that regard. While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on

), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems.

northcoastgreg · 03-28-2016, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on ), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems.

It's not just an issue of lead or other toxic elements in glass; it's even more an issue of cost. Using older designs would be prohibitively expensive. Modern lenses are designed in large measure via computers, which allows for more efficient designs, enabling higher performance out of less expensive glass. The downside of this is that it's very difficult to target non-numerical/qualitative specs with computer designs. Much easier to target sharpness. So that's given impetus to making sharpness the primary goal of lens design, with the more "subjective" goals being severely minimized, if not ignored.

However, it would seem that Pentax has attempted to take the best from both the "old school," trial-and-error, image-centric approach and merge it with the more modern, computer and numerical specification driven designs. That's the approach taken with the limiteds and is part of the philosophy of the brand (as explicated here).

HopelessTogger · 03-28-2016, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

I am hoping that cooler heads will eventually prevail in that regard. While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on

), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems.

I wondered why my Revuenon MC 55/1.2 had gone a funny yellow colour . . .

Mothballs · 03-28-2016, 10:33 PM

50mm f1.2 or bust.

Mostly to burst the current market bubble on used glass. Because what the f is this.

pathdoc · 03-29-2016, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Mothballs

50mm f1.2 or bust.

Mostly to burst the current market bubble on used glass. Because what the f is this.

Yes, but be prepared for the howls of anguish from the people who paid so many hundreds for an SMC-A 50/1.2 only to see it come up for hundreds less the next day.

This is why I have bought most of my old lenses in the Marketplace here, or as buy-it-now (I've had a couple of very lucky low-bid wins on Takumars that turned out to be fine despite the sellers' descriptions.) Bidding wars can run to stupid proportions; not going there.

Wild Mark · 03-29-2016, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Mothballs

50mm f1.2 or bust.

Mostly to burst the current market bubble on used glass. Because what the f is this.

'Please explain?'

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/video/watch/28492068/pauline-hanson-please-explain/#page1

PS I have a dry and warped sense of humour. As a background to my sound bite, Pauline Hanson is an interesting Australian politician (past). A recent comparison has been made with a 'popular' US presidential hopeful.

The rise of Donald Trump in the US has similarities to the rise of Pauline Hanson in Australia two decades ago

Perhaps Donald might attract similar satirical inspiration from the music industry

You Tube

I hope my sense of humour does not insult anyone

pathdoc · 03-29-2016, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Wild Mark

Pauline Hanson is an interesting Australian politician (past). A recent comparison has been made with a 'popular' US presidential hopeful.

Invalid IMO since they come from very different walks of life and bring completely different things to the table. The only thing they have in common is a subjective and superficial perception of their agenda. The K1000 and the K1 are both K-mount SLR cameras, but beyond that they have very little in common. So too with Trump and Hanson.

Wild Mark · 03-29-2016, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Invalid IMO since they come from very different walks of life and bring completely different things to the table. The only thing they have in common is a subjective and superficial perception of their agenda. The K1000 and the K1 are both K-mount SLR cameras, but beyond that they have very little in common. So too with Trump and Hanson.

My point was missed. I actually don't get what Mothballs was going on about so I said 'please explain'. Then I realised that no one here except a few Aussies would get it (viz: 'Please explain?') so I explained 'please explain?'. Then I thought the Pauline Hanson reference might still be a little too eccentric so I drew parallels with Donald Trump to provide a more universal appreciation. And yes, neither person has a clue really of reality!

My point was I do not have a clue what Mothballs is trying to say. Oh well, I'll park my humour from now on (please don't like this post for this reason

)

03-27-2016, 06:19 AM	#65
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	sign me up Originally posted by monochrome The simple solution (if the market will bear it) is to make another batch of traditional SMC FA Limiteds (as is rumored to be in process) and develop HD D-FA* DC/SDM versions (without screw drive). Designate them * lenses to distinguish. I'm continually hitting refresh on Amazon Prime until I see these ^ appear.

03-28-2016, 07:11 AM	#67
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Thanks for the confirmation Originally posted by W412ren This is it; spot on. A24, A50, A135 and occasionally the A200 with the 15/35/70 & 18-135. Excellent set up. �� Thank you for the confirmation. If I ever get a K-1 I may want to acquire at least one FF AF WR lens (the D FA 24-70 looks pretty nice) but I am sure the A lenses would serve me just fine. K-1 with that D FA 24-70 would cost 3K. Not in a hurry to spend that kind of money.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New AF option for old glass	digital029art	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-11-2016 12:22 PM
My latest score: AKA why new users should consult Craigslist before buying glass.	Trees	General Photography	14	02-05-2016 07:51 AM
which glass should i buy?	taita87	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-28-2010 05:29 AM
old Pentax glass superior to new???	kiwao	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	37	01-06-2010 06:13 PM
Autumn colors - old glass is a good glass	andrei46	Post Your Photos!	5	10-26-2007 09:35 AM

03-26-2016, 07:45 PM	#61
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by pathdoc And THIS is why I do not under any circumstances want DC motors put into the Limited primes, from any generation. By all means build an equivalent D-FA* lens and make the housing large enough to fit all the bits in, but you cannot put a DC motor into a Limited prime and retain the small size that gives these lenses so much of their charm and appeal. Make mine a screwdrive. You may keep your screw-drive. I used Pentax 1979-95, but moved to Canon when I went with AF, because I found their USM lenses to be vastly superior to what Pentax was doing. I came back to Pentax last summer because Pentax bodies are clearly superior to Canon bodies, but I still do not like the screw-drive AF, I bought the 18-135 DC lens even though it duplicated the focal lengths I already had bought in AF because I found the screw-drive to be as annoying now as I remembered it to be.

03-26-2016, 09:24 PM	#62
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by pathdoc I didn't think Pentax made an f/1.2 prior to the K-mount. I know some others did. Source? Make that a 2.2. Good catch.

03-27-2016, 03:31 AM	#63
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies Make that a 2.2. Good catch. And here I was thinking we had another secret unknown prototype lens like the 35/1.4 M on our hands!

03-27-2016, 05:52 AM	#64
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by reh321 You may keep your screw-drive. I used Pentax 1979-95, but moved to Canon when I went with AF, because I found their USM lenses to be vastly superior to what Pentax was doing. I came back to Pentax last summer because Pentax bodies are clearly superior to Canon bodies, but I still do not like the screw-drive AF, I bought the 18-135 DC lens even though it duplicated the focal lengths I already had bought in AF because I found the screw-drive to be as annoying now as I remembered it to be. The simple solution (if the market will bear it) is to make another batch of traditional SMC FA Limiteds (as is rumored to be in process) and develop HD D-FA* DC/SDM versions (without screw drive). Designate them * lenses to distinguish.

03-27-2016, 12:02 PM - 1 Like	#66
John Poirier Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Gabriola Island Posts: 619	Originally posted by HopelessTogger Before going any further I'd urge members to read this . . . The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG This supports the notion that, rather than going to all the trouble and expense of designing new lenses for the K-1, Pentax should revisit old designs since discontinued from the manufacturing line, not least because new glass for digital seems not all that it's cracked up to be. Certainly this has been my experience with the expensive Sony Zeiss primes, which also suffer dreadful QC (I mean really bad, like I want to cry bad). So which lens designs should Pentax revisit? The FA's, the A's the FA's? Which ones? How could Pentax improve these lenses for digital (i.e., ELD elements, lens coatings etc), getting rid of the purple stuff (CA/LoCA) without affecting their character? What other qualities should the updated versions have (i.e., weather sealing, focus limiters, in-lens stabilisation for the long glass . . . )? Could some of them be corrected to be genuine apochromatic lenses? Like those £5000 Leica 50/2's and the rather lovely Zeiss 135/2. Love to hear members thoughts on this. I have no clue as to coatings and the effects of special elements, combinations of elements and really technical lens stuff. Interested to learn. I too like the idea of revisiting old lens designs. Unfortunately, due to EU regulations, there is considerable uncertainty about the future of leaded glass, which was used in old lenses. If I were Pentax I would not invest in old designs before this is sorted. See this article: RoHS recast: implications for optical materials

03-28-2016, 08:15 AM	#68
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by John Poirier Unfortunately, due to EU regulations, I am hoping that cooler heads will eventually prevail in that regard. While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on ), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems.

03-28-2016, 09:28 AM	#69
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by pathdoc While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on ), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems. It's not just an issue of lead or other toxic elements in glass; it's even more an issue of cost. Using older designs would be prohibitively expensive. Modern lenses are designed in large measure via computers, which allows for more efficient designs, enabling higher performance out of less expensive glass. The downside of this is that it's very difficult to target non-numerical/qualitative specs with computer designs. Much easier to target sharpness. So that's given impetus to making sharpness the primary goal of lens design, with the more "subjective" goals being severely minimized, if not ignored. However, it would seem that Pentax has attempted to take the best from both the "old school," trial-and-error, image-centric approach and merge it with the more modern, computer and numerical specification driven designs. That's the approach taken with the limiteds and is part of the philosophy of the brand (as explicated here).

03-28-2016, 11:42 AM	#70
HopelessTogger Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Roi-et, Thailand Posts: 773 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc I am hoping that cooler heads will eventually prevail in that regard. While I wouldn't be in a hurry to argue for going back to thorium (though I'm sure some of the braver souls among the Lomo crowd might want to take it on ), lead is nowhere near on the same scale of toxicity, and any half-decent lens manufacturer should be able to contain any problems. I wondered why my Revuenon MC 55/1.2 had gone a funny yellow colour . . .

03-28-2016, 10:33 PM	#71
Mothballs Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 275	50mm f1.2 or bust. Mostly to burst the current market bubble on used glass. Because what the f is this.

03-29-2016, 04:08 AM	#72
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Mothballs 50mm f1.2 or bust. Mostly to burst the current market bubble on used glass. Because what the f is this. Yes, but be prepared for the howls of anguish from the people who paid so many hundreds for an SMC-A 50/1.2 only to see it come up for hundreds less the next day. This is why I have bought most of my old lenses in the Marketplace here, or as buy-it-now (I've had a couple of very lucky low-bid wins on Takumars that turned out to be fine despite the sellers' descriptions.) Bidding wars can run to stupid proportions; not going there.

03-29-2016, 06:03 AM	#74
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Wild Mark Pauline Hanson is an interesting Australian politician (past). A recent comparison has been made with a 'popular' US presidential hopeful. Invalid IMO since they come from very different walks of life and bring completely different things to the table. The only thing they have in common is a subjective and superficial perception of their agenda. The K1000 and the K1 are both K-mount SLR cameras, but beyond that they have very little in common. So too with Trump and Hanson.

03-29-2016, 01:47 PM	#75
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	Originally posted by pathdoc Invalid IMO since they come from very different walks of life and bring completely different things to the table. The only thing they have in common is a subjective and superficial perception of their agenda. The K1000 and the K1 are both K-mount SLR cameras, but beyond that they have very little in common. So too with Trump and Hanson. My point was missed. I actually don't get what Mothballs was going on about so I said 'please explain'. Then I realised that no one here except a few Aussies would get it (viz: 'Please explain?') so I explained 'please explain?'. Then I thought the Pauline Hanson reference might still be a little too eccentric so I drew parallels with Donald Trump to provide a more universal appreciation. And yes, neither person has a clue really of reality! My point was I do not have a clue what Mothballs is trying to say. Oh well, I'll park my humour from now on (please don't like this post for this reason )