[Eyewanders]

Take off every ZIG!

Indeed. Pentax set us up the bomb.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Maybe there is a "Reason" I just picked up 12 Legacy lenses off of Goodwill auctions in the last week ? Shhhhhh........Don't tell anyone !
Did I mention that over the Memorial Day weekend I got to Play with a K1 ? Mine is Backordered so I wouldn't really have a clue..........

[mee]

Take off every ZIG!

Indeed. Pentax set us up the bomb.

I'm surprised you know that meme.

[Eyewanders]

I'm surprised you know that meme.

Why is that? It's 15 years old!

[mee]

Why is that? It's 15 years old!

wellll.....

[fromunderthebridge]

I'm surprised you know that meme.

Come now, who does _not_ know that meme?

[monochrome]

Come now, who does _not_ know that meme?

I started this whole thing. I'm 60, white, straight, married (once and still), church going, flyover America, you-can-guess-how-I-vote -- and I know that meme.

If I do Everybody does

[stevebrot]

I don't own the K-1, but I own large percentage of alleged "PF monster" glass and have rarely been bothered by it. The FA77 is a good case study. On 35mm I've never noted it.

Sorry for the late comment. On 35mm film, you won't see PF with the FA 77 because it is not there.* There is some LoCA (bokeh CA), but not the characteristic malignant purple seen at times with digital sensors. PF is a digital phenomenon. I also appreciate the comment from @monochrome regarding frame size and pixel pitch and CA in general.


Steve

* I did side-by-side comparisons of the K-3 to Ektar 100 a year or so back.

[stevebrot]

I started this whole thing. I'm 60, white, straight, married (once and still), church going, flyover America, you-can-guess-how-I-vote -- and I know that meme.

If I do Everybody does

I am 61 and live in the trendy Portland area and while I know "all your base are belong to us", the others are foreign to me. I am now headed to Google to up my hipster rating...

Edit: Hipster rating now fully patched...was not remembering the rest of the clip...


Steve

[cali92rs]

Posters in several thread discussions of using legacy lenses on K-1 have mentioned the propensity of many nice older lenses to produce (Lo)CA and PF. Responders who actually own the camera and have tested legacy lenses on it note that it isn't as bad as most people believe it will be. People with a higher degree of technical knowledge then I suggest this might be a result of the larger sensor returning the full image circle, thus reducing the relative area of (any) fringing, as well as the diminished density of the photosites.

All I know is, I have to work to coax PF out of the FA43, which has been called a 'PF monster' in the past (shooting birds with a K400/5.6 against a bright blue sky is a classic example of 'wicked' PF), but LR and PSE correct fringing easily and quickly..

Way to rub it on that I don't have it yet

Anyway, i have the 77mm and the K135mm f2.5 that i will be sure to test out and post the results.

[monochrome]

Way to rub it on that I don't have it yet

Anyway, i have the 77mm and the K135mm f2.5 that i will be sure to test out and post the results.

When you get it you'll probably find the FA77 is very forgiving; the K135 less so. But the K135 is astoundingly sharp and loads of fun to shoot with. 135 the way it was meant to be - oh my oh my

[monochrome]

Sorry for the late comment. On 35mm film, you won't see PF with the FA 77 because it is not there.* There is some LoCA (bokeh CA), but not the characteristic malignant purple seen at times with digital sensors. PF is a digital phenomenon. I also appreciate the comment from @monochrome regarding frame size and pixel pitch and CA in general.


Steve

IIRC dcshooter pointed out the forgiving physics (?) of the sensor.

[monochrome]

I am 61 and live in the trendy Portland area and while I know "all your base are belong to us", the others are foreign to me. I am now headed to Google to up my hipster rating...

Edit: Hipster rating now fully patched...was not remembering the rest of the clip...


Steve

This weekend I am tracing my wife's ancestral westward pioneer trail, visiting Westport (Kansas City), MO. Having replaced Independence, Westport was the last of the eastern jumping off points for the great wagon trains west along (principally) the Santa Fe and Oregon Trails. One great-great grand father had a General Store here and was friendly with Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, the Bents and more, before moving to Colorado and ranching cattle. Another GGF spent his entire life quietly backing Kit Carson's business ventures in Colorado and New Mexico, and generally making and spending several fortunes between 1850 and 1900.

At any rate, I have discovered what is now called Westport (there are only two original buildings still standing - her GGFs' buildings are gone) is now a hip and happenin' place. I took some photographs of family headstones in Union Cemetery and ate brunch at McCoy's (the real deal) - so I have had some HIPNESS recharge myself.

Tomorrow we are driving to Council Grove, KS (Last Chane Store, which her GGF part-owned for five years) to see some more stuff and take more photographs, then back here to take in the hipster nightlife.

I should be too for school by Sunday.

I have the 43 on the K-1 but I'll do some 77 for the thread, and I brought the M40/2.8 just for grins.

[Fat Albert]

When you get it you'll probably find the FA77 is very forgiving; the K135 less so. But the K135 is astoundingly sharp and loads of fun to shoot with. 135 the way it was meant to be - oh my oh my

One of my most used lenses on the K-1 is my SMC Takumar 135 f/2.5 (6 element version). oh my oh my is right!

[Paul MaudDib]

I get tired of doing this over and over again....

This photo taken with a Panasonic FZ1000 1inch sensor 1/4 the size of APC-s, it's 20 MP and at 100 ISO can almost out resolve a K-3. We have a long way to go before sensors out resolve lenses.

Or it you want to know how Pentax lenses do, look at the results from various lenses mounted on a Q. Again, very small sensor, very little sign that the sensor is out resolving the lens. It's great theory, except for the part where there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to support it.

Tiny P+S sensors like the FZ1000 and Q are the least likely to outresolve a lens. The Pentax-Q is diffraction-limited from f/4.

---------- Post added 06-21-2016 at 03:33 PM ----------

Lol. I took the punt years ago buying up the legacy stuff on the risk that it was not going to be any good. Looks like I got lucky (but you make your own luck in my book).

Of course the latest coatings make a difference but the optical differences are marginal. One clear difference between legacy and modern lenses is the design imperative of modern lenses to be sharp across the entire FoV. Some want this, but as pointed out here and elsewhere, it is not important to have sharp across the whole frame as the 'content' worth looking at is meant to be in the centre not the edges.

Pentax was way head of the curve on coating and any prime with SMC basically "just works". I've only had a handful of lenses which were flare-prone (M28/2.8) and I blame the optical design more than anything. Vintage zooms are a lot more hit-and-miss across the board, typically I think you're better giving them a pass unless they're something like a 70-200.

The major difference between legacy and modern lenses is actually telecentricity. Film picks up light at any angle, but digital sensors capture it best when it's coming straight inwards. Modern lenses are designed to put their optical center at infinity, so the beams of light are always coming straight in, but this wasn't a design consideration back in the film days. This means that some designs are great on film and just plain bad on digital. It's a fairly common problem in wide-angle lenses.

And yeah, certainly there wasn't as much focus on edge sharpness. Particularly wide-open edge sharpness - in most lenses it's there to help you focus more than anything, although there are of course exceptions. "Superlenses" in general - 24mm and wider lenses, supertele lenses, superfast lenses, etc - just tended to be poorer due to worse design, worse manufacture, fewer types of exotic glass available etc. You owned a 20mm lens, who cares about the corner sharpness?

If you guys really want a sharp lens at a good price, pick up a Samyang 35/1.4, 24/1.4, or 135/2. The 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are not that impressive though.