[Ben-G]

.
I've owned 2 copies of the Pentax 77mm Limitied. Sold them both.....

Sorry* Fenwoodian, you also had answered to the same question in an old thread that i've just found and read now....

[29-06-17 / #16 of "New Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 lens on my Pentax K1" :
" (...)The FA77 Limited is up against one of the best Zeiss lenses there is, the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4. The 85 Milvus is the single best lens I have ever shot (the exceptional Zeiss 135/2 APO is a close second)! The Milvus 85 is much sharper than the FA77, and it's bokeh is exceptional (even Zeiss themselves call it "The King of Bokeh"). I believe most photographers who have shot both lenses would agree that the Zeiss 85 Milvus is clearly a few steps above the FA77 in just about every lens characteristic.(...)"

Sorry again,

best regards

Ben-G

[TerryL]

2 years ago I have sold all my Canon gear (5d mkII / 24mm f1.4 / 17-40mm f4 / 85mm f1,8) to go for the K1 with the 31mm limited.
Yes.. I went from my somewhat ideal set of lenses to - literally - one 'limited' lens. I guess I like limitations from time to time, but after 2 years it's time to think about buying a new lens.

To get some inspiration I am curious to hear about the lenses you all are using and in what situations. Are here also any frequent vintage glass users?

Im curious to hear about your most loved lenses and it's time to confess what your dislikes about them!

When I got my K-1, I started out with all three FA Limited lens. You may want to consider getting the other two, and enjoy that for while.
Terry

[brettday]

Just picked up my K1 II. The lenses I am starting out with are:

PentaxD FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD = General purpose lens
Rokinon 14mm f2.8 = Astro and landscape lens
Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Lens = Portrait lens

[Munki]

I only have three lenses for the K-1: 31, 43 and 77.

The 43 and 77 gets used the most.

[rvannatta]

I've become in my old age sort of a fan of long lenses. It lets you get views you simply would never see other wise, but lack of adequate depth of field is always
the devil. the attached is an uncropped unretouched example of a very long Pentax lens on the K-- at a high ISO, but still a bit more depth of field
would have been welcome. Had to accept soft focus of his tail for seeing his whiskers, and the green in the background is a holly tree about 4 feet behind him

[pschlute]

Had to accept soft focus of his tail for seeing his whiskers

We don't see many shots with that lens. But I have to say it is not the DOF that is an issue here. Nothing is appearing sharp ?

[rvannatta]

We don't see many shots with that lens. But I have to say it is not the DOF that is an issue here. Nothing is appearing sharp ?

I look back at the photo as displayed... I agree with you as to what I see displayed.

Part of the issue that I see as I look at it now is that the monitor has stretched, the photo horizonally---- which seems
to blur it some. On the original the face is sharp as are the fingers and toes, but the tail is blurred somewhat.
also I no doubt compromised thequality some by the fact that the photo is taken through a patio door, but there
wasn't a lot of choice as the "douglas Squirrel" was sitting on top of a post on my patio rail and there
was not a chance in you know what that I could open the door and still get the photo.

the FA 600 has a good reputation---It's just that they have become so valuable that one worries about taking out of
the vault to actually use it. I took about half a dozen photos of it at the time, mostly on manual focus because
the auto focus really didn't want to work, and I've got pictures focused on the fir cone he was eating, and on his tail
and everywhere between. In retrospect I probably should have cranked up the ISO above the 12,000 that I used.
and grabbed a couple more f stops . This was taken at very close to the minimal focus distance--- maybe 20 feet
and what really interested me is what he was eating.

It's not uncommon to see these guys eating cone seeds as by definition that is their primary diet, and the do like to
sit up on something when they do it, and it's also well known that they 'squirrel' the cones away for the winter, but I had never really thought of how gross the cones look after spending a winter buried somewhere.

these critters are actually the soloution as to how you collect seed for Douglas Fir trees. These trees grow
a 100-200 feet tall and the cones are often in the tops of them (or at lease the upper 1/3rd of the tree eliminating
the feasibily of climbing the trees---as the cones are on the ends of the limbs anyway.

It turns out that when the cones are precisely ripe, these squirrels will run around in the tops of the trees,
and cut the cones and drop them Kurthunk.... on the ground. The way you gather seeds for seedlings is to
go out in the woods with a bucket/sack and listen for the Kurthunks.... and then swipe the cones before the squirrel
gets down out of the tree and packs them off the bury them. I've seen that sequence often, but seeing a grungy
one fished out to eat is something unusual. As they only see the seeds out of the cone which are about half the
size of a small pea---the fact that the cone looks like it'been buried somewhere for a while doesn't matter.

[gaweidert]

Since I have several lenses dating back almost 50 years, I have tried them all on my K1. The most used lenses are my Pentax D FA 28-105, D FA 150-450 and my Tamron 70-200 f2.8.


Next in line would be my Rokinon 100mm f2.8 macro and my Rokinon 20mm f1.8 lenses. A Sigma 300mm f2.8 sees some use too. Maybe more now that I have a set of Sigma teleconverters. An old Polar (Samyang) 18-28mm lens also sees some use.

[rvannatta]

Since I have several lenses dating back almost 50 years, I have tried them all on my K1. The most used lenses are my Pentax D FA 28-105, D FA 150-450 and my Tamron 70-200 f2.8.


Next in line would be my Rokinon 100mm f2.8 macro and my Rokinon 20mm f1.8 lenses. A Sigma 300mm f2.8 sees some use too. Maybe more now that I have a set of Sigma teleconverters. An old Polar (Samyang) 18-28mm lens also sees some use.

I hear ya. My first camera was an 'Exa' of the 50 years ago vintage--- as I was in college and couldn't afford better--- the Exa was the down line
version of an Exacta and my; dream was to have a Pentax Spotamati which I got as soon as I could, (and was an early adopted of the K mount
system, but I think I have gotten rid of all my screw mount lenses now but I kept my Full frame glass when the 1/2 frame came out for which
I am greatful. I've still got a half frame body but I don't use it for much.

Indeed my signature line is so old it doesn't show the K1 but I love it.

[amstel78]

I use a D-FA* 50mm, HD FA 35mm f2, D-FA 24-70 f2.8, D-FA* 70-200 f2.8, and an Irix 15mm.

[lytrytyr]

I've become in my old age sort of a fan of long lenses. It lets you get views you simply would never see other wise, but lack of adequate depth of field is always the devil.

That's exactly why the 06 telephoto (or an adapted long lens)
on a Q-7 or Q-S1 is such a valuable photographic tool.
Unfortunately, the gearheads don't get that.

On the other side of the coin,
I recently used an older Zeiss 85/1.4 for a night shot at infinity,
fully open, at ISO 6400 on a K-1.

Since all the main subject was at infinity,
the lack of depth (shallowness?) of field was not a problem,
and I wouldn't have had any other way to make that shot.

[reytor]

My most used lenses on K-1 according Lightroom in my desktop computer (I use notebook for naturephotography course stuff and there the figures are probably very different):
DFA 28-102 scores 2173 photos
FA 20 scores 1117 photos (for most of the more recent photos DFA 15-30 has been used - score 189)
DA* 60-250 modified scores 957 photos (sold last August as I got great deal of a second hand DFA* 70-200 - score 439)
DFA 100 macro scores 719 photos
FA*300 (f2.8) scores 637 photos (again, most recent photos are made with DFA 150-450 - score 294)
Lesser number of photos are made with rest of my lenses.

What I would like to have are DFA24(20)-70 f4 and DFA70-200 f4 lenses as the f2.8 are too big and heavy for longer trekking trips especially when I head to mountains.

[normhead]

What I would like to have are DFA24(20)-70 f4 and DFA70-200 f4 lenses as the f2.8 are too big and heavy for longer trekking trips especially when I head to mountains.

DA 55-300 PLM, just saying.
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE - Show us what it can do, what it CAN'T! - Page 21 - PentaxForums.com

[mbukal]

DA 55-300 PLM, just saying.
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE - Show us what it can do, what it CAN'T! - Page 21 - PentaxForums.com

normhead that's nice, but here's the story about the ff format, and the 55-300 is not it, i'm using the 80-320 silver and it's a nice piece of optics but that's not it, i'm looking forward 70 (60) -200(250)/4 or in the worst case 60-250 / 4 with the modification and imparting of slow focus but excellent optics, on K1 for me FA 80-320 / 4,5-5,6 silver in decent light a very good lens (better than SMC DA 55-300mm f / 4-5.8 ED on Kx/ r / 30 / 3)

[bdery]

worst case 60-250 / 4 with the modification and imparting of slow focus but excellent optics

Slow AF on the 60-250 is an overblown issue. It's slower than the newest lenses like the 70-200 and DFA50, but it's not "slow", per se.