Have anyone tried cheap FF lenses on the K1?

weijen · 05-05-2016, 01:53 AM

Hey, I noticed everyone's talking about pairing the K1 with the famed FA31, FA43 FA77 etc. I'm just curious how the camera will perform with the cheap 28-80ish zooms from the 80s and 90s like the F35-70, FA28-70 and so on. Who knows there may be gems out there? Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1?

i5_david · 05-05-2016, 02:10 AM

I have a 28-200 which i want to sell soon. I will it it on my next trip downtown

jcsnyc · 05-05-2016, 02:29 AM

I have an 80-320 that I plan to use. Will post tech pics this weekend since my k1 arrives today. Since it is FF compatible I am interested in how it will do. It was mediocre on my K5 and will likely be the same on the K1.

I have both the 50-135 and 60-250 and will compare though likely in crop mode. I can't swing the new FF lenses at this point so may try some older lenses that are so so cheap!

**clackers** · 05-05-2016, 02:33 AM

I've used the F35-70, FA J 18-35 and Sigma 28-90 on a Sony A7.

They're certainly acceptable stopped down. Two of them are pseudo macro, even.

pathdoc · 05-05-2016, 03:44 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by weijen

Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1?

I have an FA 28-90 specially set aside for that particular act of sacrilege.

kvetcha · 05-05-2016, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by weijen

Hey, I noticed everyone's talking about pairing the K1 with the famed FA31, FA43 FA77 etc. I'm just curious how the camera will perform with the cheap 28-80ish zooms from the 80s and 90s like the F35-70, FA28-70 and so on. Who knows there may be gems out there? Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1?

I've got an SMC 28-105 PowerZoom just waiting for this bad boy.

Sandy Hancock · 05-05-2016, 04:53 AM

I'm planning on giving my FA20-35/4 a good workout. There are just so many others to try first....

**WPRESTO** · 05-05-2016, 05:46 AM

I have two old Tamrons: 28~105 and 70~300. I used the latter during early days of using a Pentax DSLR, and it's decent enough on ASP-C to be worth a try on the K1. Regrettably, I let go of both a Pentax 20~35mm and an even better Sigma 15~30mm, as well as an SMCA 16mm fish-eye.

CarlJF · 05-05-2016, 05:52 AM

I had the F 35-70 in the film days and, even then, I didn't considered it very good. It was good at f8 at about 50mm, but quite average to poor at larger apertures and extereme focal lenghts. Although it could be fun to try on a K-1, I would expect disapointing results.

I also used a FA 28-105, 2nd version, which was significantly better than the F 35-70. This was my main lens for many years, even on the first generations of digital bodies. However, compared to modern lenses, it simply didn't cut it anymore on the newer bodies (16MP+). I get rid of it about two years ago when I came to the conclusion that this will not be a lens that make sense use on a FF digital camera. Again, nothing wrong to try it, but I don't see the point of paying a lot of money to get a hires FF body to use a subpar lens.

I'm quite sure that the new 28-105 is a way better choice than thse two lenses.

Although old prime lenses aren't that different from modern ones, zoom lenses have improved greatly in the last 10-20 years. I would expect most of the zooms from the 80-90 to be average, at best, relative to 2016 IQ standards.

i5_david · 05-05-2016, 06:22 AM

I took it for a ride and I can say, its not recommended to use it open

Shots are in jpg and got a little sharpen in lightroom and CA removal. Ca are not dramatic but can occur.

Find a zip file with 10 full size jpg here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihcbz0n3an48344/28200.zip?dl=0
(Let me know if you have any special shot or lighting in mind you want to test too)

kvetcha · 05-05-2016, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by i5_david

I took it for a ride and I can say, its not recommended to use it open

Shots are in jpg and got a little sharpen in lightroom and CA removal. Ca are not dramatic but can occur.

Find a zip file with 10 full size jpg here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihcbz0n3an48344/28200.zip?dl=0
(Let me know if you have any special shot or lighting in mind you want to test too)

Looks okay to me!

Dr_who · 05-05-2016, 06:57 AM

I have a Helios 44-2 I plan on using and that's about as cheap as they get. I got one in the mail sent all the way from the Ukraine for $40, shipping included.

Na Horuk · 05-05-2016, 07:05 AM - **1 Like**

I hope lots of people bought a K-1, but have no more budget for lenses, so they can only afford one of those Holga lenses.. because remember, kids, the only thing that matters is sensor size! [/sarcasm]

That said, FA and FA J lens tests would be kind of interesting, especially the wide angle ones

i5_david · 05-05-2016, 07:11 AM

FA 28-200 compared to the low pricey Tamron 28-75... there are worlds between both. if you scale the photos on websize you will be able to use the FA but don't start pixel peeping then haha

banep · 05-05-2016, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by CarlJF

I had the F 35-70 in the film days and, even then, I didn't considered it very good. It was good at f8 at about 50mm, but quite average to poor at larger apertures and extereme focal lenghts. Although it could be fun to try on a K-1, I would expect disapointing results.

I also used a FA 28-105, 2nd version, which was significantly better than the F 35-70. This was my main lens for many years, even on the first generations of digital bodies. However, compared to modern lenses, it simply didn't cut it anymore on the newer bodies (16MP+). I get rid of it about two years ago when I came to the conclusion that this will not be a lens that make sense use on a FF digital camera. Again, nothing wrong to try it, but I don't see the point of paying a lot of money to get a hires FF body to use a subpar lens.

I'm quite sure that the new 28-105 is a way better choice than thse two lenses.

Although old prime lenses aren't that different from modern ones, zoom lenses have improved greatly in the last 10-20 years. I would expect most of the zooms from the 80-90 to be average, at best, relative to 2016 IQ standards.

I had 2 copies of F35-70, and 2 copies of FA28-105 powerzoom.
Both copies of F35-70 were sharp wide open at any focal length.
I could shoot with them wide open all day long.
FA28-105 powerzoom is the best autofocus consumer 28-105 zoom from film days but needs to be stopped down for similar amount sharpness like F35-70 wide open.
I sold one copy of F35-70 and both copies of FA28-105 because I have A35-105 which is more usable to me than FA28-105.
I believe that new D-FA 28-105 can't beat A35-105 in IQ

05-05-2016, 01:53 AM	#1
weijen Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 105	Have anyone tried cheap FF lenses on the K1? Hey, I noticed everyone's talking about pairing the K1 with the famed FA31, FA43 FA77 etc. I'm just curious how the camera will perform with the cheap 28-80ish zooms from the 80s and 90s like the F35-70, FA28-70 and so on. Who knows there may be gems out there? Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1?

05-05-2016, 04:25 AM	#6
kvetcha Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 92	Originally posted by weijen Hey, I noticed everyone's talking about pairing the K1 with the famed FA31, FA43 FA77 etc. I'm just curious how the camera will perform with the cheap 28-80ish zooms from the 80s and 90s like the F35-70, FA28-70 and so on. Who knows there may be gems out there? Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1? I've got an SMC 28-105 PowerZoom just waiting for this bad boy. Last edited by kvetcha; 05-05-2016 at 06:22 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone tried using a Schneider .6X WA HD ADAPTER 72MM THREAD to capture FF effect?	choong_dc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-26-2015 07:48 PM
DA* 50-135 and close up filter have anyone tried it?	Dario79	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	09-04-2014 11:49 PM
Macro Cheap extension tubes on eBay.... ever tried them?	Dewman	Photographic Technique	38	07-26-2014 05:55 PM
Has anyone tried Canon lenses on the Q/Q10?	NeilGratton	Pentax Q	14	05-31-2013 09:03 AM
Anyone tried the HDR capture on the K-x yet?	timstone	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	03-24-2010 07:04 AM

05-05-2016, 02:10 AM	#2
i5_david Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 332	I have a 28-200 which i want to sell soon. I will it it on my next trip downtown

05-05-2016, 02:29 AM	#3
jcsnyc Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Brooklyn, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 253	I have an 80-320 that I plan to use. Will post tech pics this weekend since my k1 arrives today. Since it is FF compatible I am interested in how it will do. It was mediocre on my K5 and will likely be the same on the K1. I have both the 50-135 and 60-250 and will compare though likely in crop mode. I can't swing the new FF lenses at this point so may try some older lenses that are so so cheap!

05-05-2016, 02:33 AM	#4
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	I've used the F35-70, FA J 18-35 and Sigma 28-90 on a Sony A7. They're certainly acceptable stopped down. Two of them are pseudo macro, even.

05-05-2016, 03:44 AM - 1 Like	#5
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by weijen Or would you consider it a disgrace to mount those lenses to that super high end K1? I have an FA 28-90 specially set aside for that particular act of sacrilege.

05-05-2016, 04:53 AM	#7
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	I'm planning on giving my FA20-35/4 a good workout. There are just so many others to try first....

05-05-2016, 05:46 AM	#8
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,089	I have two old Tamrons: 28~105 and 70~300. I used the latter during early days of using a Pentax DSLR, and it's decent enough on ASP-C to be worth a try on the K1. Regrettably, I let go of both a Pentax 20~35mm and an even better Sigma 15~30mm, as well as an SMCA 16mm fish-eye.

05-05-2016, 05:52 AM	#9
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	I had the F 35-70 in the film days and, even then, I didn't considered it very good. It was good at f8 at about 50mm, but quite average to poor at larger apertures and extereme focal lenghts. Although it could be fun to try on a K-1, I would expect disapointing results. I also used a FA 28-105, 2nd version, which was significantly better than the F 35-70. This was my main lens for many years, even on the first generations of digital bodies. However, compared to modern lenses, it simply didn't cut it anymore on the newer bodies (16MP+). I get rid of it about two years ago when I came to the conclusion that this will not be a lens that make sense use on a FF digital camera. Again, nothing wrong to try it, but I don't see the point of paying a lot of money to get a hires FF body to use a subpar lens. I'm quite sure that the new 28-105 is a way better choice than thse two lenses. Although old prime lenses aren't that different from modern ones, zoom lenses have improved greatly in the last 10-20 years. I would expect most of the zooms from the 80-90 to be average, at best, relative to 2016 IQ standards.

05-05-2016, 06:22 AM	#10
i5_david Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 332	I took it for a ride and I can say, its not recommended to use it open Shots are in jpg and got a little sharpen in lightroom and CA removal. Ca are not dramatic but can occur. Find a zip file with 10 full size jpg here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihcbz0n3an48344/28200.zip?dl=0 (Let me know if you have any special shot or lighting in mind you want to test too)

05-05-2016, 06:25 AM	#11
kvetcha Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 92	Originally posted by i5_david I took it for a ride and I can say, its not recommended to use it open Shots are in jpg and got a little sharpen in lightroom and CA removal. Ca are not dramatic but can occur. Find a zip file with 10 full size jpg here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihcbz0n3an48344/28200.zip?dl=0 (Let me know if you have any special shot or lighting in mind you want to test too) Looks okay to me!

05-05-2016, 06:57 AM	#12
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	I have a Helios 44-2 I plan on using and that's about as cheap as they get. I got one in the mail sent all the way from the Ukraine for $40, shipping included.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2016, 07:05 AM - 1 Like	#13
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I hope lots of people bought a K-1, but have no more budget for lenses, so they can only afford one of those Holga lenses.. because remember, kids, the only thing that matters is sensor size! [/sarcasm] That said, FA and FA J lens tests would be kind of interesting, especially the wide angle ones

05-05-2016, 07:11 AM	#14
i5_david Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 332	FA 28-200 compared to the low pricey Tamron 28-75... there are worlds between both. if you scale the photos on websize you will be able to use the FA but don't start pixel peeping then haha

05-05-2016, 09:51 AM	#15
banep Banned Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 360	Originally posted by CarlJF I had the F 35-70 in the film days and, even then, I didn't considered it very good. It was good at f8 at about 50mm, but quite average to poor at larger apertures and extereme focal lenghts. Although it could be fun to try on a K-1, I would expect disapointing results. I also used a FA 28-105, 2nd version, which was significantly better than the F 35-70. This was my main lens for many years, even on the first generations of digital bodies. However, compared to modern lenses, it simply didn't cut it anymore on the newer bodies (16MP+). I get rid of it about two years ago when I came to the conclusion that this will not be a lens that make sense use on a FF digital camera. Again, nothing wrong to try it, but I don't see the point of paying a lot of money to get a hires FF body to use a subpar lens. I'm quite sure that the new 28-105 is a way better choice than thse two lenses. Although old prime lenses aren't that different from modern ones, zoom lenses have improved greatly in the last 10-20 years. I would expect most of the zooms from the 80-90 to be average, at best, relative to 2016 IQ standards. I had 2 copies of F35-70, and 2 copies of FA28-105 powerzoom. Both copies of F35-70 were sharp wide open at any focal length. I could shoot with them wide open all day long. FA28-105 powerzoom is the best autofocus consumer 28-105 zoom from film days but needs to be stopped down for similar amount sharpness like F35-70 wide open. I sold one copy of F35-70 and both copies of FA28-105 because I have A35-105 which is more usable to me than FA28-105. I believe that new D-FA 28-105 can't beat A35-105 in IQ