[rjm007]

I may be on the verge of buying a K1. What am I saying ? I will be buying a K1 at some point to scratch that FF / Pentax SLR itch. And I am inevitably pondering lens choices. I currently shoot film and digital , classic and modern lenses. I have had a Sony A6000 for a few years but only have one modern lens (Sigma 30mm 1.4) and generally shoot classic lenses on it. Suits my style of photography in that I only occasionally need/enjoy the AF functionality. I have other cameras and lenses for other applications.

My question about the K1 is - does it reveal inherent weaknesses in classic lenses which a more modern (? matched) lens will not show ? It would seem an odd decision to buy a FF camera if it was compromised by the use of much older lenses. In truth I'm not expecting that to be the case in most situations but am curious to know what others think - both classic lens fans and full on current generation lens shooters. Are for example late film era AF lenses a good option ?

A follow up - if I was to buy something similar to the Sigma above i.e. a general purpose lens with full integration into the K1 - what should I be looking at. I'm thinking of something around the 35-40mm mark and preferably not mega expensive. I also have a rangefinder habit......

Thanks

[david94903]

I don't believe so. At least that's been my experience. This is a very subjective subject. That said, I have a number of new D-FA lenses, all are excellent on the K-1, love them all, especially the 100mm WR macro. But I also have a number of older Pentax lenses that I use, M series, A series, FA series (the K-1 loves the Limited's, especially the 77mm), along with non Pentax glass (Nikon AI 135mm that has been Leitex'd to a K-mount, amazing lens from the early 70's renders wonderfully on the K-1), and a Bronica 105mm medium format lens adapted to K-mount. They each have their own character, and my experience is the K-1 really allows each lenses character to shine.

Personally I don't think you will be disappointed with the K-1 no matter which lenses you decide to use.

[robgski]

If anything, the K-1 revitalizes older lenses of all sorts. The worst effect is that one has only oneself to blame for the results.

[rjm007]

Personally I don't think you will be disappointed with the K-1 no matter which lenses you decide to use.

Hello neighbor (Novato here). Did that weatherproofing come in useful with the rain this week <in joke>

I suspect you might well be right. I'm currently working my way through the lens reviews but it's also a question where I will use the K1. At the moment I shoot the Sony when I want that fast AF and the guaranteed (mostly) digital quality that is needed for some applications. I use a Fuji X100T when I'm out with family and friends and want no faff. The K1 is probably going to end up being used for landscape, DSLR scanning and possibly some astro. TBH it's been a while since I shot with a "proper" DSLR so I need to re-establish where that FL sweetspot will end up being before I think about more modern lenses.

[pres589]

Some late film-era Pentax lenses are still in production, and some that are out of production seem well respected.


To replace your Sigma 30 on the K-1 I think either the FA 50 f1.4 (or one of the Pentax 50mm f1.7's) or FA 43 Ltd would be worth checking out. The DA 40 Ltd and DA 40 XS might be of interest but they're f2.8 max aperture lenses so not really apples to apples beyond the field of view similarities. I'm a big fan of a 40mm prime on full frame and these last two are quite small and affordable especially on the used market.


The one issue I would have with manual glass on the K-1 is how you don't have focus peaking through the viewfinder but the AF system will still give focus confirmations when it believes proper focus has been reached. There's also viewfinder magnifiers and interchangeable focusing screens which can be added although these solutions have obvious drawbacks as well.


Something about film era glass on digital bodies, which I'm sure you've seen yourself per your mention of classic glass on your Sony, is how color fringing on high-contrast edges in shots was more acceptable in the days of film. Sample images, as always, will tell you a lot about a lens before you buy.

[pschlute]

My question about the K1 is - does it reveal inherent weaknesses in classic lenses which a more modern (? matched) lens will not show ?

No, in my opinion. I have an extensive range of K/M/A lenses and even a few Taks. I have never found them to be lacking on the K1 IQ-wise. They wont have as good flare or CA resistance as more modern lenses and you should bear that in mind, and use a hood with them.

I print up to 24x16 inches and see no difference. Now I am sure someone could show you that on a bench test at 100% view some of the older lenses are lacking resolution.....but once you have downsized for screen viewing, who can tell the difference ?

Two images taken on K1 with Pentax 85mm lenses made 40 years apart. Which is which (no peeking at the exif !)

[termy]

you mentioned something in the 35 to 40mm range.

stretch it a little.

Grab the FA43.

Guaranteed will not go wrong.

[david94903]

Hello neighbor (Novato here). Did that weatherproofing come in useful with the rain this week <in joke>

I suspect you might well be right. I'm currently working my way through the lens reviews but it's also a question where I will use the K1. At the moment I shoot the Sony when I want that fast AF and the guaranteed (mostly) digital quality that is needed for some applications. I use a Fuji X100T when I'm out with family and friends and want no faff. The K1 is probably going to end up being used for landscape, DSLR scanning and possibly some astro. TBH it's been a while since I shot with a "proper" DSLR so I need to re-establish where that FL sweetspot will end up being before I think about more modern lenses.

I'm just right down the road in Lucas Valley. My camera is still packed in my "go bag" as we had to evacuate from last weeks fire. So didn't chance to test out the weatherproofing, ha!

The K-1 is definitely a DSLR's DSLR. It has the classic balance, and weight, and that strong click of the mirror and shutter. The ergonomics are excellent, and it's a standout in a crowd of Nikons, Canons, Sonys, Fujis, even against their DSLR's. That said, it's not going to win any AF speed contests. So that becomes a case of the right tool for the right job. The only thing I shoot that requires fast AF is birds in flight, and even with my pokey K-1, I get plenty of keepers. Do I get every shot? Nope. But I'm out there for therapy, fun, not stressing about the shot I didn't get.


If you want to try any of your lenses on my K-1, let me know. Happy to let you try it out.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Each time I see these pictures of Pschlute's dog I am "speechless".

[rjm007]

The one issue I would have with manual glass on the K-1 is how you don't have focus peaking through the viewfinder but the AF system will still give focus confirmations when it believes proper focus has been reached. There's also viewfinder magnifiers and interchangeable focusing screens which can be added although these solutions have obvious drawbacks as well.

Something about film era glass on digital bodies, which I'm sure you've seen yourself per your mention of classic glass on your Sony, is how color fringing on high-contrast edges in shots was more acceptable in the days of film. Sample images, as always, will tell you a lot about a lens before you buy.

Yersss - focus peaking is something I've got rather used to on the Sony but to be honest a lot of the time I don't really use it. Turned up full it's a real distraction. I prefer to sue focus mag for some shots. That said I use a 645N and am quite happy with the "focus beep" confirmation.

---------- Post added 09-11-21 at 12:15 PM ----------

I'm just right down the road in Lucas Valley. My camera is still packed in my "go bag" as we had to evacuate from last weeks fire. So didn't chance to test out the weatherproofing, ha!

If you want to try any of your lenses on my K-1, let me know. Happy to let you try it out.

I will take you up on that offer thanks nearer to when I make my final decision - much appreciated. And yes I have a "sweep bag" for my photo gear ! Fingers crossed.......

No, in my opinion. I have an extensive range of K/M/A lenses and even a few Taks. I have never found them to be lacking on the K1 IQ-wise. They wont have as good flare or CA resistance as more modern lenses and you should bear that in mind, and use a hood with them.

I print up to 24x16 inches and see no difference. Now I am sure someone could show you that on a bench test at 100% view some of the older lenses are lacking resolution.....but once you have downsized for screen viewing, who can tell the difference ?

Two images taken on K1 with Pentax 85mm lenses made 40 years apart. Which is which (no peeking at the exif !)

I'm not even going to try - I'd be really happy with either I'm not a pixel peeper. Shoot too much film to ever bother. I kinda believe that if I have good/better vintage glass then they can take care of themselves in the main. It's just that internet "truth" circulating that full frame sensors are capable of highlighting problems in older lenses which can't be fixed by the fixing on that going on between new bodies and new lenses.

[gylfimag]

Old lenses are obviously a very mixed bag. Old zoom lenses are usually rather poor IQ wise but many prime lenses can give you excellent photos. They may not quite match top of the line modern lenses in laboratory tests for resolution and other aspects but still be quite good. Focusing is also usually slower or only manual, so an old lens might not be a good choice for, say, sports. I have a selection of old Pentax lenses, mainly from the M series and they all work just fine with the K-1. That said, I would still recommend getting at least one modern lens, the 28-105 kit lens, if you buy the K-1 (mark 1 or 2). It is a wonderful lens, very practical and fairly inexpensive. It is weather (water) resistant, matching the K-1 in that respect. Older lenses generally are not.

[kiwi_jono]

I find the K-1 performs well with older glass. I do have a DFA 28-105 for when I need WR or flexibility and it does a great job. A have a few older manual focus lenses that I really like the character of (Pentax A 50 f1.2, SMC Tak 55 f1.8, Super Tak 50 f1.4, SMC Tak 200 etc) and use them quite a bit (especially the A50 f1.2). In fact they used to be my go to lenses until I had the budget to get all the 3 FA limited lenses (31, 43, and 77).
My only minor complaint with the current system is that there are not a many Pentax branded options for ultra wide angles at the moment. There is the DFA 15-30 (big, weighty and expensive) or an older lens like the FA 20 (small size but are now hard to come by at a good price). I have a FA-J 18-25 (small & light enough but poor build and corner IQ) and a Sigma EX 20 (a bit big but optically "Ok") lens as a stop gap. Looking forward to seeing what the new DFA 21 limited lens is like - although I'm not expecting it to be cheap.

[dbs]

Hi Richard

Have a look at the K1 and vintage lenses thread ( 94 pages ).


Dave

[photoptimist]

There are no absolutes. There are strong classic lenses and weak classic lenses in the same way there are strong modern lenses and weak modern lenses. Often an old classic manual prime can beat the pants off a modern kit-lens zoom. Pentax Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database is the best way to gain insight into which old lenses are great despite their age.

Beside the strengths and weaknesses of specific models of lenses, both modern and classic lenses can suffer from copy-to-copy variation but for different reasons. Modern lenses can suffer from decentering -- the tolerances in plastic parts and complex optical formulas make it hard to make a perfect copies every time. Classic lenses vary in the life history with some copies suffering more abuse and dust than others.

Older lenses do tend to have two inherent weaknesses:

1) flare resistance: compared to older lenses, modern lenses with modern coatings (and less accumulated dust and haze) are much more resist to flare. That said, a good lens hood and some care avoiding direct sunlight hitting the lens can avoid most flare problems.

2) performance of fast aperture lenses at the fastest apertures: Modern f/1.4 lenses can be quite good in ways that older f/1.4 lenses are not. Advanced materials, aspheric elements, and more complex optical formulae help modern fast lenses control aberrations in the corners. If you need a good, fast lens for astro, get a modern one. That said, if you tend to shoot at f/5.6 or narrower, classic lenses often provide great performance.

Finally, the one big strength of classic lenses is that they are often available for a very modest price (except for some coveted rare collectors-item lenses). For less than the price of lunch or dinner at a restaurant, one can pick up an old classic lens, have hours of fun, and find out just how good those older, slower primes actually can be. Plus, a lot of classic primes are tiny so it's easy to carry a bunch of lenses.

[SelrahCharleS]

The K1 is less pixel dense than your A6000, so it will be "easier" on old lenses in the center then the Sony (K1 cropped to APS-C is around 15MP). You may find some older lenses aren't stellar performers in the edges/corners at wider apertures once you are using a FF sensor, but depending on your framing and composition that often isn't an issue. I use several 'M' series lenses and love the images I get from them.

As was mentioned get hoods too. I've realized a possible reason some of my lenses seem really inconsistent is because none of my older lenses came with hoods and I was getting reduced contrast in more situations than I thought.