[slip]

Do you think that the 3 primes that are from the film era will be able to take advantage of 36mp?
They are sharp but they are also older optical designs

Any opinion welcomed!

Randy

[bertwert]

Do you mean the 31, 43 and 77 Ltd lenses?

[jatrax]

Or the 28, 50, 135?

And to answer your question, yes.

Note that 36mp on FF is roughly the pixel density of the k-5 so we are not breaking new ground here.

[slip]

or the 28, 50, 135?

And to answer your question, yes.

Note that 36mp on ff is roughly the pixel density of the k-5 so we are not breaking new ground here.

31, 43, 70

[mwilky55]

31, 43, 70

You say 70....if that's the DA 70, may be questionable.
The FA 31 and 43 should be fine. And the FA77.
I'm certainly counting on it, though it will be awhile before I can swing a K-1.

[slip]

You say 70....if that's the DA 70, may be questionable.
The FA 31 and 43 should be fine. And the FA77.
I'm certainly counting on it, though it will be awhile before I can swing a K-1.

Ooops that should be 77, not 70mm

Thanks

Randy

[robthebloke]

It would be nice if they were DC. It would be nice if they were WR. But yes, they'll do fine.

[jatrax]

Da 70 should be fine as far as resolution goes. It might vignette a bit I have read differing opinions on that. And I believe Ricoh says it works 'stopped down'.

[monochrome]

As long as you recognize their potential shortcomings (CA and / or PF in certain specific situations) and act to compensate. I think too many people dismiss the potential of film-era lenses, expecting them to be identical to digital-specific lenses. I think I will prefer the rendering of my old lenses and I will shoot intentionally to use their strengths and minimize their limitations.

[stevebrot]

There are probably at least 300 if you include the M42 stuff. The key is that the 36 Mpx sensor is only a little more of a challenge then the 14.6 Mpx sensor in the K-7. The main difference is that deficiencies in the edges/corners visible at that pixel pitch will be exposed. Painful as it may be to admit, those issues exist in new lenses too. Despite the assertions of some reports here and on the Web, most lenses designed for 24x36mm do not have a performance cliff at 14.4mm diameter from center of frame rendering them acceptable for APS-C only. Here are the talking points:

• Any drop in performance towards the corners will be similar to that visible on a film image from the same lens*
• The better lenses made prior to the so-called digital era are generally good for optical enlargements** up to 24"x36" assuming superb technique and high resolution film
• Those same lenses should be capable of at least that large a print from the K-1's 36 Mpx sensor assuming the same superb technique
• Superb technique = careful attention to focus + minimization of camera motion + minimization of subject motion + suitable subject (not all subjects lend themselves to large prints) + high quality print technique

Based on my experience with the lenses on my shelf, I have high expectations for the following:

• Pentax-FA 35/2
• Super/S-M-C/SMC Takumar 55/1.8
• Pentax-K 55/1.8
• Pentax-M/A 50/1.7
• Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited

On the "B" list, meaning that they will probably be fine and may actually surprise me. All work well on the K-3 and film:

• KMZ MC Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye
• Tamron 28/2.5 (02B)
• Vivitar 28/2.8 (Komine, K02)

On the "special case" list, meaning that the lens is not superb, but I get nice images anyway. All work well on both the K-3 and film, but on film they are "different" and "good" in the non-traditional sense:

• LZOS MC Jupiter-9 85/2
• KMZ Helios 44M 58/2
• Auto-Rikenon 50/1.8

Of the above lenses, the Helios is distinctly soft in the corners on 24x36 format, but still useful. The J-9 may be a little soft for some taste, but appropriate for some subjects. Bokeh on the J-9 is to die for and the Rikenon is "dreamy" wide open.

Ooops! You only asked for three, but you have probably figured out that the list above represents the lenses that have consistently delivered for me on both formats.


Steve

* For normal display as hung art, the eye (brain) tends to discount faults present at any distance from the center of visual interest and it is unusual to have elements of visual interest at the edges/corners. Translation? Some very nice images were made on 35mm film and deficiencies in edge performance were not a significant source of frustration for those shooting on that format.

** Paradoxically, a well-made optical enlargement from a negative will generally outperform a digital scan + ink-jet print from the same. Though, as always, there may be exceptions to that rule.

[stevebrot]

Based on my experience with the lenses on my shelf, I have high expectations for the following:

I don't own any, but the Cosina-made, but (mostly) no longer available Zeiss ZK series and Voigtlander SL and SLII lenses featured awesome build quality and most had above average to excellent optics to boot. Any of these would also be on my recommend list...


Steve

[hoopsontoast]

Having owned the Voigtlander 90mm f3.5 APO and 58mm f1.4 Nokton, I would expect those to be both amazing on the K-1 too.
Coupled with a 40mm, or the 20mm prime (was that ever sold in K-Mount?) it could make an interesting MF alternative to the 31/43/77.

Me, I'm happy with just the FA43. I have the K55 as well, which was a bargain at around £35 I think.

[stevebrot]

the 20mm prime (was that ever sold in K-Mount?)

Yes, Stephen Gandy (Cameraquest.com) has a photo showing the 20mm mounted to a Pentax LX:

https://cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm (bottom of page)

(site was timing out today...hopefully they will get it fixed, until then, there is a copy on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041503/https://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm)

Steve

[stevebrot]

Coupled with a 40mm

I discovered today that the V/C Ultron 40/2 is still available new in KA mount at cameraquest

The price at about $499 USD is a bit more than the Pentax-FA 43/1.9 Limited, though with the loss of auto focus.

https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtlander-slr-lenses/


Steve

(...not affiliated with cameraquest in any way other than as an occasional customer...)

[mwilky55]

Yes, Stephen Gandy (Cameraquest.com) has a photo showing the 20mm mounted to a Pentax LX:

https://cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm (bottom of page)

(site was timing out today...hopefully they will get it fixed, until then, there is a copy on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041503/https://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm)

Steve

I had the FA 20 for a time, which is K-mount....pretty good lens.