[Fenwoodian]

.
Over the last few weeks I've been testing dozens of lenses in the pixel shift mode on my K1. I don't think I've ever done so much post processing "pixel peeping" in my life.

To my surprise, a couple of cheap, old, manual-focus, M42 lenses performed better than most of my expensive lenses in that same focal length.

By the way, the CZY 135mm Sonnar is great for pixel shift black and white images.

I have only used these lenses in the pixel shift mode, and have no intentions of ever using them any other way.

Below are photos of these two, top-performing, cheap lenses. If you're looking for inexpensive lenses that excel in pixel shift mode on your K1 - you might want to get yourself good copies of these lenses.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 12-23-2017 at 12:13 PM.

[ramuk]

Both these lenses are great value even without taking pixel shift to consideration.

What did you see in the pixel-shift images that makes them stand out? Asking since I don't have a k1 (as yet).

Thanks.

[Fenwoodian]

Both these lenses are great value even without taking pixel shift to consideration.

What did you see in the pixel-shift images that makes them stand out? Asking since I don't have a k1 (as yet).

Thanks.

I have found that many lenses that are called "full frame lenses" actually perform quite poorly in the pixel shift mode on the K1 full frame camera. From my testing, even some expensive premium prime lenses failed to produce sharp/crisp detail all the way out to the edges and corners of the image. This is easy to identify when viewing images at 100%.

The above two lenses are outstandingly sharp all the way out to the edges and corners of the K1 when shot in the pixel shift mode.

Colors, contrast, bokeh are all good. However, it's the "uniformity" of the super-sharp detail throughout the image that makes me rate these two lenses so highly.

The CZY 135mm is the famous "Sonnar" design. I recently converted and tested the Zeiss ZF 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar on my K1. This is the best lens I've ever had on my K1. I see some of the characteristics of the modern Zeiss 135mm APO Sonnar in this older lens.

[Fenwoodian]

I wouldn't exactly call the EBC 1.4 a "cheap lens." It routinely goes for $150-$200, so it's actually on the rather expensive side for a vintage MF 50. It has to be modded to be used on the K-1 as well.
The much more common 1.8 is also an excellent lens and can be found for 50-60 bucks, so that's where to look if you want a "cheap" Fujinon.

Cheap is a relative term.

Most of the other lenses I was testing cost from $400 to $1300. So, these two $100 - $200 lenses were indeed among the cheapest of the bunch.

I did "mod" the EBC 1.4 lens as you mentioned, it just took a bit of filing and I was in business.

Unfortunately, I do not own the Fujinon 1.8 lens. I'm sure that as you say, it's an excellent lens that's even cheaper than its' big brother.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 05-08-2017 at 08:13 PM.

[Fenwoodian]

One of the 50mm lenses I tested was my SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro lens. In the past, this had been one of my favorite lenses for pixel shift images.

I was surprised to find the images from the Fujinon EBC 1.4 were clearly sharper (with better color) than the images produced by my SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro lens!

[Na Horuk]

Nice! That Fuji 50mm looks really interesting. Did you try any other cheap lenses? I think we had a thread where someone tried some Soviet lenses with PS, but I cant find it right now

I was surprised to find the images from the Fujinon EBC 1.4 were clearly sharper (with better color) than the images produced by my SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro lens!

Wow!

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

I get decent results from PS on my K-3II with one of my habitual favorites... The SMC Pentax M-28 f/2.8. For such a cheap lens, it has more than paid for itself with budget astro and pixelshift landscape shots.

[MJKoski]

I bought Distagon 28/2 for 300 euros if I remember correctly. Then Leitaxed it. So almost as cheap as these.