[rjm007]

These are all pretty nice old lenses, although I'm hot sure I'd regard any of them as classics. I own the M 50/1.7, the M 135/3.5, and the M 75-150/4 and at one time owned the M 28/2.8 and the A 35-105/3.5. I've not shot any of these lenses on FF, but do have experience with them on APS-C digital.

The lens on the list that intrigues me the most is that K series 17mm FE. The K series lenses, generally speaking, have more character and richenss than the M or A series lenses, and it would be interesting to see how that old fisheye lens responds to an FF sensor. I'd also be curious to see how the A 70-210 performs. That lens has a reputation of being under-rated. Perhaps it needs an FF camera to really bring it to life.

The prices I got them for would suggest they're not considered classics although I'd say in most cases the ubiquity is the reason for the affordable pricing. TBH I just love this lens series because it was my first SLR love and because I think they look and feel just right. The 17mm is an oddity. Having only used it on APS-C I don't feel I have really been able to use it as the designers intended. It's certainly capable of good results and even on APS-C it's very wide. I'm currently on the lookout for a 24mm but like the 17mm it's in a different price range and scarcer in good nick too.

I'd say the two M 50mms are definite classics, and the 75-150mm and 135mm (while not the sharpest) probably are too.

Interesting you mention the 75-150mm as I've been pleasantly surprised by that. In comparison to the higher rated 35-105, the former is a lot cheaper and much easier to find. Both seem very capable lenses and by modern standards compact and luggable (albeit the 35-105 is the big brother).

[normhead]

Well, in my opinion it makes sense buying a FF high resolution camera only if you match it with a lens that outresolves the sensor. (In fact any camera in general).

I really don't see that as an issue. The whole concept of a lens out resolving a sensor is muddy at best. Exactly how do you define that and give us an example.

For example every Pentax les that I know of gets higher resolution on a K-3 than on a K-5. The test would be if you ran a resolution test on a lens on a K-5 and you got the same lw/ph on your test chart on a K-3. That would be because the K-5 was already capturing all the detail the lens produced, so the K-3 just adds MP without increasing the lw/ph resolution.

The problem being as far as I know that has never happened. Even my worst lenses produce more resolution on a K-3 than on a K-5. They still aren't very good, but the lens does benefit from a higher resolution sensor. SO to date, I don't know of a single lens that doesn't benefit from a higher resolution sensor. The good ones are still better than the not so good ones. Their order in the great scheme of things doesn't change. No lens on a K-3 magically becomes better than a lens that it was worse than on a K-5.You still get better resolution from a good lens than an average or kit lens.

If you were happy with a lens on a 12 MP sensor, you'll probably equally happy with a 16 MP sensor and even happier with a 24 MP sensor, whether you shoot kit, medium of premium quality lenses.

This is lens selling hype prompted by lens salesmen that really hasn't been thought out or even demonstrated to be true. The new Pentax DFA 50 will perform at a higher level on a K-3 than it would on a K-5. But do you need that level of performance?

If you didn't go for high quality glass before, there's no need to do so now. Your older glass will still perform at a much higher level on a K-1 than it does on a K-3 or K-5. The existence of even higher quality glass for a lot more money is another here nor there. There was higher quality glass before, and most people didn't buy it. Noting has changed.

No one has ever been able to demonstrate with images, this concept of a lens being out resolved by a sensor. It's all al lot of theoretical twaddle as far as I can tell. As long as there are no lenses that don't increase in resolution when put on a higher resolution camera it's an irrelevant topic. A red herring, a waste of your time....

SO far, every lens can have it's image resolution increased by putting it on a higher MP sensor. There are as far as I know, no lenses so bad that's not true. So the whole concept is a fallacy. The whole "you have to have better lens" thing is salesman talk. By that logic, you should have already had the better lens. If you didn't need better lenses for you K-5, you don't need them for your K-3 either. And looking at pixel pitch, a K-1 is lower resolution per square centimetre than a K-3. If you needed a sharpe lens, you should buy it for your K-3. Your K-1 with it's larger pixel sites will be much more forgiving of your lenses than a K-3 will be.

The only person this could be even remotely relevant to, would be the person who already has the best, wondering if he should buy new glass, because there is now something better than what he has. Whether or not you want new glass should be a completely different decision than what camera body you buy. The K-1 will make any FF glass you own better. If you want better than better, that's a whole other issue. If an FA macro was good enough for you on a K-5 or K-3, you'll love it on a K-1.

[northcoastgreg]

The prices I got them for would suggest they're not considered classics although I'd say in most cases the ubiquity is the reason for the affordable pricing.

It's hard to define what constitutes a classic, and people are going to have different notions of what qualifies and what doesn't. For some, any old lens that a lot of people really like is a classic, and on that standard, at least half the old Pentax manual focus lenses are classics. I have a considerably narrower criterion. For me, the lens has to be more than just really good or really popular or really expensive to qualify as a classic. There as to be something unique about it that inspires a high level of enthusiasm in those who use the lens. On those grounds I would consider at least the following as indubitable "classics" among old Pentax K-mount manual focus glass: the K 28/3.5, the K 28/2, the K 35/3.5, the K/A 50/1.2, the A 85/1.4, the A 135/1.8, and the A 200/4 Macro. I'm sure there are other lenses that could also be considered classics. But those are the one's that really stand out among the older Pentax glass.

[repaap]

The prices I got them for would suggest they're not considered classics although I'd say in most cases the ubiquity is the reason for the affordable pricing. TBH I just love this lens series because it was my first SLR love and because I think they look and feel just right. The 17mm is an oddity. Having only used it on APS-C I don't feel I have really been able to use it as the designers intended. It's certainly capable of good results and even on APS-C it's very wide. I'm currently on the lookout for a 24mm but like the 17mm it's in a different price range and scarcer in good nick too.



Interesting you mention the 75-150mm as I've been pleasantly surprised by that. In comparison to the higher rated 35-105, the former is a lot cheaper and much easier to find. Both seem very capable lenses and by modern standards compact and luggable (albeit the 35-105 is the big brother).

75-150 is really good on K-1 I can say that here, and anywhere. There is a lot to gain with FF. If you have good collection of K-mount lenses, you can't go wrong. But 75-150, 50/1.7, 28 mm almost any, and perhaps 20 mm. or so, and you are set. Tele needs to be long with FF. APS-C is better for tele, obviously. I ended up buying big modern lenses, but that is because I like things like that. I was missing them already with K-3, so K-1 was not making it any more easy. But in general, IF you like old lenses and working slow. Then K-1 is a great option.

[rjm007]

On the subject of "resolution" I think ti's fair to say that I suspect rather strongly that a K1 and one of my film lenses will do me just fine. There's a reason I spend more time here than DPR :-) I am so far past photographing brick walls. My original question might perhaps not suggest that but I was really looking for specific identifiable problems using old glass on a modern FF camera. It seems there are none that would matter to me.

On the much more interesting subject of what constitutes a classic - well that's one to discuss over a pint with i suspect as many opinions as disagreements...

At the moment I am looking for a 24mm, 85mm and 100mm macro to complete my set. Yes complete it, honestly, that all I need :-)

[BigMackCam]

On the subject of "resolution" I think ti's fair to say that I suspect rather strongly that a K1 and one of my film lenses will do me just fine. There's a reason I spend more time here than DPR :-) I am so far past photographing brick walls. My original question might perhaps not suggest that but I was really looking for specific identifiable problems using old glass on a modern FF camera. It seems there are none that would matter to me.

I think the only real significant limitation worth considering is the ability to accurately focus through the viewfinder when very shallow depth-of-field is involved. Without going back through the whole thread, I'm not certain it's been mentioned - but I'd be surprised if it hasn't (I may have mentioned it myself ). But that can be worked around in a number of ways, and it doesn't stop our members from producing beautiful photographs with old, manual glass.

[normhead]

I think the only real significant limitation worth considering is the ability to accurately focus through the viewfinder when very shallow depth-of-field is involved. Without going back through the whole thread, I'm not certain it's been mentioned - but I'd be surprised if it hasn't (I may have mentioned it myself ). But that can be worked around in a number of ways, and it doesn't stop our members from producing beautiful photographs with old, manual glass.

I use live view for manual focus and it works great, I can see my depth of field line and more it exactly where i want ti. Without split image viewfinders did people ever do manual focus. I know I didn't. If you want to see how your depth of field is playing out, an 8x10 or 4x5 view camera wth a ground glass screen is necessary. Other wise your image is too small to see virtually anything.

I've never understood people trying to manual focus digital, with the necessary built in focusing aids.

[BigMackCam]

I use live view for manual focus and it works great, I can see my depth of field line and more it exactly where i want ti. Without split image viewfinders did people ever do manual focus. I know I didn't. If you want to see how your depth of field is playing out, an 8x10 or 4x5 view camera wth a ground glass screen is necessary. Other wise your image is too small to see virtually anything.

I've never understood people trying to manual focus digital, with the necessary built in focusing aids.

Yeah, I like Live View for manual focusing too, though I prefer to use an LCD loupe when doing so. I've never felt comfortable holding the camera anywhere other than to my eye, and the LCD loupe helps with that... Just my preference, though

[rjm007]

Don't know what it's like on the Pentax line but the LV and focussing aids on the Sony A6000 are useful but I still tweak focus manually a lot of the time. The primary limitation being my own eyesight which is not what it was when those film era camera were new. I love the OVF of the ME Super but I need to get a dioptre adjustment as I can't use it as is now.

[BigMackCam]

Don't know what it's like on the Pentax line but the LV and focussing aids on the Sony A6000 are useful but I still tweak focus manually a lot of the time. The primary limitation being my own eyesight which is not what it was when those film era camera were new. I love the OVF of the ME Super but I need to get a dioptre adjustment as I can't use it as is now.

I use my A7 MkII for most of my manual focus lenses (heresy, I know, but that's life ). Specifically, I use magnified view if I'm looking for really accurate focus at wide apertures, and occasionally just focus peaking which can be accurate enough if you learn to rock the focus back and forth and find the mid-point (which is down to practice, and easy enough to master).

With my LCD loupe on the K-3 and K-3II (I don't own a K-1), I can do exactly the same thing, with a somewhat less ergonomically-pleasing setup. A long-ish lens mated to the camera body with an LCD loupe stuck on the back makes for a slightly-ungainly unit - but it works very well. I know some people don't bother with a loupe and just work from the screen, but I don't find that a comfortable way to work. It's probably my limitation rather than the equipment.

[rjm007]

I have to use focus mag on mine to get really critical focus as none of my lenses focus to infinity properly on any of the k-mount adapters I have. In general I have to knock them back "a tad" to hit infinity focus properly. I use the first stage as handheld the full FM is too much. If I was doing more tripod work I'd probably used the back display more but I do like a VF.

[phoebus]

@rjm007 To answer your first question, I would say that the K1 is not a foolish choice. It is also not the only choice: @BigMackCam has success with the Sony A7. For me the strongest pro for the K1 is the handling; ergonomically it just feels right. If all your shots are going to be on a tripod, ergonomics are not such a high priority.

Image 0001 from my K1 was shot with the M50 1.7 from my 1979 Pentax MX... ..I can't remember what aperture I used, but judging from the hexagonal bokeh, it wasn't fully open: probably F2.8. Pixel peeping at 100% reveals pin sharp on the right eye. So hand held with legacy glass is possible, plus the sensor shift stabilisation allowed a shutter speed of 1/40!

For me the K1 is a joy to use, though to be honest, I don't use my old manual glass very often. My not quite so old F series primes get lots of use though.

Good luck with your choice!

[blackest]

This is just a quick snap using a 135mm jupiter 11a preset lens on the k1 using a non infinity m42 adapter. The adapter has a 0.97mm flange and infinity focus is about 50 feet very roughly that is around 28 ~ 30 x focal length.

so for say a 28mm lens with that adapter about 84cm 1.5 meters for a 50mm 2.55m for an 85mm for working distances thats getting a tad short but i think the 85mm might be pretty nice

[timw4mail]

I think the only real significant limitation worth considering is the ability to accurately focus through the viewfinder when very shallow depth-of-field is involved. Without going back through the whole thread, I'm not certain it's been mentioned - but I'd be surprised if it hasn't (I may have mentioned it myself ). But that can be worked around in a number of ways, and it doesn't stop our members from producing beautiful photographs with old, manual glass.

For lenses faster than ~F2.8, you'll have the issue with focusing precisely, but beyond that, I very rarely use live view.


I have mixed feelings about focusing aids, as they are most useful with fast lenses, and really get in the way should you use a slower lens (or practically any zoom).

[rjm007]

This is just a quick snap using a 135mm jupiter 11a preset lens on the k1 using a non infinity m42 adapter. The adapter has a 0.97mm flange and infinity focus is about 50 feet very roughly that is around 28 ~ 30 x focal length.

so for say a 28mm lens with that adapter about 84cm 1.5 meters for a 50mm 2.55m for an 85mm for working distances thats getting a tad short but i think the 85mm might be pretty nice

I have a Jupiter 11 - lovely lens - compact (for a 135mm) and really sharp. Works really well as a shortish tele on my A6000. Like all of my lenses I'm looking forward to seeing how it works on a FF camera. The 85mm Jupiters seem rather more popular judging by the price.