Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-16-2018, 09:49 AM   #61
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 171
QuoteOriginally posted by rjm007 Quote
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.
I was wrong on the max focus distance with the adapter e.g for 90mm 9mm from the focal length is focusing at 10x focal length and 0.9mm would be 100x focal length. for say 45mm then the figure is 4.5mm 10x and 0.45mm for 100x because the adapter is about .9mm thick you get about 100x on the 90mm but less on the 45mm it's not such a simple relationship with the thickness of the adapter being constant. But the 85 and 135mm lenses have a reasonable working distance. probably the 55mm too

08-21-2018, 11:30 PM   #62
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
08-22-2018, 10:12 AM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 171
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
Quality doesn't necessarily mean expensive. Liveview IBIS and a good prime I'm loving it. It's also worth considering that larger negatives tend to need less enlarging which keeps aberrations under control. The K1 is a great camera, especially if you are willing to move to get the shot you want.
08-22-2018, 10:27 AM   #64
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
QuoteOriginally posted by blackest Quote
Quality doesn't necessarily mean expensive. Liveview IBIS and a good prime I'm loving it. It's also worth considering that larger negatives tend to need less enlarging which keeps aberrations under control. The K1 is a great camera, especially if you are willing to move to get the shot you want.
Indeed. "Quality" can mean many things. It's subjective.

@alvaro_garcia - may I ask what you mean by "quality glasses"? Is it structural build? High resolution? Flat field? Smooth out-of-focus rendering? Lack of distortion? Lack of vignetting? Lack of CA? Flare resistance? And when you've answered that, does your answer apply to all photographers, or is it possible that each of us has different likes, dislikes and requirements from our glass?

I have old Soviet lenses I've bought for £10 - £20 that produce beautiful photos on my Pentax, Samsung and Sony cameras. Some of my old, inexpensive glass I simply wouldn't swap.


Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-22-2018 at 10:40 AM.
08-22-2018, 07:44 PM   #65
Pentaxian
stillshot2's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,070
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
So true. And may I add quality doesn't always mean expensive either
08-22-2018, 08:50 PM   #66
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I have old Soviet lenses I've bought for £10 - £20 that produce beautiful photos on my Pentax, Samsung and Sony cameras. Some of my old, inexpensive glass I simply wouldn't swap.
Old Soviet lenses can certainly produce interesting photos, but not just on FF cameras.
08-22-2018, 11:44 PM   #67
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Old Soviet lenses can certainly produce interesting photos, but not just on FF cameras.
Agreed... and they're not limited to just "interesting" (i.e. "quirky" ) photos either. Lots of people think "swirly bokeh" the moment an old Soviet lens is mentioned, but in fact there are plenty of models that are just very good lenses all round. The humble and inexpensive Zenitar-K2 or -M2S is sharp as a tack and renders very nicely. There isn't a compatible body I know of that wouldn't be well-matched with such a lens...

08-23-2018, 12:00 AM   #68
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,369
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
Since photography is an art, that is a purely subjective statement. It all comes down to what the photographer has in mind when he/she takes the shot.
08-23-2018, 12:09 AM   #69
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Indeed. "Quality" can mean many things. It's subjective.

@alvaro_garcia - may I ask what you mean by "quality glasses"? Is it structural build? High resolution? Flat field? Smooth out-of-focus rendering? Lack of distortion? Lack of vignetting? Lack of CA? Flare resistance? And when you've answered that, does your answer apply to all photographers, or is it possible that each of us has different likes, dislikes and requirements from our glass?

I have old Soviet lenses I've bought for £10 - £20 that produce beautiful photos on my Pentax, Samsung and Sony cameras. Some of my old, inexpensive glass I simply wouldn't swap.
By "quality" glass I mean QUALITY glass. I think it's easy to understand: high resolution (sharpness) to outresolve the resolution of the sensor, accurate colors, little distortion, high quality coatings to reduce glare, etc... Basically a high quality glass with high quality design and coatings (= high quality lens) will deliver high quality images, better than policarbonate and/or low quality or "kit" quality lenses.

My Nikon Coolpix A APS-C compact camera's lens is so good that outresolves its 16 Mp sensor. The Pentax/Tamron 24-70 kit lens does not outresolve the K1's 36 Mp sensor. Any of my Zeiss Distagon lenses deliver better sharpness, contrast and build quality than my Pentax/Tamron at a fraction of the cost. Yes I know, they are fixed focal length, etc, but it doesn't change the result.

If I buy a camera, especially a high resolution FF camera, I'll try to match it with a lens that outresolves its sensor resolution in order to get always the best I can from the camera. Most of the time quality = expensive, but it's not always like that. Like I said, my K1 + Zeiss Distagon deliver more quality at a fraction of the cost of my K1 + Pentax/Tamron 24-70.

---------- Post added 08-23-18 at 12:20 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by twilhelm Quote
Since photography is an art, that is a purely subjective statement. It all comes down to what the photographer has in mind when he/she takes the shot.
Well, for me a high resolution camera (f.e. 36 Mp, well, in fact any camera) requires a lens that outresolves its sensor resolution to get the best from it. Whether you prefer a less sharp lens for your camera or not is up to you. I wouldn't call that "subjective".

A person wearing glasses will certainly see the world better by wearing high quality optic glass with high quality coatings rather than policarbonate glass without or with bad quality coatings. That's a fact (objective), regardless if that person does prefer to see the world through less quality glass.

I simply can't understand a 400 hp car wearing low quality tyres or a €3000 Hi-Fi system matched with low quality (i.e. €80) speakers, regardless if the owners do actually "prefer" matching them that way.

Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 08-23-2018 at 12:26 AM.
08-23-2018, 12:46 AM   #70
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
I think it's easy to understand: high resolution (sharpness) to outresolve the resolution of the sensor, accurate colors, little distortion, high quality coatings to reduce glare, etc... Basically a high quality glass with high quality design and coatings (= high quality lens) will deliver high quality images, better than policarbonate and/or low quality or "kit" quality lenses.
Thanks for the clarification. It's much easier to understand when expanded upon like this

I'm always interested to know what others consider to be "quality" or "good" lenses. Yours is a valid and certainly a popular definition. Whilst it avoids some genuinely poor lenses, though (and that's a good thing), I think it also discounts some very capable lenses that don't match all of those criteria, yet can produce superb images when used wisely. By my definition, such lenses aren't poor quality.

I wonder what you'd think of my favourite older lenses - some of which are single coated, require careful shielding with hood or hand to avoid veiling flare, produce noticeable colour differences, vignette considerably at wide apertures, aren't well-corrected by modern standards, and aren't super-sharp across the frame when viewed at 100% reproduction

I also wonder how many people, when looking at photos on-screen or printed to a reasonable size and viewed at typical distances, would actually be able to tell the difference between a lens that out-resolves the sensor and one that doesn't.

As I've said many times before (and I'm sure a few folks here will roll their eyes to hear me say it again ), whether a lens is "good" (or "quality") is - to some extent - subjective...
08-23-2018, 01:21 AM - 1 Like   #71
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Thanks for the clarification. It's much easier to understand when expanded upon like this

I'm always interested to know what others consider to be "quality" or "good" lenses. Yours is a valid and certainly a popular definition. Whilst it avoids some genuinely poor lenses, though (and that's a good thing), I think it also discounts some very capable lenses that don't match all of those criteria, yet can produce superb images when used wisely. By my definition, such lenses aren't poor quality.

I wonder what you'd think of my favourite older lenses - some of which are single coated, require careful shielding with hood or hand to avoid veiling flare, produce noticeable colour differences, vignette considerably at wide apertures, aren't well-corrected by modern standards, and aren't super-sharp across the frame when viewed at 100% reproduction

I also wonder how many people, when looking at photos on-screen or printed to a reasonable size and viewed at typical distances, would actually be able to tell the difference between a lens that out-resolves the sensor and one that doesn't.

As I've said many times before (and I'm sure a few folks here will roll their eyes to hear me say it again ), whether a lens is "good" (or "quality") is - to some extent - subjective...
I agree with you.

Some of your old low-priced lenses may be jewels, of course. "Old" doesn't necessarily mean "bad".

For instance, a very sharp lens which delivers inaccurate color rendition might not be a perfect lens for some people, but I do actually prefer sharpness over color rendition. You can easily edit your color palette in post-processing, but it's more difficult to increase the native sharpness.

But yes, if you just don't zoom-in your images or you are not used to crop them or you don't print larger that the classic 10×15 cm, then it's certainly difficult most of the times to ensure if this or that lens outresolve your camera's sensor resolution. But why then to spend money on a high resolution camera? ;-)

For me, the sharpness is the most important characteristic on a lens followed by the other ones. In the end, when we buy a high resolution camera, what we are actually seeking is just that: resolution/sharpness (yes I know, they are different things but closely related). If your lens is not sharp enough then your camera is wasted money because you can't crop or zoom-in whilst keeping the sharpness across the frame. Morover, even not zooming-in, the look of a sharp lens image is different (sharper) than that coming from a not so sharp lens.

Then there is the other characteristics, which I don't mean they are not important of course. It's just I pay first more attention to the sharpness in order to get the best from the sensor.

My Zeiss Distagon lenses are difficult to focus (they are manual focus), but when you get them in focus the sharpness you obtain is simply shocking across the whole frame, even on the edges and not only in the center. I mainly use them for landscape photography (medium/closed apertures and focused to infinite). Then is when I start paying attention to the distorsions, vignetting, glare resistance, color rendition, etc... My Zeiss Distagon lenses beat the Pentax/Tamron in every aspect. Color rendition though is more "subjective" according to everyone's tastes.

Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 08-23-2018 at 01:36 AM.
08-23-2018, 02:08 AM   #72
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,369
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
I agree with you.

Some of your old low-priced lenses may be jewels, of course. "Old" doesn't necessarily mean "bad".

For instance, a very sharp lens which delivers inaccurate color rendition might not be a perfect lens for some people, but I do actually prefer sharpness over color rendition. You can easily edit your color palette in post-processing, but it's more difficult to increase the native sharpness.

But yes, if you just don't zoom-in your images or you are not used to crop them or you don't print larger that the classic 10×15 cm, then it's certainly difficult most of the times to ensure if this or that lens outresolve your camera's sensor resolution. But why then to spend money on a high resolution camera? ;-)

For me, the sharpness is the most important characteristic on a lens followed by the other ones. In the end, when we buy a high resolution camera, what we are actually seeking is just that: resolution/sharpness (yes I know, they are different things but closely related). If your lens is not sharp enough then your camera is wasted money because you can't crop or zoom-in whilst keeping the sharpness across the frame. Morover, even not zooming-in, the look of a sharp lens image is different (sharper) than that coming from a not so sharp lens.

Then there is the other characteristics, which I don't mean they are not important of course. It's just I pay first more attention to the sharpness in order to get the best from the sensor.

My Zeiss Distagon lenses are difficult to focus (they are manual focus), but when you get them in focus the sharpness you obtain is simply shocking across the whole frame, even on the edges and not only in the center. I mainly use them for landscape photography (medium/closed apertures and focused to infinite). Then is when I start paying attention to the distorsions, vignetting, glare resistance, color rendition, etc... My Zeiss Distagon lenses beat the Pentax/Tamron in every aspect. Color rendition though is more "subjective" according to everyone's tastes.
I feel compelled to reply... I can respect the desire for an ultra sharp lens. I’ve had a couple of Sigma lenses (very good copies) that I considered sharp, but the image was lifeless. Yet I can take my FA31 or FA43 which were designed with some fall off at the edges, and get stunning photos. I haven’t purchased one YET, but I believe the new D FA* 50 will be the best of both worlds.

All that being said, many of the older lenses do produce professional quality images in the right hands. A poor photographer can make the most expensive equipment worthless.
08-23-2018, 03:03 AM   #73
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
QuoteOriginally posted by twilhelm Quote
I feel compelled to reply... I can respect the desire for an ultra sharp lens. I’ve had a couple of Sigma lenses (very good copies) that I considered sharp, but the image was lifeless. Yet I can take my FA31 or FA43 which were designed with some fall off at the edges, and get stunning photos. I haven’t purchased one YET, but I believe the new D FA* 50 will be the best of both worlds.

All that being said, many of the older lenses do produce professional quality images in the right hands. A poor photographer can make the most expensive equipment worthless.
I totally agree with your words.

It's all about how the final image looks to your eyes. It's a "pack", not only sharpness/detail or color or distorsions or etc.

For example, everyone know that Canon's color rendition leans towards the "warm" side. Why? Simple. They have always been specialized/focused to social events and portraits, where that color rendition shows its best. In my opinion no other brand can beat Canon's skin tones and that's why it's the "best" for weddings, people, portraits... Traditionally Canon's software has always been faster than other brands too and that's why altogether make Canon the right choice for those photographers who shoot mainly sports and people. I do have 5 Canon DSLRs (#4 7D and #1 600D) and have been quite happy with them, matched with different lenses (Canon, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron). As I'm mainly a landscape photographer, I do actually prefer the color rendition from Nikon (which is more "neutral" than Canon, with more vivid colors, especially greens and blues -i.e. vegetation and skies-) and now Pentax (which leans a bit towards the "cold" side though). Both Nikon and Pentax awsome for nature and landscapes, but not so for people and portraits (cold skin tones).

When using my Canon 600D, I noticed that my Tamron lens also leans towards the "warm" side, making the photos look too warm ("warm" Canon + "warm" Tamron = 2× "warm" results), what was really disappointing after a trip to Iceland, where the real "fresh" and "chlorophillic" greens watched by my eyes didn't correspond at all with my photos, which turned onto sort of "dried" and "lifeless" vegetation, much more brownish and therefore much less crisp and exciting. That was the reason why I started using Nikon and now Pentax for my landscape photography. It's true when professionals say "Canon better for people/portraits" and "Nikon better for landscape/nature".

Not all is about sharpness or color though as you say. If you are not using the same brand for your lens (which is intended to be the perfect match for your camera, the perfect tandem right out of the factory), you'll have to play with different lenses to get your perfect match (like people do when trying to pair their Hi-Fi systems with the right speakers: "warm" electronics usually work better with "bright/metallic" speakers and viceversa).

I wouldn't like either super-sharp lenses which deliver lifeless images. But I try to get all, including the sharpness, a way to justify high resolution cameras.

But as the digital cameras have increased significantly their resolutions along the years, the manufacturers know that these new sensors demand more and more resolutive lenses, and that's why an old lens may be good but may be not so good too for a new high-res camera, which demands a high-res lens to allow crops without lose of detail, etc.

Last edited by alvaro_garcia; 08-23-2018 at 05:13 AM.
08-23-2018, 04:56 AM - 1 Like   #74
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
Sometimes we over think this stuff..... I find the K1 to be a joyfull camera to use with both newish and older lenses. It feels lovely to use with my older lenses..... definately worth it if you can.
08-23-2018, 04:09 PM - 1 Like   #75
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
In my opinion, any camera is a foolish choice if you don't match it with quality glasses, regardless whether they are modern or not.
I dunno - with the K-1 I think you could shoot through the bottom of an old bottle and make it look good!!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, coatings, collection, dslr, ff, full frame, full-frame, glass, head, k-1, k1, lens, lenses, pentax k-1, quality, resolution, sensor, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PENTAX new glass-old glass - lens tubes designed like old glass? corporate identity? camyum Pentax Full Frame 3 09-24-2017 02:52 PM
Nature Brave or Foolish jkwhawk Post Your Photos! 3 07-27-2011 02:13 AM
More darned if you do, darned if you don't.. jeffkrol General Talk 29 06-18-2010 07:43 AM
Foolish 645 question jbrowning Pentax Medium Format 2 02-04-2009 02:27 PM
Feeling foolish and gulity.... madisonphotogrl Photographic Technique 25 10-08-2008 09:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top