[kypfer]

I have never had a class in photography.

There weren’t many photography classes close to Humansville, Missouri to take.

I’m teaching myself how to shoot a 1958 Zeiss Contaflex. Top shutter speed is 1/500. There’s a gadget on the camera where you input ISO (max 800) and open a door for a light meter. The result I got was 13EV. Set the coupled aperture and shutter speed to 13EV, aperture to f8, focus to 20 feet and all photos from 12 feet to infinity at f8 are focused. The shutter speed on the Contaflex was 1/125.

I owned an early Contaflex for a while. I think it must have been the model previous to yours, I don't remember it having a built-in meter, but the Tessar lens gave me great respect for German optics
Photography without batteries … how times change

[ZombieArmy]

I think most lenses are priced appropriately. If it's especially good, rare, or special in some way the value will reflect it. There are some really good bargains as well, like the M75-150 f4 or the Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5.

The best deal I ever got was a smashed FA* 85 f1.4 for 200 usd.

[normhead]

I think most lenses are priced appropriately. If it's especially good, rare, or special in some way the value will reflect it. There are some really good bargains as well, like the M75-150 f4 or the Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5.

The best deal I ever got was a smashed FA* 85 f1.4 for 200 usd.

That's impressive.

[MESuperian]

One advantage of buying lenses for the sake average price as a McDonald’s drive through is you cry less when you break them.

Today I got a $20 Vivitar 70-300 PK/AR in the mail and in my excitement it rolled off the table and clunk, hit the floor.

A little chip is gone from the front ring, and the aperture is stuck open now.

I’ll either have to shoot it wide open or try fixing it.

That all of life’s little mistakes only cost $20.)

Attached Images

 

[MarkJerling]

I think most lenses are priced appropriately. If it's especially good, rare, or special in some way the value will reflect it. There are some really good bargains as well, like the M75-150 f4 or the Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5.

The best deal I ever got was a smashed FA* 85 f1.4 for 200 usd.

Did you have it repaired, or are those shots with the cracked rear element?

[ZombieArmy]

Did you have it repaired, or are those shots with the cracked rear element?

Those photos are with the cracked element.

[Wheatfield]

What do you mean with "Japanese Players"?

Topcon, Petri, Miranda, Mamiya as far as 35mm is concerned, Taron, Baron (they didn't make it out of the 1950s), and I'm sure several others. That's just what comes to mind immediately.
There are hosts of Japanese manufacturers that came and went during the post war era into the 1970s. Some couldn't compete on technology, most failed because they lacked the financial support that a decent profit margin gives.

Asahi Pentax was a very innovative company during this period, so innovative that the Japanese government stepped in and forced them to give up key patents to allow the entire Japanese camera industry to flourish.

[mikesbike]

My SMC-F 35-70mm AF macro lens practically lives on my K-1ii. It's a bit like a slightly deep and practical body cap. I only take it off when I feel the need to fit another len

I bought mine used in perfect shape years ago, mainly for use on my MZ-S. Now I really like it again on my K-1 II, as it does a lot to compensate for the weight of the camera body, as an amazingly compact yet useful zoom lens.

The only drawback, it has since developed a rather irritating issue with a rubberized narrow strip that has come loose. It is the half that goes around the bottom and has a little window to display the serial number underneath. I have simply removed it. Its glue is still sticky so I can tack it back down, but it soon comes up again. I'm not sure what kind of glue I can put on it to fortify the failing glue. Super glue might do, but getting it down exactly in position might be tricky, since this type of glue grabs instantly and does not allow for any adjustments. The upper half having the window showing the distance scale seems to be ok so far.

[Jonathan Mac]

It’s a selling point for starter camera to take four AA batteries, and provide it with the best lithium rechargeable ones and a charger.

Yes, I know, I fell for that selling point thinking it'd be handy and cheaper than using proprietary lithium batteries, but it's not, it's frustrating and expensive.

[Lord Lucan]

... a rubberized narrow strip that has come loose ...

I have also had that issue withthe 35-70mm. Only 1/2" at one end was unstuck so I did not have a positioning problem. I have glued it down with Alpha Thixofix which is a kind of contact adhesive that allows a little adjustment before it grabs. I did not need the adjustment in my case, but it also has the advantage of not creating the "cobwebs" that ordinary contact adhesive makes. Wrapped it with some strong rubbe bands while it dried and has been OK for 6 months so far.

[MarkJerling]

Those photos are with the cracked element.

Thanks for your reply. Now, I'm seriously impressed!

[MarkJerling]

I bought mine used in perfect shape years ago, mainly for use on my MZ-S. Now I really like it again on my K-1 II, as it does a lot to compensate for the weight of the camera body, as an amazingly compact yet useful zoom lens.

The only drawback, it has since developed a rather irritating issue with a rubberized narrow strip that has come loose. It is the half that goes around the bottom and has a little window to display the serial number underneath. I have simply removed it. Its glue is still sticky so I can tack it back down, but it soon comes up again. I'm not sure what kind of glue I can put on it to fortify the failing glue. Super glue might do, but getting it down exactly in position might be tricky, since this type of glue grabs instantly and does not allow for any adjustments. The upper half having the window showing the distance scale seems to be ok so far.

I had one that did that. I found a bit of (thin) 3M 2-sided tape did the trick.

[Rondec]

What fascinates me is that forty or fifty years ago Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Minolta all battled each other for consumer dollars, and each had different lens mounts, but the sensor (35mm film) was shared by all players.

Even then a fast fifty was the mainstay of the market. The common primes were 12, 24, 28, 35, of course the 50, 85, 135, and 200.

It’s always been true, that when you buy new you get what you pay for.

My mainstay camera and lens is an Olympus M5.2 with a 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens that when new cost a thousand for the camera and a thousand for the lens.

I also own an Olympus P-5 with an f1.8 17mm prime and VF-4 viewfinder that cost $1,500 new as a package.

Neither of those cameras are worth a hoot tracking a moving subject.

I also own a Canon T5i with STM kit lens, a 24mm STM prime, and 55-250 STM telephoto. It has excellent tracking autofocus for the few times I want that.

But I’ve had an epiphany recently about Pentax, and because of this:

Olympus is releasing a $2,000 new camera that I can use all my MFT lenses on plus adapt all my legacy glass to.

And if I give my current MFT cameras good light I’d not be able to tell much difference.

But if I spend $1,800 new (or $1,000 used) for a Pentax K1.2 body and another thousand for a new high end Pentax Fast Fifty the only step above that in image quality,,,

Is a Pentax medium frame digital.

And every medium frame Pentax lens on the market adapts to the K-x I now own or the K1.2 I will own.

MFT has advantages over APC and full frame. They are light, and I can spend $3,000 on an Olympus f4 300mm and get the same reach as a 600mm full frame lens. And there are advantages to mirrorless cameras. The live view is extremely good. Video is awesome, if I shot much video.

But for about the price of 27 spools of barbed wire ($2,300) I can and will own a Pentax K1.2 with a top end Pentax fast fifty prime.

The advantages of a K1 are they’ll shoot every lens Pentax ever made for an ILC camera, with infinity focus, and you get an optical viewfinder.

What Pentax really needs, is a $500 full frame starter camera, I think.

I think digital cameras are moving upscale. Brands may continue to have cheaper options, but they are going to cripple them in all sorts of ways. 650 dollars cameras are the new 500 dollar cameras. As far as I know, the cheapest Nikon APS-C mirrorless camera is the Z-50 which is going for around 1000 dollars on B and H.

I do get a bit aggravated when people claim that micro four thirds doubles the length of their lenses. Micro four thirds doesn't change the length of lenses at all it only crops the view you see with said lenses. If the pixel density is higher with micro four thirds you will get a bit more detail. It would take about 75 megapixels on a full frame sensor to get to the same pixel density as 20 megapixel micro four thirds. While that doesn't exist right now, the A7r IV is over 60 megapixels and if you crop its images down you won't find huge differences between it and your 20 megapixel micro four thirds camera. My expectation is that Pentax will probably move up a bit with regard to megapixels when they release a K-1 II sequel down the road.

To the OP.

It sounds like you are looking to collect older full frame lenses for an eventual purchase of a k1 or k1ii. I personally do not have those cameras but in reading threads around here it seems the sensor in those cameras out resolve the lenses. It seems like a lot of members tried to get by with their old stuff but then upgraded

I really think the "out resolves the sensor" issue isn't a big deal. Most older lenses perform quite well stopped down. If you want wide open performance, you do have to pay more for that. The star lenses have always had top notch quality, but their prices aren't nearly as low on the used market as more consumer level lenses.

Obviously there is a big range of quality, from a cheap 50 f1.7 to the DFA *50, but f8 is a great leveler of performance.

[Digitalis]

Obviously there is a big range of quality, from a cheap 50 f1.7 to the DFA *50, but f8 is a great leveler of performance.

I agree that f/8 certainly does level the playing field, however some lenses display characteristics that are unfavorable even at smaller apertures - field curvature, distortion, astigmatism, de-centering - all of these characteristics stay true no matter how much the lens is stopped down.

[MESuperian]

My cheap 100-300 autofocus lens came today and I couldn’t be more pleased.

It’s ugly, light, plasticky and cheap, and focuses fast and accurately, and the pictures look sharp to me.

When it warms up I’m taking this to Bagnell Dam at Lake of the Ozarks and shooting birds feeding below the dam.

Pentax should make an affordable entry level full frame camera, that all this old glass would shoot.