[mlag]

One could say, prices for classic lenses:
- the common, standard lenses are quite cheap. 50mm and standard zoom ranges like 28-70. Or medium zoom tele’s up to 210mm, with typical apertures f3.5 to f6.8, as this used to be a common sold tele range as 2nd lens. Can be 10€ to 70€ or $.
- primes get more expensive than zooms, as zooms tend to be compromise on image quality to allow to cover the extended focal range..
- apertures with f1.x or 2.x tend to be more expensive, as they allow taking pictures in low light conditions and these tend to have nice bokeh...
- long range teles 300mm and more, are more rare and hence more expensive. If they have f2.x or f4 even more expensive, as typical supertele can be f5.6 or more.
- also fish eye and very wide angle are less common. As tiltshift or macro 1:1 lenses. Hence more expensive...
- also expensive : some lenses recognised as special, like star or limited lenses from pentax...or short focus or extreme sharpness reputations, or designed by Zeiss etc.
- pentax typically higher valued than sigma/tamron or vivitars/samyangs etc... but there are exceptions.
- neat copies, without scratches or wear, in the original box or pouch, complete with filters or caps, .... are more expensive...
- medium format more expensive than fullframe than apsc
- auto exposure and autofocus might be a value for some buyers, but it’s amazing how many of us still like manual focus...


But there is always the odd occasion, albeit professional sellers know this ranking also....
And : it is a tendency, not always facts.. But acquiring a set of standard lenses can indeed be quite cheap. They might not be exceptional but provide a very decent starters kit. The only risk is that you start collecting lenses ....

A current price example:
vintage pentax-A 300mm f2.8 manual focus 2700€ , versus the newer, still produced autofocus 300mm f4 second hand 800€ or new 1000€.
Reason : f2.8 and auto-exposure - this vintage was only sold in low quantities, hence rare - there is no new successor with f2.8.
Compare also with the manual pentax-m* 300mm f4 for 400€ or Vivitar 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 MC Pentax-A for 70 euro...
(all prices from large secondhand camera camera site in europe, eBay and the likes might be bit cheaper - sometimes)

[Lord Lucan]

.

Now I’ve won an FA 100-300 lens for $ 24.40 in an auction

I have one of those too (cost £20). It is sharp, but what lets it down on the market is that it feels cheap : light (in colour and weight), plasticky, rattles, and the extending part wobbles.

My SMC-F 35-70mm AF macro lens practically lives on my K-1ii

I got one of those (£12.50) as a walk-about and street lens on my K-1. I found the wide end not wide enough for street so I got a FA 28-79 F4 AL (£20) for that use instead.

[BigMackCam]

I got one of those (£12.50) as a walk-about and street lens on my K-1. I found the wide end not wide enough for street so I got a FA 28-79 F4 AL (£20) for that use instead.

My most used lens on my Pentax APS-C gear is a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, as I'm not a big wide-angle guy. I've become very fond of the 35-70 on APS-C, and whilst I'd prefer it went a bit wider, the optical quality is just so nice... it's not like it's the sharpest lens I own, but it produces really good images - and it's such a compact thing too. I paid more for mine than you did yours, but it was still an utter bargain. I wouldn't let it go for twice what I paid...

[MESuperian]

What I’ve learned in accumulating about $200 worth of K mount glass that fills a large camera bag is this:

1. If it reads Ashai SMC M Pentax, oh my goodness, it’s a top of the line, jewel like lens. I want more of these.

2. If it’s Sears but made by Ricoh it’s a well built, good lens, just not to Ashai Pentax standards of finish.

3. Third party lenses generally decline in build quality as they get newer. A Vivitar or Focal isn’t junk, but they had to be cheaper than a real Pentax.


4. When digital very nearly killed off 35mm SLRs the old lenses were wonderful.

5. That Pentax should be the only DSLR any amateur photographer should consider, because image quality is equal or better than the same quality of Nikon or Canon, but only a Pentax can ALWAYS shoot any old K mount or earlier Pentax M42 mount lens.

If my $100 K-x can mount and shoot all that old glass, just think what more fun could be had with a new K-1!

[GUB]

What I’ve learned in accumulating about $200 worth of K mount glass that fills a large camera bag is this:

1. If it reads Ashai SMC M Pentax, oh my goodness, it’s a top of the line, jewel like lens. I want more of these.

2. If it’s Sears but made by Ricoh it’s a well built, good lens, just not to Ashai Pentax standards of finish.

3. Third party lenses generally decline in build quality as they get newer. A Vivitar or Focal isn’t junk, but they had to be cheaper than a real Pentax.


4. When digital very nearly killed off 35mm SLRs the old lenses were wonderful.

5. That Pentax should be the only DSLR any amateur photographer should consider, because image quality is equal or better than the same quality of Nikon or Canon, but only a Pentax can ALWAYS shoot any old K mount or earlier Pentax M42 mount lens.

If my $100 K-x can mount and shoot all that old glass, just think what more fun could be had with a new K-1!

I agree with this comment about Pentax quality but it is important to realise that in search of excellence they kept their lens specifications a little more conservative than off brands like Vivitar and Soligor. And yes there is exceptions like the 1.2s.
It is nice to have alternatives like the Soligor 200mm f2.8, Chinon 55mm f1.7 macro, Vivitar 135mm f2.3 and the Weltblik 135mm f1.8 that may not have bleeding edge sharpness but bring individuality to the mix.

[pschlute]

If it reads Ashai SMC M Pentax, oh my goodness, it’s a top of the line, jewel like lens. I want more of these.

That is too simplistic I am afraid. The M series had some real stand out lenses in the series (I know because I own most of them), but the "K" series that preceded the M by only a few years probably had more.

This is subjective of course, but in my time on this and other forums, and my use of many of the lenses in question, I feel pretty certain about my remarks here.

[mikesbike]

I don't want to disillusion you, but I think that one is decentered. The left side looks a bit soft. Here's how to check: How to Check Your Lens for Decentering - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

Expect a few hits and a few misses with old lenses. When you are paying so little you have little to lose.

Now that I look more closely, I see this too. The 2nd of the house being the most noticeable- but even here it is not terribly bad. However, being a less than perfect lens doesn't mean you can't take very good photos with it. In the case of this Tamron 70-210mm lens, the way it is being used here is not typical of such lenses- a telephoto zoom lens being used for landscape-type shots of architectural subjects filling up most of the frame, and then often at or near the full 210mm, and at wide open aperture. Of course, if wanting to compress foreground/background ratio, going more tele will do that, but then require much smaller apertures well above f/11 for clarity at least in many cases if there is much of interest in closer foreground.

Otherwise, with more typical telephoto usage, where the subject(s) of interest will occupy primarily the central area of the frame, this defect will not be an issue at all. And with APS-C, you will not even get any result from the lens's worst outer area because it is a FF design where the smaller sensor will omit that outer area. Most all lenses do not perform as well at the edges of the frame as they do in the central area.

With this lens, I recommend using it for more typical telephoto-type shots, as well as the following:

Avoid shooting at wide open aperture. Stick to mid-apertures as much as possible to get the lens's best potential.

Avoid racking all the way out to or near the lens's maximum 210mm for the same reasons.

Although these limiting aspects of usage are true for lenses in general to one degree or another, they are usually more true for lenses that are less than premium quality.

[GUB]

Maybe just a little softer on the left but the downsizing really stops comparison. I have resized about 8x for here.

[GUB]

That is too simplistic I am afraid. The M series had some real stand out lenses in the series (I know because I own most of them), but the "K" series that preceded the M by only a few years probably had more.

This is subjective of course, but in my time on this and other forums, and my use of many of the lenses in question, I feel pretty certain about my remarks here.

The only two that I can think of that may be suboptimal (at least in my ones) is the M135mm3.5 and the early model M 28mm 2.8

[mikesbike]

I think my next upgrade will be straight to a thousand dollar used K-1 upgraded to K1.2

Well, I question this value against what is available now. I see the same deals I got two years back for my K-1 II being offered at B&H, not an upgraded, converted used K-1, but a brand new K-1 II built as the K-1 II, not converted, and with factory warranty. The body only now at app. $1,800 which you can get with the battery grip thrown in free! And along with other free useful items, including a camera bag (and it is a good one), and a high-speed SD card. I took the alternate deal at app. $2,200 with the excellent, very useful and versatile DFA 28-105mm as a kit along with the other extras. I do have other, well-above average older FF lenses in this range, but the deal is the camera body at app. $1,800 (app $200 price cut) and another $100 off the separate lens price. This lens not only provides proven superior imaging quality, it has WR construction to complement the WR properties of the camera (a big plus for my decision), and a quiet, fast, accurate DC AF motor. So this was more important to me than the battery grip. Your cheap Tamron 70-210mm could still be used to extend the tele range with this camera, but its deficiencies would be more revealed, and I like using tele lenses more on APS-C anyway.

[wadge22]

Well, I question this value against what is available now. I see the same deals I got two years back for my K-1 II being offered at B&H, not an upgraded, converted used K-1, but a brand new K-1 II built as the K-1 II, not converted, and with factory warranty. The body only now at app. $1,800 which you can get with the battery grip thrown in free! And along with other free useful items, including a camera bag (and it is a good one), and a high-speed SD card. I took the alternate deal at app. $2,200 with the excellent, very useful and versatile DFA 28-105mm as a kit along with the other extras.

I dunno. I think the used idea camera makes a whole lot of sense.
That's how I bought my K1 (not a K1ii: I got a real steal from KEH at ~$900 in 2020, bargain condition but it seemed/seems great to me). If it had cost $1800 or $2200, I simply would never have gotten it in the first place, no matter what warranties or bonuses were thrown in. And even if I had the extra $900-$1300 to spend at the time, I think a few $200-$500 used lenses of my choosing would serve me better than a warranty and a kit lens (though I fully understand that the 28-105 is a great lens).
I'm not convinced the difference between K1 and K1ii matters too much at all.

YMMV, as always.

[MESuperian]

My wife and I enjoyed a $25 take home meal while shopped for old Pentax glass on eBay.

My Amish renter from the Amish Community called and his brother found good, heavy steel six foot T posts for $5.50 each, but I had to buy a full pallet of 600. I’ve bought the wire, now the T posts, and I have to still buy corners and heavy line posts.

When I get this mile plus some fence put up, I’m going to splurge on a Pentax K1.

A camera is a fun plaything, not as much fun as playing farmer, but certainly a whole lot cheaper.

When I get my K1 (or K1.2) I’m going to buy the latest, sharpest, best 50mm fast prime for it Pentax makes.

Yesterday I bought the 100-300 tele that will work, for $25, and tonight I just bought a 28-80 FA AL kit lens for it.

Since it’s a Pentax it will also work on my K-x, such a deal, such a deal.

[Wheatfield]

Last week I received my Pentax K-x and I was able to shoot every old K and M mount lens I owned. I had to either use stepped down green button metering, or shot Av wide open, but a happy man was me!

Then a $25 Tamron 28-210 Auto KP/AR lens arrived, I removed the Ricoh pin, and now my K-x shoots that lens set on Auto with full connection for Program, Tv, Av, even the Scene modes. What a wonderful lens! All I do is focus and shoot!

Now I’ve won an FA 100-300 lens for $ 24.40 in an auction with four other bidders.

As I understand old Pentax lenses, a few FA lenses are still being made and they are full frame autofocus lenses that are current for the K-1 and work on all other modern Pentax APC DSLRs, including my K-x.

An FA isn’t optimized for digital, but why are they and other old Pentax lenses so cheap?

Try buying an FA*200/4 macro in good condition and come back and tell us how used Pentax lenses are cheap to buy.

[Digitalis]

A lot of cheap K mount lenses are severely compromised designs, and often their physically lackluster construction leads to optical shortcomings. Sure there are a few gems buried amongst the chaff: Tokina 90mm f/2.5, Sigma 50mm f/2.8, Pentax 35mm f/3.5 and 135mm f/3.5 are examples of low cost lenses with respectable optical qualities.

Try buying an FA*200/4 macro in good condition and come back and tell us how used Pentax lenses are cheap to buy.

But that lens is actually worth it.


Pentax K10D - SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED Macro

[MarkJerling]

It's one of the best bargains around, IMHO. Even on APS-C where the field of view and versatility are more restricted, it's a great lens. I don't know why it doesn't sell for more... Perhaps it's just that so many were manufactured?

Here's my latest shots with this little lens.

A tiny, tiny mushroom in a plant pot in the dining room.