[Turbo_Spool900]

I got my K-x earlier this year and absolutely love it. I went a bit crazy and bought older M series lenses on the cheap (clean, of course) to mess around with manual focus. After the K-5 came out, I've been wondering if these lenses, or even the kit DA*L 18-55mm would do the K-5's superb IQ justice. I figure that if you're going to spend $1600 on a nice body like that, you might as well have the glass to go along with it, right? But then again, 30-40 years ago, M/A series glass was considered top notch.

Bottom line: Have lenses advanced optically as much as camera bodies have technologically and would it be worth it to shoot mostly older glass on the k-5?

[SteveM]

Beyond the rumors the k-5 will take a better picture with older glass than any Pentax digital camera before it. Can the K-5 out do a FF lens like one of the FF ltds....no.

[Abstract]

I had this concern myself, I will post up an example of my Pentax-M 50mm 1.4

Here is the shoot:



This is at 100%:

[JohnBee]

I had this concern myself, I will post up an example of my Pentax-M 50mm 1.4

Interesting.
What can you tell us about the image?

Aperture, shutter, SR etc?

[hcc]

There have been some threads in the Forum and Dpreview suggesting that the K-5 with older lenses showed the limitations of the lesser lenses

Other threads indicated that the K-5 is a great camera body with good quality lenses. For example:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/124257-k-5-fa-limiteds-%...isfaction.html

I feel that, if you invest in a Roll-Royce (ie K-5), it is rather silly to use cheap parts (ie lesser quality lenses).

Like many I will be interested to read the posts and discussions of this thread. Thank you in advance to all contributors.

[Abstract]

Settings:

1/160 second
ISO 100
F-Stop was about 11 I think.
SR was off (forgot to turn it on, was playing around before I left my house, silly me)

[JohnBee]

I feel that, if you invest in a Roll-Royce (ie K-5), it is rather silly to use cheap parts (ie lesser quality lenses).

Like many I will be interested to read the posts and discussions of this thread. Thank you in advance to all contributors.

TBH I don't know how well that illustration fits in this particular case.
The main thing that comes to mind(for me) when I look at it this way is where or what a FF would qualify as in contrast to the K-5?
Mainly due to the fact that FF seems to actually enhance glass performance over that of a crop sensor.

Another point in favor of older glass is for specialty purposes. And though I am a believer in the limited models, I just don't know that they would come a substitutes for some of the cult lenses out there for reasons like bokeh, natural vignette and /or colors etc etc.

Though I really would like to see some comparisons between the K-5 and a K20D(for example) as to how each system handles these type of lenses. Which could be vital for those who are thinking of using the K-5 for specific purposes.

Settings:

1/160 second
ISO 100
F-Stop was about 11 I think.
SR was off (forgot to turn it on, was playing around before I left my house, silly me)

Okay that makes total sense.
I was seeing an ever slight blurring in the image and I was wondering where it came from . So that makes perfect sense, since 1/160 is about the threshold of where handholding becomes feasible without SR.
Also I think the 50/1.4 looses a bit of IQ past f/8 and onward.

All in all, I'd say pretty darned good though.

[Abstract]

Okay that makes total sense.
I was seeing an ever slight blurring in the image and I was wondering where it came from . So that makes perfect sense, since 1/160 is about the threshold of where handholding becomes feasible without SR.
Also I think the 50/1.4 looses a bit of IQ past f/8 and onward.

All in all, I'd say pretty darned good though.

Yeah, It was a silly mistake but I still think I can blow this up rather big without that blurring even being noticeable, looks a bit sharper then on this forum...seems like it degraded over a little.

Thanks!

[jbinpg]

Here is a shot I took today with my M28/2.8. Not up to Limited quality but shows what you can expect. ISO 80, f/8, 1/20s, AWB, SR on, handheld. The tiff is much better than this dinky reduction.

[creampuff]

I just let go of a rare A 35mm f/2 because on the K-5, it just shows how hopelessly outclassed it is compared a modern designed optic like the DA 35mm. The ability to resolve fine detail with the K-5 is stunning and old legacy junk just won't hack it. It just reinforces my preference on not keeping old lenses anymore. Just my personal opinion.

[Abstract]

I just let go of a rare A 35mm f/2 because on the K-5, it just shows how hopelessly outclassed it is compared a modern designed optic like the DA 35mm. The ability to resolve fine detail with the K-5 is stunning and old legacy junk just won't hack it. It just reinforces my preference on not keeping old lenses anymore. Just my personal opinion.

To say its junk is a horrible thing to say, Old lenses can go head to head with newer ones from what I have experienced on my Nikon Camera and now my Pentax. I somehow doubt the 35MM F2 had bad results unless its much worse then my M 50mm 1.4...Which from what I see and hear is untrue...Are you exaggerating?

I plan on only using old glass on this camera and I am probably not the only one here that will.

[JohnBee]

I just let go of a rare A 35mm f/2 because on the K-5, it just shows how hopelessly outclassed it is compared a modern designed optic like the DA 35mm. The ability to resolve fine detail with the K-5 is stunning and old legacy junk just won't hack it. It just reinforces my preference on not keeping old lenses anymore. Just my personal opinion.

Though I wouldn't call it junk(personally), I think the SMC-A 35/2 wasn't the most renown 35mm either. I only say this, as I've owned a K 35/2 that was nowhere near as sharp as the K 35/3.5 which I wouldn't part with for the world btw.

However, what really picks my curiosity on the topic is where many oppinions are made about the K-5 with regards to older glass. Though we have yet to see any tests or comparissons to help extablish whether or not any of it is even viable.

Having said that... I really hope someone who cares will pick-up on this and take the initiative.

[conradj]

Old glass isn't ipso facto bad glass: it can be very nice stuff indeed. You just have to do some research to zero in on which ones are capable of the qualities you're looking for. Zoom lenses are optically complex and really old zooms aren't calcuated as well as modern ones so can be dodgy.

And then, old or new, it's a bit of a crap shoot whether you find one that's manufactured well enough that its original design goals are in full force. With old glass there's the additional issue of whether if during its life time it's been used as a baseball bat or dropped on it's head from a great height.

With new glass you also have SDM. Maybe Pentax will go over to DC drives and then that'll not be a worry. What i've seen of Pentax's DC drive says it's an immensely elegant and mechanically simple idea, which is very desirable: i don't want Rube Goldberg inside my lenses.

It's true i don't like using manual focus zooms on a modern body that has SR, but that's because the manual focus zooms don't communicate focal length to the body and thus SR doesn't function optimally.

New glass has different design goals and different lens coatings, different ideas abt what's good colour, and also might fit the needs of digial sensors better.

Old glass can get run over by a dump truck or roll off the cliff, and then you can bury it without going into paroxysms as to what it meant to your bank account.

i have some crappy old stuff and some crappy new ones, but also very lovely old lenses, and a couple lovely new ones.

The pride of my collection is a K mount Osawa 135mm. that you don't have to focus at all, because the image looks exactly the same whether or not it's in focus: MUSH. When i take a photo with it of my neighbour, the only way you can tell if it's him or his minivan is that the minivan seem to be a bit wider.

[Erik]

When i take a photo with it of my neighbour, the only way you can tell if it's him or his minivan is that the minivan seem to be a bit wider.

[yyyzzz]

In the vast majority of cases, it is the photographer that is the "bottleneck." You can use *ist DS to shoot great photos. You can also use the vast majority of older Pentax (K, M, A) lenses to get fantastic pictures. For instance, the optical formula of FA50 f1.4 is pretty much the same as K50 f1.4. My DA* 55 f1.4 is not much superior to say K50 f1.4. Complaining about equipment is like complaining about politics.

because on the K-5, it just shows how hopelessly outclassed it is compared a modern designed optic like the DA 35mm. The ability to resolve fine detail with the K-5 is stunning and old legacy junk j