|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 09:11 AM
|
| |
Here is my only reason for selling redundant less used gear ... getting non-redundant, higher-quality gear (ltds, f1.2s, all that jazz :D).
This makes the decisions rather easy ...
If I may recommend something ... Sep-Dec is, in my experience at least, the best time to sell gear on eBay.
My buying season starts in Jan and ends in Aug (if you would like to get top $/gear and gear/$, respectively).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 08:45 AM
|
| |
I should have qualified my comment above. I went through your list and suggested lenses to sell. I should have said that if you feel you MUST sell any, those I didn't flag to KEEP are most disposable. If you DON'T feel a need for immediate cash, keep them all for now. Values will not drop. Buyers of Canon, m/43, Sony, Samsung, and other systems discover and buy-up more and more M42 and PK glass. It's not just a stylish fad -- demand will continue to rise and supply isn't unlimited. Hang on as long as you can.
Why, in a thousand years, even YOU will be worth something, Dr Jones!
--M.Belloc, RotLA |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 12:46 AM
|
| |
If you are out of space, have to pay the bills, want to finance some other gear, sell something. But there is no reason to sell just because you think they get obsolete (they are not in my opinion, less so actually since more and more cameras can use them), they lose in value (don't think they do, actually the opposite as more cameras can use them and the interest in old manual lenses have never been greater since the arrival of autofocus), or because you think they overlap. Every lens got its own character. Just because I got myself a nice bottle of cognac, I wont get rid of my single malts.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 12:24 AM
|
| |
See the poll I just started, although when I am writing this, only 8 responders so far but 50% in the 30-40 age group suggests it will be quite a wile before these "older" shooters move on.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 09:32 PM
|
| |
Takumars have increased in price but whether they'll continue to do so or they have reachead a peak, is anyone's guess.
A few comments:
Check if this is the first or second version - the first version can sell for a nice price, because it's a different optical formula. People usually prefer the SMC version of the second design, so that may sell for less.
I don't think there is much difference between these optically and if you are going to keep the 50/1.4, I don't see the point of keeping any of these, but if you do want to keep one of them, I would keep the 55/2 because the 55/1.8 will sell for better money than the 55/2.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 05:06 PM
|
| |
I would hold onto the rarer lenses and consider holding onto the ones that you feel perform well.
Lots of choices besides Pentax to use older lenses. Any 4/3 camera - Sony has a nice new NEX camera out - Canon users like me also want these lenses for their low cost and great performance.
I think the market changes for the lenses if DSLRs get autofocus capabilities in video- presumably less videographers using the older MF lenses then. I also wonder what happhens as older shooters start moving on. I do not think there are many younger shooters with MF.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 02:03 PM
|
| |
Aside from duplicates, or close to duplicates, I would keep most of them
I have both an M42 kit and a K mount MF lens kit.
I use either one or the other, and it is easier to stay within one mount type
one thing to look at closely is the S-Tak 50/1.4 is it the 8 element version? If so keep it regardless.
When I consider duplicates, I keep the fastest of the same focal length, and would keep SMC tak over S tak in M42 mount, on the basis of beter coatings (8 element 50/1.4 excepted) unless you have the same focal length in K mount. The reason for this logic is to keep the best possible, but if there is a duplicate, i.e. SMC Tak, S Tak and K mount of same focal length, I would keep the S tak and K mount lenses so you have some slight differences in optics, My M42 lens set is quite different from my K mount lens set because the SMC Taks are just too close in perfromance to K mounts to differentiate. I went for variety to get different looks
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 12:27 PM
|
| |
I doubt that the Taks will go up significantly. There may be some M and A lenses that go up in price, but I doubt any on that list will be rising all that much.
If you don't use them, sell them.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 12:25 PM
|
| |
My humble comments: (asterisks on lenses I have)
24mm:
Vivitar (A) 24mm/2.8 (k-mount, manual focus) - keep
28mm:
S-M-C Tak 3.5/28+cap+case+hood+hood case - keep
SMC Pentax-M 2.8/28 + cap - not as great but little demand *
35mm:
S-M-C Tak 3.5/35+case+beatup hood - keep *
S-M-C Tak 3.5/35 (exterior wear) - redundant, sell *
50mm:
S-M-C Tak 1.4/50 + cap - keep
S-Tak 1.4/50+cap - redundant, sell *
SMC Pentax-M 1.7/50 + cap - keep *
SMC Pentax-A 2/50 - not as good, sell
Pentacon auto 1.8/50 (m42) - keep *
55mm:
S-Tak 1.8/55+hood - keep *
S-Tak 2/55 - redundant, sell *
Auto Mamiya / Sekor 1.4/55 (m42) +cap - keep
135mm:
S-Tak 2.5/135 + case + hood - keep *
SMC Pentax-M 3.5/135 + cap - keep *
200mm:
S-Tak 4/200 - keep *
Tele-Tak 5.6/200 + hood + case - keep *
I disagree that an A50/1.2 means you need no other 50's. The S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, M50/1.7, and Pentacon (Meyer Oreston) 50/1.8 are themselves all unique and great, as are the faster 55's. All those I flagged as KEEP are fine-to-great lenses. I'm quite happy with my copies. [Note: IMHO the best 28's are either fast or slow, not middling f/2.8]
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 11:55 AM
|
| |
If you don't use them, why keep them. I enjoy using the old glass at occasion and therefore will not sell them. But for you it might be different.
I'm eying your 28mm lenses ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 11:54 AM
|
| |
If Pentax comes out with a full frame DSLR then the old lenses will certainly hold value or even increase. Rumors fly from time to time and it does seem to be more likely since Ricoh took over. Pentax is still the only camera line whose historical lens production is still useable on the modern digital bodies. That will always be a big selling point as long as they never change it.
I also enjoy my old lenses:
SMC-A 24 2.8
SMC-A 50 1.4
SMC-A 135 2.8
SMC-A 28 2.8
SMC-A 35 2.0
SMC-M 50 4.0 Macro
Sigma MF 90 2.8 Macro
I had an SMC-A 35-105 3.5 and an FA 20-35 that I sold. Lousy decision, but the money went back into other lenses, so I guess it was ok.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 11:46 AM
|
| |
You have too many duplicates ;-)
First get rid of those duplicates, then get some better glasses.
Sell the A50/2, one of the 35/3.5, ST55/2
Keep the mamiya55/1.4, sms tak 50/1.4, ST 135/2.5
You should keep one of the focal lengths, or just upgrade to better og same focal length like K200/2.5 or K50/1.2. Or keep them all as i do ;-)
Once you have the A50/1.2, you can get rid of all your 50s, may be keep an A50/1.7 for light weight purpose.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-19-2011, 11:40 AM
|
| |
Optically they compete very well with high quality modern glass. Of course, the latter has the AF advantage.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 10:10 AM
|
| |
I think it's time to diversify (at least sell the duplicates) and move up in the world of MF. You could look for an M20 (your widest is 24) or something in that 55-135 gap (M85?). You could also look at some reasonably priced 1:2 macros. I'm kind of in the same boat and I might look at selling off some in the Asian market since it appears to support higher prices than NA.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-20-2011, 01:40 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-10-2010, 08:32 AM
|
| |
I second everything Lowell said; as usual he says true and wise things.
But I want to expand a little on the differences between tubes and bellows. The differences are not optical; they are equivalent optically. The essential difference is (perhaps minor) convenience.
Tubes require slow, disruptive operations of stacking/unstacking as you home in on the magnification and framing you want; with bellows, you turn one knob.
Typically almost 3 sets of tubes are required to get the same range of magnifications a bellows covers.
Finally, and not to be considered lightly, bellows are WAY cooler looking than tubes! Impress both friends and strangers!
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-07-2010, 05:20 PM
|
| |
Actually, M42 bellows cost rather more than tubes, but are much more flexible to use. Bellows are usually in the US$30-50 range; last week I bought a little Bellowscope with a Steinheil Culminar 105/4.5 lens for US$41 shipped. The new sets of tubes I bought a couple months ago were each around US$8 shipped. With longer lenses, it is good to have both a bellows and a couple sets of tubes. All this can be mounted on a PK camera with a safe cheap flanged non-infinity-focus M42-PK adapter, usually under US$5.
Using non-reversed camera lenses for macro can be a problem, depending on your subjects and expectations. Non-reversed, non-macro camera lenses are generally not flatfield. If your subject doesn't require edge-to-edge sharpness, no problem. If edge-to-edge sharpness is important, you have two options: use a flatfield lens, or reverse a camera lens.
A non-reversed lens can focus no closer than its focal length. A reversed lens always focuses at its register (flange focal distance), which with a Pentax lens is ~45mm (just under 2 inches), and with a Leica lens is ~28mm (just over 1 inch). Reversal ALWAYS means working very close. A flatfield lens, like a camera-macro or enlarger or bellows-macro lens, lets you work up to the focal length. A longer lens on bellows can also be used for non-macro work. And great enlarger lenses are still REAL CHEAP now. Many enlarger lenses have 39mm threads, so you also need a real cheap M39-M42 adapter ring, usually under US$3 shipped. I have maybe 20 of them.
Longer lenses need more extension (bellows and/or tubes) to reach macro magnification than do shorter lenses, and they allow (or force) you to work further from a subject. I used to put a cheap 400mm long-lens on a 2x telextender and 500mm of extension, to shoot closeups of rattlesnakes from a safe distance, like 10 feet away. Now I put a Wollensack Enlarging Raptar 162/4.5 (US$7) and 50mm of tubes on a 110mm (max) bellows, for both macro and non-macro shooting. And I avoid rattlesnakes.
I'll echo the previous advise. Use the 28mm reversed. The two Fifty's will work nicely, reversed or not - reversed for flatfield, non-reversed for atmosphere. The longer lenses will need more extension and probably a tripod. But I'd really recommend 1) a bellows, 2) 2 or 3 sets of tubes, 3) adapter and reversal rings, and 4) enlarger lenses, preferably in the 75-150mm range. Enlarger lenses longer than 80mm or so can also be used on bellows for non-macro work. Projector lenses are fun too. My one buck TDC VIVID Anastigmat 127/1.8 on bellows is a really wizard portrait lens.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-07-2010, 02:16 PM
|
| |
The 55 and 50mm lenses will work very well for macro. The longer lenses will also work, but they will need more extension and they will be more difficult to use without a tripod at high magnification. The 28mm lens would probably work better with a reversing ring than with extension tubes.
I would suggest the you look into M42 bellows rather than extension tubes. They sell for similar prices and give both greater flexibility and a wider range of magnification. My bellows adjust from about 10mm to 135 mm of extension, which gives 1:1 magnification with a 135mm lens or about 2.2:1 with a 55mm lens.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-07-2010, 02:13 PM
|
| |
I've tried an extension tube with the K 200/4, which is virtually the same lens as the tak 200, and you're not going to get close enough with standard size tubes. The 28/3.5 is too wide. Tubes should work with the 50/1.4. I've used them quite successfully with both the K 50/1.2 and the M 50/1.7, which, I believe, have the same min. focus distance as the tak 50/1.4. I have no idea how tubes would work with 135/2.5.
Any standard set of tubes should do. The cheap $10 K-mount ones on ebay can be tricky with m42 mounts, because the adapter tends not fit very snug in the tube's mount.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-17-2010, 08:41 AM
|
| |
Squished rather:
Stolen from: Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography
No sir, afaik you can put that sticker on your small format (a.k.a. 'full-format') lens and it'll work like a charm .-) As the previous posters have suggested, you are dealing with a factor equating the so-called crop factor of around 1.5 and in the a.-m. article it is stated that you are dealing with a 1+1/3 stop difference.
I would suggest upping that factor to about 1.7 - 2.0 because of cropping: Today's sensors' pics are croppable to some extent and you will see the DOF limits in a given hyperfocal bracket much quicker.
Last suggestion: Check carefully the real inf. mark on your manual lens / camera combo. If it is off the center line you can at least correct for it by applying that sticker off the line, too.
|
