|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-20-2018, 08:33 AM
|
| |
Even if the 1.8/135mm is not properly rare, just uncommon and expensive, I guess that the total number isn't big at all.
I guess that to reach the number of the most common Pentax lenses you have to add three zeros, maybe even four.
Your Pentax-M 3.5/135mm will never be rare (it was one of the most successful Pentax lenses ever, I remember that at the time each and every shop had at least one example for sale), but there is nothing negative in it. It sold well because it was good and relatively inexpensive!
I owned one myself, of course :)
Fortunately the relationship between price and performance is not linear. It's more a logarithmic one.
For a small increase in speed and build/IQ, we have to pay a huge price premium. Which means that very good lenses can be had for very low prices nowadays, if the goal is good IQ and not rarity.
So if you are not a bokeh enthusiast, or a collector, you have plenty of good reasons to be perfectly satisfied with your lens.
Personally I believe that if you shoot the same picture with the two lenses, yours and the A Star, both at f/8, it would be VERY difficult to tell the difference. Maybe impossible.
Btw, there is an A* that I would define properly rare: the 1200mm. Never seen one with my eyes.
As I've never seen a Quartz Takumar, or any Ultra-Achromatic Takumar.
Back in the time, in a half million city, I had the chance to buy second hand both the 1.8/135mm and the 4/200mm Macro, speaking of A Star's.
I was not interested, but I remember I also saw a 600mm, and I'm almost sure the 2.8/400mm too.
I admit I'd love to own them all, but in all sincerity uncommon/expensive lenses are more a pleasure to own than a pleasure to shoot with.
If you have very valuable lenses you'd find all possible excuses to leave them at home if there is any chance the equipment could get ruined or stolen.
I travel a lot and live in a humid, tropical climate. I always end up carrying the second best, which is a shame... but after fighting fungi with scarce success, and having a lens worth $500/600 infested twice in a row, I decided to play it safe and use my most valuable optics only when I see no risks.
Recently I'm trying to restrain my collector's appetites (kind of successfully), and instead I'm having plenty of fun trying to find uncelebrated lenses that perform much better than expected. It's cheap and very rewarding :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-07-2018, 11:11 AM
|
| |
Yes, 135mm's are a love or hate thing :)
Personally I've always liked them back in film times, and I even forced myself to use the focal on APS-C!
The result were a mixed bag. One time I did a flash mob with a 135mm and it was definitely a bit too much, most of the portraits were a bit too tight!
Doing concerts it played much better. I did portraits of the singer/musicians from under the stage, or either half figure or full figure portraits when I couldn't reach a better position. Having the same field of view of a 200mm on FF allows to take pictures of the performers even when it's practically impossible to get close to the stage.
I remember in particular two times, when I really forced myself to use a vintage M42 prime even if I had better (and easier to use!) PKAF zooms or PKA primes! :)
I had them at hand and ready to be used, but I wanted to extensively test two humble 135mm's and see how they would fare.
In the end both lenses showed much better performance than expected. Unfortunately it's not always possible to back off and zoom with one's feet... so I ended up with some shots that were tighter than I wanted them to be.
Btw, the two humble M42 135mm's were a Porst 2.8/135mm (Sun-made, silver, four elements) and a late Enna 2.8/135mm (black, partly plastic version).
Both performed decently wide open, and quite well stopped down a little (when there was enough light). The performance of the K-01 at high ISO is not outstanding, so I always tried my best to keep the sensitivity of the sensor as low as possible.
Today I use almost exclusively the full frame format, and I love the focal. I often use a 135mm on my K-1, for example for portraits.
I think that 135mm is not excessive for portrait use. On average it's better than 85mm and worse than 100/105mm.
It flattens the face if used from too far, but I like tight portraits, so I shoot from close enough to be happy with the result.
On most occasions a 135mm meets my tastes more than a FL of 85mm.
Regarding the flute player... I guess it is common to have a bad handling of the instrument if you are self-taught (not sure about that but very probable).
He played well though. Thai people are predisposed to learn music, and many youngsters play an instrument, in most cases self-taught.
I love live music, and I'm very happy there is plenty of it in Thailand.
Cheers
Paolo
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2018, 04:52 AM
|
| |
No opinion is "nonsense". All are respectable.
Though if you compare an A Star with a DA with non-working AF it's a bit apples and oranges :)
The increase in price from an average prosumer AF build to an old-style MF build is much more than 15%.
It's not my guess or your guess, just check the price of Zeiss and Voigtlander objectives (which I suspect are not on par with the mechanics of the A*).
Building a similar lens nowadays would probably cost a lot of money. If sold to the public with the same kind of profit typical of premium AF lenses, it would be very expensive to the customers.
My point is that being MF does not implicitly reduce the value (intended as cost) of the lens.
The main point is if the performance (considering build, ergonomics, ease of manual focusing, aesthetics) deserves such high prices.
Also considering the relative rarity of the lens, and its price when it was sold new, I'd say that the price is excessive, but not completely crazy.
Maybe one day I will buy the Samyang. I believe it's a very good lens, and from the charts I see that the optical performance is at the same level of the cream of the crop (read Zeiss).
I own four recent Samyang objectives, so I have also an idea of the downsides.
The build is decent but not exceptional, and the quality control is lacking.
I bought one new and three used, and all in all I'm satisfied. Two are very good (24mm and 35mm) and two good enough (14mm and 85mm).
The 14mm could be better. I considered that others had horror stories and decided to keep it.
You see... there are other aspects other than sharpness. I think the Samyang is conveniently priced, taking into account its performance. However it can't be denied that is another kind of objective.
There are not so many choices available in PK mount, and even considering screw mount lenses the possible choices are limited.
The Porst is a specialty lens, it has a funky rendering and nice bokeh but lacks sharpness.
I own another f/1.8, the Raynox Polaris. It's older than the Porst, has better sharpness and beautiful bokeh, but has M42 mount and definitely is not the sharpest lens.
The Tokina-made Soligor C/D P 2/135mm is much better: good build, sharp enough and nice bokeh. Though has a screw mount, and was never made in PK bayonet. Not very practical, much slower and limited than a PKA.
There is one on eBay now, at half what I consider the appropriate price. Strangely it didn't sell immediately. Maybe because few people know about its qualities.
I like it a lot, though if I had to express my educated guess I'd say that it is the best of my fast 135mm's but still quite far from the A Star.
Few fast vintage 135mm lenses are available in the second hand market. I believe it is one of the causes of the high price of the A*.
The 1.4/85mm, one of the best Pentax lenses ever (IMHO), is definitely cheaper because there are other alternatives.
I agree that it would be nice to see the same subject shot wide open with both the A* 1.8/135mm and the Samyang 2/135mm.
Can't wait to satisfy my curiosity.
I have no idea what to expect...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-31-2018, 11:18 PM
|
| |
It seems a lot to me... but in all sincerity I have to say that price dynamics looks really unfathomable to me.
I'll probably never get a grip on them. Internet hype is affecting prices in a major way, and rare, expensive lenses seem to get less affordable with time, even if the user base is restricted.
Back in the old days it was exactly the opposite.
When Pentax decided to leave the LX as a one off tentative, a number of professionals who had turned to Pentax just because of the quality of the LX, went to Olympus or Nikon, selling expensive lenses in the process.
Some of them had already bought A lenses, waiting for a pro body with electric contacts.
When it was clear that it was not going to happen (the Super-A was not what they expected), those lenses were sold.
More or less at that time I acquired the Pentax-A 3.5/15mm, 2.8/20mm, 2/35mm, 1.4/85mm Star, 2.8/200mm Star.
One day I went to Milan, to buy a couple of large format lenses and sell a Leitz 28mm.
I found a beautiful Pentax-A* 2.8/300mm, like new, in its case, with a 2x 'L' dedicated converter and a very expensive Heliopan polarizer (very large, because unlike other filters it can't go in the filter drawer at the back).
I remember I paid it 1.700.000 italian liras. It was still sold new, and the official price was around 14.00.000. IIRC the advertised price had been even higher, about 17.000.000! I guess street price was lower, but not so much, at least not in Italy.
Today the second hand price would be higher, even after the introduction of AF and the release of comparable F Star and FA Star lenses.
The reason is that A Star lenses are very good and some of them are quite rare. Collectors drive up the prices.
At that time professionals were selling their highly expensive lenses because they switched brand, but few amateurs were willing to pay such high prices, so the market followed the rule of demand and offer. Some lenses ended up being sold at 1/8, or even 1/10 of the advertised price, cause nobody was willing to spend more, and no brick and mortar store was willing to immobilise that kind of money for too long...
In hindsight I should have taken the chance to buy a couple more desirable objectives for similarly slashed prices, I distinctly remember when I had the chance to buy the 1.8/135mm and the 4/200mm Macro! Two lenses I definitely can't afford at today's crazy prices :(
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-31-2018, 08:36 AM
|
| |
I like the bokeh, and I like very much the picture with the flowers!
The sharpness is not easy to assess, because of the size of the pics... but I like what I see, finally I can examine some meaningful examples shot with the A* 1.8/135mm
Your point about the price is not realistic.
Why on earth AF lenses should cost more than similar MF ones?
I guess that manufacturing objectives with the build quality of the A Star's at present day would be much more expensive than producing an identical lens with the quality standards (and the materials) typical of expensive prosumer AF lenses currently available in the market.
If you deem AF lenses more valuable because they better fit your needs/likings it's perfectly fine to me.
If you express an opinion about their economical value you should also explain why. Manual lenses, like those sold by Zeiss and Voigtlander/Cosina, have an high cost because they are still built more or less the same way lenses were built 40 years ago.
I appreciate a durable mechanical construction with tight tolerances, and if the price is similar I usually prefer a PKA objective to an AF one.
Which implicitly means that I value an MF lens more than an AF one, not one half!
The A Star has two cards up its sleeve. One is very real, it's the quality of its build. The other one is POSSIBLE, and it would be the OOF rendering (call it bokeh, if you like the word).
Here I am following you.
To fully ascertain the quality of the bokeh, and of course the level of sharpness, high res images would serve the purpose much better.
Especially the latter, we can't tell sharpness with low res pictures.
Though the quality of the bokeh shown in the pictures that have been posted is quite good to my eyes.
I would like to see the same pics shot with the Samyang (which is of course sharper, but I'm not sure it's a bokeh monster).
The cost of the A Star is for the most part due to its rarity.
I still have to understand if the out of focus rendering makes it special, aside from the collector's value, making it a worthy purchase for those who have enough money to spend and want a beautifully made optic potentially capable of great bokeh. I still haven't made up my mind.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2018, 01:07 AM
|
| |
I doubt it would be really useful.
In all sincerity, I'd love to own (or at least test for a few days) such beautiful lens, but I wouldn't expect a much better sharpness at, say f/2.8, than the AF version of the same focal. And of course it would be trashed by the Samyang (in sharpness and fringing).
Albeit not as beautifully made, it matches the best of the crop (Zeiss).
Very few times what you expect from optical design is not matched by real life performance.
At that time, using no ED glasses, Pentax designers did the best they could.
I remember when it was released, it was a very good lens, but not as outstanding as the 85mm.
Let's not forget that in film times super fast lenses were designed to allow for easier focusing in extremely low light. Shooting wide open was last resort, to avoid motion blur. The best photographers of sports/concerts/etc made an extensive use of panning. In digital time it can be used for creative purposes, it's not a necessity anymore.
Having said all that, sharpness is not a dogma, and pixel peeping is a captivating pastime, but not a goal. The way we like or dislike the rendering of a picture is all that matters, in the end.
I'd like to see pictures shot with the A*, wide open or closed one click, showing in high res the way this lens handles out of focus. From distant highlights to almost in focus.
Shooting at infinity would inevitably highlight the faults and take out of the equation the possible strong points.
The only important optical design optimized for infinity I'm aware of is the Leitz Canada Apo Telyt 180mm. Because of a specific US Navvy request.
As much as I like to see myths debunked, I like old lenses :) So I appreciate when they are given a fair chance to show what they are capable of. Shooting optical targets or concentrating on infinity performance is a kind of mistreatment such old ladies should not be exposed to :)
Previous posts already highlighted the substantial lack of pictures shot wide open with the A* 1.8/135mm.
The total number of posted pics is quite low, and very few are actually shot in a way that could evidence the possible strengths of this lens.
I am very curious about the real performance of this beautiful example of opto-mechanical design.
Pictures intentionally shot "for bokeh" would help to understand the real value of a lens of this kind.
I love photographic lenses since long time, I developed my own tastes and had the chance to use a lot of different optics, but I am still very far from the level of understanding and experience of real connoisseurs. It's like with Hi-Fi, the more you get into it, the more you appreciate subtle differences... that become not so subtle once you learn what to look for.
I have two friends who repaired and tested a huge number of optics, including the very best. One still adjusts the focusing of rangefinder Leica lenses to minimal tolerances.
Sometime I realise the competence gap, it's like when a Hi-Fi enthusiast tells me why he likes the analog (vinyl) more than the digital (CD). It's way beyond my reach :)
Though I still trust my eyes more than anything else and try my best to have unbiased opinions.
IMHO the best way to judge the performance of a lens like the A* is to carefully check images that could evidence its potential.
Something like this. Main subject off center, various planes of progressive defocusing. It would have been better to have the background further away, and with some strong highlights.
Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm @f/2 on K-1 full frame
 K_1_2427 by spaulein, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-23-2018, 08:29 AM
|
| |
Not the only one.
It's the only Pentax and maybe the best (optically), excluding adapted lenses, though there are a number of other options, even discarding leitaxed/adapted objectives.
I have a couple of them myself.
The best is the Soligor (Tokina) C/D P f/2 135mm, which is not exactly as fast, but has a nice bokeh, good overall rendering, and a build quality not far from the outstanding mechanics of Pentax-A Star lenses.
It's a very good portrait lens, and maybe it was also made in PK mount. I have the M42 version cause I found it at an affordable price. I don't think a PKA version was ever made.
The second is the Porst (Makinon) 1.8/135mm in PK mount. It's a decent performer, it's not rare, and it's rather easy to find it on Ebay. It's also the cheapest of the three.
The last is a Raynox Polaris 1.8/135mm in M42 screwmount. It's the oldest, it's not very sharp wide open, but I like the rendering. It has proven to be better than I expected.
None of them is very expensive, and all of them serve their purpose: thin DOF and blurred backgrounds.
Here is a picture with the optical designs of all the vintage f/1.8 135mm's that can be used on a Pentax DSLR camera.
The Zeiss could be adaptable using a Leitax mount. I don't remember which Zeiss are adaptable, and I have no idea if a lens similar to the one in the picture has been successfully adapted. Others on this forum know much better :)
Credit goes to whoever posted this interesting picture in the first place. Sorry, I have no track of the original URL/author.
This post is old, though after seeing it has been revived, I decided to share the little info I know, showing a few possible alternatives to either the old A* and the Sammy.
I believe the monumental A* has something more than the Samyang, and of course it's not sharpness wide open.
What the Pentax has for sure is a great build and the pleasure of handling (and shooting with) such a smooth, refined, beautiful objective.
I didn't buy it when i had the funds and the price was much lower, but I know very well how these lenses are, cause I have other three A Star's.
Leaving aside the collector's value and considerations about the build, a fair way to compare the Pentax to the Samyang would be to test the way they handle out of focus.
The Samyang wins hands down in sharpness, it's one of the most amazing (fast) 135mm's ever.
I also expect a better handling of both LaCA and LoCA.
What I don't know, and would like to see, is the performance of the Pentax on different focus planes of the image.
To do that, pictures have to be shot with bokeh in mind. Which generally means to leave the in-focus subject on one side, leave some blurred foreground if at all possible, and have different planes of progressive defocusing. The background should be distant, possibly with strong highlights.
I'm sure there are a number of photos of this kind shot with the Sammy. I remember I checked Flickr for examples of its bokeh.
Pictures shot with the A* are scarce, and I think I've seen none of them properly showing how it handles OOF rendering.
Until I see how it fares under this point of view I reserve my judgement.
From my personal experience I have understood that some over-hyped optics might cost a bit too much, but the rendition is definitely special... and not because they are sharp! :)
Some Meyer lenses, like the Trioplans and the Primoplan, are probably a little overpriced, though if you compare them with an humble Pentax-M 2/50mm and say that they should be cheaper because they are not as sharp.... well, I guess would be pointless to try to argue that photography is not mathematics :)
|
