Good Glass

I finally get it!
For years now ( has it really been that long? ), I've heard some of you guys waxing lyrical about certain lenses. I now understand it!

I have been trying to photograph my daughter at the riding school for a long time now, but the light is no good. I don't want to use a flash in case it startles the horses, so I've persevered with my kit lens, trying all sorts of settings ( though I usualy forget to up the ISO ).

Today I took my manual 50mm f1:1.7. Wow! What a lens.
Not many shots worked out, due to focussing prblems with a manual lens and moving object. But even with the blurred shots I could tell the difference with the lens.
And I now have a couple for the family album.

Kit lens is decent for what it does but very limiting. 50/1.7 is a great lens in all its incarnations. Have fun with it!

I just bought a 50mm prime after avoiding them for a long time. it smokes and is even marginally better than my pride and joy the DA* 50-135 in terms of sharpness. only marginally though.

however the speed and bokeh of the prime is unsurpassed.

glad your enjoying the 50 f1.7 i have one and i use it a lot wonderful piece of old glass

With a manual lens, you can "prefocus" on a spot where you expect a shot may become available (because of the trajectory of the subject, say a regular route such as a riding ring, trail, roadway, railway line, running track), then wait and catch them just as they arrive there.

In better light, or with a higher ISO (or both), using a smallish aperture -e.g. f/11- you can set the lens to the hyperfocal distance for the aperture and pretty well forget all about focusing altogether (especially with lenses of focal length below 35mm or less) because of the very extensive depth of field.

If you want to add to the collection I'd suggest keeping an eye open for a good but cheap Pentax-M 135mm f3.5. Very compact and faster than pretty much anything else at that focal length (unless you get into spending big money on f2.8 zooms).

or the 135 f/2.5 ?

Regards

Got this lens two weeks ago for £29 and also got the 50mm 1.7 m lens some time ago for £10 and both are cracking bits of kit.
Ian

The SMC Pentax 135/2.5 is a lot rarer and more expensive. It seems hard enough to find the K series version of the 135/3.5 let alone the faster one.

Just avoid the one badged as a Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5, it's more or less universally considered to be dire. Ebay sellers seem to think it should be expensive due to the fast aperture, but for the same money or less you can find a good M 135/3.5 which will demolish it pretty comprehensively.

So says someone who never used it. Mine cost £49 on 28 July 1980. I regularly used it alongside my later 300* until I gave up on film and I didn't go around making apologies for its "dire" performance all the time.

I'm getting a 50mm f1.7 from Mike-P soonish, so I'm eagerly looking forward to that.

Re 135mm, can't comment on the Pentax one, but I've got the Vivitar 135mm f2.8 Close Focussing lens which is quite nice, in that it's almost macro (it goes to 1:2).

sample image of a butterfly in my back garden:

Apologies, I mistook you for someone else who was corresponding with me by PM. But the basic comment still stands.