Lens "Cleanup"

Well, I can't resist, I'm about to spend a bucketload of money on a few Pentax primes... it won't be cheap, but I guess I'll be very well served in the prime area. Please, please someone help me out, I need my wife to believe I'm not dreaming with these lenses at night!

If things turn out good, the only thing I need is a 31mm Limited!

In the meantime, if any of you has a good Pentax prime lens to sell, please tell me, I may be interested!

Thanks for your help!

Yipeee!

My SMC Pentax-A 50mm F/1.4 has arrived! The lens is in perfect condition optically and externally, but the moving barrel (the part that holds the front element) wobbles a bit... at first I found this scary, but the wobble is ver, very small, and from the tests I've made it does not seem to affect results.

Oh, and what results! Matt was right, this lens is worth every penny, it is the best lens I have bar none! Ultra sharp and beautiful bokeh!

On the other hand, I'm also amazed at my other new arrival: the Tokina AT-X 28-80 F/2.8. I still can't believe how sharp it is at F/2.8, how great it is build, how much the beast wheights and how good it feels in manual focus! And it has a great bokeh for a zoom! It is not the kind of lens I will take everywhere, but it sure is a wonderful piece of glass!

Still feeling the chills with these two new babies (I don't know where to turn!), I'm now waiting for a kit with an LX (with winder) and a few lenses, wich I think will satisfy my appetite for Pentax primes:

SMC Pentax-M 17mm F/4 Fisheye
SMC Pentax-M 24-35mm F/3.5
SMC Pentax-M 100mm F/2.8
SMC Pentax-K 300mm F/4

I can only guess the last one, as I never saw a 300mm prime. I took the pics from Bojidar's site and compared. I don't think I'm getting a star lens (the other 300mm are both star) because the front element on those is huge!

Anyone has any of these to comment? I still don't get my desired 35mm Pentax prime, but I'm hoping the 24-35mm zoom will be good enough for me.

I talk about the lenses to use in my DS, but there is an LX in there too. I never really got it; what is so special about the LX/metering?

Oh, these days seem like weeks!

I have used the 24-35mm and the 100mm lenses, and they are both excellent. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Flink,

I posted the following having misread your post. I thought you were thinking of buying the four lenses, not that you had already bought them. They're all fine; please read the following with my original misconception in mind:

************************************************************

I sold my K 300mm 1:4 a few years ago to help finance my first digital camera. It was a good lens, which I bought new in 1982, but big and heavy. I now have an F* 300mm 4.5, and it is a hundred times more practical. If you have a real need for a 300mm, I would suggest you save up and buy an AF lens.

Having said that, I do have, and like, and sometimes use, an M 400 5.6, but it didn't cost a lot, and I am prepared to live with its limitations because I don't have a "real need" for a 400mm. If you NEED a long lens, you need an AF long lens.

I have an M 100mm 2.8. It is a nice little lens, but not particularly special. I have owned two 100mm macros, which were better in every way except size and weight.

The 24-35mm is such a narrow zoom range that one rather wonders what the point is. However, I believe it is optically very good.

I had a Sigma fish-eye once, and hardly ever used it. Don't pay too much for your fish-eye, unless you are sure you will use it. For most people, the novelty quickly wears off.

Currently, I have 39 lenses. Most are never used. The ones that are used are the good ones; 3 Limiteds, the 2 * lenses (200 and 300mm), two 50s (1.2 and 1.4), and three good zooms (12-24, 24-90, F 70-210), plus the afore-mentioned M 400 and two macros. All are Pentax, though I do have the lovely VS1 70-210 by Komine. Great lens, but not noticeably better than the Pentax.

On holiday I usually take the zooms. At home I use the primes.

I am a terrible example of a man carried away by lens lust, but you can learn from my mistakes. Here are the golden rules:

1 Only buy what you (really) need, and will use.
2 Only buy the best. Having second-best means you will continue to hanker after the best. Save up if you can't afford it now.
3 The best is Pentax (aka the Riley rule. There are almost no exceptions.)
4 We all get old, and eye-sight deteriorates. K, M, and A lenses are great, but F, FA and DA lenses are greater (or at least, more practical).
5 F, FA, and DA lenses are greater, but Limiteds reign over all creation.
6 If you can only afford one Limited, I can't help you. If you can only afford two, omit the 40mm and 43mm (hopeless focal lengths on digital)
7 Buy second-hand - with care.

That's it. In your place, I would be agonising over which Limited to buy first.

G

Oneof my SMC-M 50mm F1.7's does exactly the same, but the results from it don't seem to differ from the other SMC-M 50mm 1.7 I own.

I've had 3 Tokina ATX-Pro's (80-200 F2.8, 20-35 F2.8, 28-70 F2.6-2. and all have been superb, both optically and in build quality.

I've got a few lenses due to arrive this week as well - an SMC-FA 50mm F1.7 (an Ebay purchase which comes with a MZ50 & 28-80 which will be going straight back on Ebay!), a Sigma 10-20mm F3.5-4.5 and a K-mount Porst 50mm F1.2

Thanks all,

I actually bought all these lenses with a nice LX all at once. I'm affraid I have also been bit by the lens addiction bug, the difference nowadays is that I've practically had enough with third parties and I'm now wanting to try Pentax glass. And this kit was too good to refuse, although a bit expensive.

I'm really hoping you're right about the 24-35! My idea is that it is almost as good as the primes it should replace, and I intend to use it more like a prime than like a zoom.

I have no 100mm fast prime, so this is to fill the gap.

The 17mm fisheye is a curiosity, as you say. I never had one, so I want to try one out. This one should be a good one from what I heard.

The 300mm is really kind of a bonus; I don't think I will use it, since I don't use my series1 70-210 nor my 80-320 that often. I'm just not a long man! I will probably try to sell it (if the lens is in good shape) to someone who can give it a better use than me.

There's also an M 50mm 1.7, but I already have the A 1.4 and A 1.7.

As for the LX, I really don't think I'll keep it. I seems to be in good condition (the seller said it was serviced), but I really have to save for a Limited now, and having the SFXn to cover my film desires, I'm affraid the LX would just gather dust. Not a particularly good fate to give to an LX, so I'll most definitly sell it.

George, I agree with you completely. That's what I'm trying to do, get the lenses I really want and having a bit of fun in the process. I've learned the Riley Rule now! As for focusing, all my primes are manual, but I don't think I'll use them in a hurry. For that I have my zooms wich are all autofocus. Plus, I couldn't afford the primes in autofocus anyway...

I think I'll be pretty happy with my primes this time. Only the Pentax-A 35mm would be a great addition.

Oh, and the Limited... I was thinking of the 31mm. I can only get one, and this is the most expensive. This one will take some time...

I haven't given up on the 24-90mm yet. It's THE zoom I'm after to complement my line-up (18-55, 28-80, 80-320), since the Tokina is not going everywhere.

I'm getting close to my dream kit! Time to save up and sell some stuff!

Thanks!
--
Oscar

Be interesting to see how the Porst performs. It's easy to make a good 50mm lens, it seems, and even those from minor makers tend to perform very well. Your Porst cheapo may turn out to be a real bargain.

G

I agree to this to a certain extent, however there are cases where the best isn't Pentax (e.g. professional quality ultra-wide to wide angle zoom for film), and there are also cases where the best might be Pentax but too expensive.

F2.8 zooms are a good example of that - there is no doubt that the FA* 28-70 and FA* 80-200 F2.8 are the best lenses available in those focal ranges, however they are very, very expensive even used. The third party alternatives (Tokina in my case) perhaps aren't quite as good as the Pentax offerings but they are very, very good. They're also much better than any of the other non-FA* AF Pentax zooms in the same focal length range.

My concern when purchasing a lens is whether it's good enough - that might mean it has a Pentax badge or it might not. I've owned a lot of lenses over the years and while two of the best three lenses I've owned where Pentax ones, 3 of the worst 4 also wore Pentax badges....

What about FA*'s? While there are plenty of other FA*'s I'd love to add to my collection I find that the limited lenses don't really appeal to me.

It was cheap for a F1.2 (£25) so I thought it'd be worth a look - I do seem to have ended up with a lot of 50mm lenses now though - the addition of it and the FA lens will mean I'll have no less than 7 prime lenses in the 50mm range!

Once I've got it (and assuming it works!) I'll let you know how I get on. One thing that persuaded me to buy it was some pictures I found on the web that had been taken using one on *stDS - you can see them here http://www.overseacruise.com/digicame/gallery019/. The text is in Japanese however a google translation indicates that with the pairs of pictures the left hand one is at F1.2 and the right at F8. At F1.2 the rendition of the out of focus areas looks quite attractive.

I suspect that you are more of a zoom man than I am, and I was really talking about primes, and I wasn't considering cost. There is no doubt that many Pentax zooms are/were cheap and cheerful, and were mainly in the 28-80 and 70-200 ranges. Nothing very wide before digital came along.

Primes, however, are another matter, and I submit that for outright optical quality, regardless of price, Pentax is the leading Japanese prime lens maker, and always has been. It's best lenses are unsurpassed even by Leitz and Contax.

I don't own, haven't owned, and probably never will own, the two great Pentax 2.8 zooms. Indeed, out of the 15 lenses I keep ready at hand (in my ealier post I omitted to mention the FA 20mm and F 135mm), only three are zooms.

As for the FA* lenses, yes, they're superb. I wish I could afford the 400mm and the 600mm. But the construction of the FA Limited lenses is superior, and optically there is nothing to beat them anywhere.

IMHO, of course.

G

Until fairly recently in addition to my Pentax kit I also owned a Contax G1 rangefinder system, with the 24, 45 and 90mm lenses. All of those are very highly regarded - especially the 90mm. I rarely used the 45mm but the other two were focal lengths I found useful, however I also owned the Pentax FA* 24mm and the FA* 85mm so was able to directly compare my own results with the various lenses. The Contax lenses were clearly very good, but the Pentax lenses more than matched them optically plus had the benefit of being considerably faster and also being used on an SLR body (Z1p in particular) which focused faster and better and also metered more accurately. The ultimately result of which was that the Contax kit didn't get used much and was eventually sold.

I own more primes than I do zooms, but certain of those zooms do get used a lot. The 10-20mm I expect to get a lot of use, and the 80-200 F2.8 Tokina certainly does. With film the humble SMC-FA 28-200 also used to get a fair amount of use as I found it optically ok (certainly better than the current 18-55 and the old FA 28-80 powerzoom that was my first Pentax lens) and exceptionally convenient.

I'm quite happy to accept that they're optically superb (although I doubt they're noticeably better than the FA* 24 and FA* 85 I do have experience with) but they're a little too slow for my liking, and not at focal lengths that appeal to me. They're also way too expensive. Back in the days when I lived in Hong Kong and could afford to buy these things then there is not a shadow of a doubt that given the choice I'd still pick the FA* 25 & 85, and had I still cash remaining my next choice would have been the 20mm F2.8.

I'd probably have more time for the limited lenses if there were actually cheaper "unlimited" equivalents available in the Pentax range...

I'm certainly not going to argue that the Limiteds are noticeably better than the FA*s optically. Differences are small, subtle, and subjective.

Also, I can't argue with your view that the focal lengths are unappealling - to you. That's to do with personal taste and style. And if I owned an FA* 1:1.4 85, I wouldn't have bought a 77mm. Extravagance has limits.

I suspect that more Limiteds will appear in time, and perhaps then you'll be seduced! Certainly I will be; but then, I'm easy meat when it comes to pretty lenses.

But meanwhile, enjoy your new purchases.

G

I've already received my LX and lenses. Here are a few first impressions.

There's really something that separates the LX from any other camera. It's difficult to explain; I was thinking of selling it, but now I really don't know. I think I'll keep it for a while, pass a few rolls of film through it and decide later.

The 17mm fisheye is a very nice lens; small and light, no flare or veiling. Pitty it just doesn't work on digital (obviously), but on film it really is a different perspective!

The 24-35mm zoom is also almost impervious to flare and veiling, much more than my more modern zooms. You can see some distortion if you're looking for it on straight lines, though.

The 100mm F/2.8 is the one I used the least, but seems like a pretty nice and small lens; I shot some flowering trees and the bokeh was great.

The 300mm is a beatiful piece of glass, and it's results on digital are amazing! It sure is big and heavy, though.

There really is something about Pentax lenses that I can't describe. I'm not sure this is a good thing, though, as it leaves me wondering how much better can the best lenses be... must... resist... 31mm... limited...

As for the rest, the Vivitar Macro teleconverter looks good, and it's like a cross between a teleconverter and a helicoid macro tube! You twist to adjust extension until 1:1 with a 50mm lens. I'll post results here (or perhaps on the recent macro thread) when I have the time.

There is also a very nice flash unit in the kit, and I need a new cable to use it, but I'll talk about that on the flash photography area of the forum.

Thanks!

I've got something similar although it's by Panagor. I've done some initial testing with it using both a normal 50mm lens (SMC-M 50mm F1.7) and a 1:1 macro one (Vivitar 55mm F2. and the results have been pretty decent - certainly better than using a standard teleconvertor with the macro lens. The one I have doesn't allow infinity focus so it can't be used as a normal 2x convertor, however it does have a flash mount on the adaptor which is usefull for macro work.

Regards
Steve