New standard lens
Posted 22/07/2020 - 14:48 - Helpful Comment
Link
Lovely camera is the K70. I thoroughly enjoyed mine when I had it.
I don't think you'd go particularly wrong with any of those 35mm lenses to be perfectly honest.
It sounds to me like you're swaying towards the 35mm f/2.8 Macro, personally, and I doubt you'd be unhappy with it especially as it's 'dual purpose', insofar as it acts as a normal field of view lens on APS-C and a macro lens should you need it.
Regardless, a good place for reviews is the Pentax Forums pages - do a Google search of, e.g., "35mm f/2.8 Macro pentaxforums" and you get the following page:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-35mm-F2.8-Limited-Macro-L...
Plenty of reviews for all of the lenses you mentioned, including the film-era lenses.
That 35-105mm f/3.5 is meant to be a stellar lens, often referred to as the 'stack of primes'. Good sharpness across the board, from what I've read, and earned itself something of a status amongst Pentax photographers for being versatile and sharp.
It's also worth noting that usually the flaws of film-era lenses that make them desirable. It's 'character' that more modern, more perfectly made lenses lack. If you want out-and-out sharpness, there's modern options for that, but you won't get swirly backgrounds a la the Helios.
My two pence: The M 50mm f/1.7 is a beautiful lens, and plenty sharp even wide-open. It's a good example of how sharp a lens can be, especially stopped down around f/5.6 and competes with the best of them at this aperture.
No harm giving what you've got a go and thinking about what you're missing in a modern lens!
I don't think you'd go particularly wrong with any of those 35mm lenses to be perfectly honest.
It sounds to me like you're swaying towards the 35mm f/2.8 Macro, personally, and I doubt you'd be unhappy with it especially as it's 'dual purpose', insofar as it acts as a normal field of view lens on APS-C and a macro lens should you need it.
Regardless, a good place for reviews is the Pentax Forums pages - do a Google search of, e.g., "35mm f/2.8 Macro pentaxforums" and you get the following page:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-35mm-F2.8-Limited-Macro-L...
Plenty of reviews for all of the lenses you mentioned, including the film-era lenses.
That 35-105mm f/3.5 is meant to be a stellar lens, often referred to as the 'stack of primes'. Good sharpness across the board, from what I've read, and earned itself something of a status amongst Pentax photographers for being versatile and sharp.
It's also worth noting that usually the flaws of film-era lenses that make them desirable. It's 'character' that more modern, more perfectly made lenses lack. If you want out-and-out sharpness, there's modern options for that, but you won't get swirly backgrounds a la the Helios.
My two pence: The M 50mm f/1.7 is a beautiful lens, and plenty sharp even wide-open. It's a good example of how sharp a lens can be, especially stopped down around f/5.6 and competes with the best of them at this aperture.
No harm giving what you've got a go and thinking about what you're missing in a modern lens!
Posted 22/07/2020 - 15:38 - Helpful Comment
Link
Joats wrote:
The other question is just how inferior are the film era lenses to modern equivalents.
The other question is just how inferior are the film era lenses to modern equivalents.
Good glass is good glass and will stand the test of time. There a number of us on this forum who regularly shoot with older film-era lenses.
If you intend to print your pictures very large there may come a point where the resolving power of an old lens will not match a modern one. But it will depend.... a great old lens will probably beat an average modern one so it is difficult to generalise. The latest 24" x 16" print hanging on my wall was shot a couple of months ago with a Pentax-M 85mm f2.0
One area where there is a difference is flare control. Older lenses do not have the improved coatings that modern lenses today use. So always use a hood and in tricky lighting scenes be extra vigilant you dont get the sun in the picture. Digital sensors are also more susceptible to stray scattered light than a film camera is, so another reason to use a hood.
The M 50mm 1.7 is a classic. I still use the one I bought 40 years ago.
Peter
My Flickr page
My Flickr page
Posted 22/07/2020 - 16:11
Link
pschlute wrote:
Good glass is good glass and will stand the test of time. There a number of us on this forum who regularly shoot with older film-era lenses.
Joats wrote:
The other question is just how inferior are the film era lenses to modern equivalents.
The other question is just how inferior are the film era lenses to modern equivalents.
Good glass is good glass and will stand the test of time. There a number of us on this forum who regularly shoot with older film-era lenses.
Aside from one lens, all I shoot with is manual, film era lenses.
Posted 22/07/2020 - 17:19
Link
I prefer a slightly wider view (43mm on FF), so I'd see how you get on with the M28mm as a standard before looking at a 35mm - the 35/2 is a fabulous 'fast fifty' equivalent (I have the FA - the HD should be better). If the 35-105 is the A35-105/3.5 - that's supposed to be a great lens. The Tamron 70-210/3.5 was also very good on film (I haven't tried mine on digital). Many Russian lenses are sought after for their character, especially the 44M.
Generally, film era lenses work very well (assuming they were good on film) - you may have to stop them down a stop more than a modern lens and having AF and an 'A' aperture setting helps. The very best (D-FA*) lenses will be noticeably better, but users of many 'normal' digital lenses still report CA and purple fringing - which may improve over film era lenses but perhaps not enough for me to consider them.
My favourite lens on the K-1 is the FA43, my most used is the FA20-35/4, my mid-tele is an M150/3.5 and my longish zoom is an M80-200/4.5 (the Tamron SP70-210/3.5 is much bigger & heavier but probably better).
Generally, film era lenses work very well (assuming they were good on film) - you may have to stop them down a stop more than a modern lens and having AF and an 'A' aperture setting helps. The very best (D-FA*) lenses will be noticeably better, but users of many 'normal' digital lenses still report CA and purple fringing - which may improve over film era lenses but perhaps not enough for me to consider them.
My favourite lens on the K-1 is the FA43, my most used is the FA20-35/4, my mid-tele is an M150/3.5 and my longish zoom is an M80-200/4.5 (the Tamron SP70-210/3.5 is much bigger & heavier but probably better).
Posted 22/07/2020 - 18:45
Link
Benz3ne wrote:
Lovely camera is the K70. I thoroughly enjoyed mine when I had it.
I don't think you'd go particularly wrong with any of those 35mm lenses to be perfectly honest.
It sounds to me like you're swaying towards the 35mm f/2.8 Macro, personally, and I doubt you'd be unhappy with it especially as it's 'dual purpose', insofar as it acts as a normal field of view lens on APS-C and a macro lens should you need it.
Regardless, a good place for reviews is the Pentax Forums pages - do a Google search of, e.g., "35mm f/2.8 Macro pentaxforums" and you get the following page:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-35mm-F2.8-Limited-Macro-L...
Plenty of reviews for all of the lenses you mentioned, including the film-era lenses.
That 35-105mm f/3.5 is meant to be a stellar lens, often referred to as the 'stack of primes'. Good sharpness across the board, from what I've read, and earned itself something of a status amongst Pentax photographers for being versatile and sharp.
It's also worth noting that usually the flaws of film-era lenses that make them desirable. It's 'character' that more modern, more perfectly made lenses lack. If you want out-and-out sharpness, there's modern options for that, but you won't get swirly backgrounds a la the Helios.
My two pence: The M 50mm f/1.7 is a beautiful lens, and plenty sharp even wide-open. It's a good example of how sharp a lens can be, especially stopped down around f/5.6 and competes with the best of them at this aperture.
No harm giving what you've got a go and thinking about what you're missing in a modern lens!
Lovely camera is the K70. I thoroughly enjoyed mine when I had it.
I don't think you'd go particularly wrong with any of those 35mm lenses to be perfectly honest.
It sounds to me like you're swaying towards the 35mm f/2.8 Macro, personally, and I doubt you'd be unhappy with it especially as it's 'dual purpose', insofar as it acts as a normal field of view lens on APS-C and a macro lens should you need it.
Regardless, a good place for reviews is the Pentax Forums pages - do a Google search of, e.g., "35mm f/2.8 Macro pentaxforums" and you get the following page:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-35mm-F2.8-Limited-Macro-L...
Plenty of reviews for all of the lenses you mentioned, including the film-era lenses.
That 35-105mm f/3.5 is meant to be a stellar lens, often referred to as the 'stack of primes'. Good sharpness across the board, from what I've read, and earned itself something of a status amongst Pentax photographers for being versatile and sharp.
It's also worth noting that usually the flaws of film-era lenses that make them desirable. It's 'character' that more modern, more perfectly made lenses lack. If you want out-and-out sharpness, there's modern options for that, but you won't get swirly backgrounds a la the Helios.
My two pence: The M 50mm f/1.7 is a beautiful lens, and plenty sharp even wide-open. It's a good example of how sharp a lens can be, especially stopped down around f/5.6 and competes with the best of them at this aperture.
No harm giving what you've got a go and thinking about what you're missing in a modern lens!
Yes, I kind-of decided to use the lenses I have and see if there is a glaring hole that becomes apparent. Its the "New camera with a greater number of pixels, therefore I need a new modern lens aswell" illness.
One of the aspects of me considering the 35mm f/2.8 Macro was the two-lenses-in-one thing. Its a good standard lens for my camera and it has Macro 1:1, although to get 1:1 you have to push that lens into the face of the butterfly. One lens I forgot to mention I had is a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 Macro. That produces excellent images close up and I don't have be as close to the subject. So again, I am talking myself out of it. My main concern was this idea of modern lens coatings producing superior high contrast images over film lenses, particularly as I love images that are razor sharp, over images that are artistic and have "character".
Thanks to all who contributed. All useful info that I needed.
Joats
Posted 23/07/2020 - 09:36 - Helpful Comment
Link
Of the three candidates, the HD Limited 35/2.8 is the best of the bunch, with excellent build quality and superb image quality. The others are a bit faster and are just as sharp stopped down a little but they lack the metal build quality and that extra bit of image quality that the Limited has.
Many film-era lenses are extremely good, as good as, or better, than many modern lenses. They can also be more enjoyable (or more frustrating) to use, especially if they're all-manual and may provide a different look to images.
Many film-era lenses are extremely good, as good as, or better, than many modern lenses. They can also be more enjoyable (or more frustrating) to use, especially if they're all-manual and may provide a different look to images.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
34 posts
6 years
Just bought myself a Pentax K70. Virually all my lenses are from the film era with only one, a Pentax 15mm f/4 ED as a modern lens. I have been looking for a lens I can use as a standard. A focal length of 35mm would seem about right as that would be about 52mm on the APS-C sensor. I have looked at a Pentax 35 f/2, another Pentax 35 f/2.4 and the current one is the 35mm HD f/2.8. Apart from its 1:1 Macro, is the HD f/2.8 lens going to provide better image quality than the other two?
The other question is just how inferior are the film era lenses to modern equivalents. For example, I have a Tamrom 70-210 SP Constant f3.5, I have the Pentax 35-105 Constant f3.5 Macro, a Pentax SMC M 50mm f/1.7, a Pentax SMC M 28mm f/3.5, and a few Russian lenses - Helios 44-m, Zenitar 50mm f/1.7 and a quirky 37mm MIR 1B. I have 35mm covered in the Pentax 35-105, but will I see a clear difference in sharpness, contrast and colours with the modern HD 35mm f/2.8 over the older Pentax zoom? I am informed that modern lenses just give better image quality than the older lenses do on digital sensors. Is this the case?
Thanks for your input.
Joats