old versus new

Along with the rest of the world I'm on a tight budget and I've been wondering about replacing my two kit lenses - the Schneider 18-55 and the 50-200 - with second hand lenses like the Pentax SMC 'F' 70-210mm F4-5.6 AF Lens. Do the older lenses perform better? The one I've quoted has some excellent reviews and is at a very reasonable price. I'm already a happy owner of a couple of prime lenses. Is old glass better than kit glass rto put it succinctly.

Thanks

Rod

Old primes often are better than the "kit" zooms. Old zooms (especially former "kit" lenses) are less likely to be as good although that will vary greatly on the lens!

Personally, I would stick to picking up primes. (See my sig )

K.

As Kris says many of the older prime lenses are gems, I've less experience of older zooms, but more moving parts means they are less likely to age as well as primes from the same era.

I was in a similar position to you not long ago (looking to upgrade kit lenses), and have since purchased Pentax-A 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.7, Pentax-M 135mm f3.5, and the Pentax DA 10-17mm Fisheye. The quality of the 3 older lenses is fantastic, and they have rarely been off my camera since purchase.

You mentioned that you own a couple of prime lenses, which are they?

To answer your question in short, the older glass I've used has at least been the equal of newer glass (the optical construction is often very similar between old and new versions of the same lenses), with the advantage of much lower price tags.

To give you an example, for £140 I purchased a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.7 and a 135mm f3.5, all Pentax lenses, all in mint condition, two with hard cases. To purchase the equivalent in new lenses would cost a great deal more, okay I would get autofocus (my old lenses are manual focus only), but for me it is not worth the huge price difference.

Most people who have owned the F 70-210 rate it pretty highly. Mine is a lovely lens, and I rather doubt that modern equivalents are significantly better.

The golden rule when buying older or cheap zooms is to stick to a zoom ratio of 1:3 or less. The first GOOD Pentax zoom with a greater ratio was the 24-90.

G

But is the F 70-210 better than a 50-200 (that the OP already has)? It's larger and heavier and not cheap and no faster.

Thanks for your feedback. Very much appreciated. I'm still getting my head round the Pentax system. I owned Minolta and Canon film cameras and Pentax was my leap into digital so I need a bit of hand holding in building my Pentax kit. And no I'm not working my way round to Olympus and Canon. I'm very happy with my Pentax. It says serious camera to me - not an upgrade to apoint and shoot.

I bought a 28mm f2.8 A Vivitar and a Pentax f2 A 50mm. Really like the former as it lets me do some interesting closer work with a shallow depth of field. I'd like to add to my primes - I used nothing but on my Minolta X700 (now there was a fine camera!) - but Pentax primes are not that cheap now. I'd like to add a macro lens butI'm very attached to my limbs at the moment

Pick up a reversing ring for your 28mm and you'll have a fine macro lens for not very much.

If you have a 28 and a 50 I'd look for a 135mm next. The M series 135mm f/3.5 is a lovely little lens, the K series f/2.5 bigger but rather nice IQ. The A series version is a bit pricey as it wasn't as common as the M series one, probably because 80-200mm zooms had become good enough for most people at the time.

Cheers, K.

I have the 70-10 F which is a nice lens but I haven't used it since getting the 50-200. The former is much heavier and the autofocus slower and noisier than the latter. I can see no difference in IQ.

I'd second Kris on the 135mm. I picked up my M for around £40 (including a hard case and UV filter), and it's a lovely lens. Sharp, compact and well made.

I'm looking into a reversing ring for my 28mm too, I've seen some great results from reversed lenses, and my finances won't stretch to a dedicated macro at the moment.

One question I do have is how do people protect the bayonet of their lens when using a reversing ring?

Some people use an end cap with the flat part cut out. Screw it onto your reversed lens as a makeshift 'hood'.

Cheers Tim. I've had one of the flexible end caps spare for a while, now I know what to do with it!

I shot almost exclusively with primes last year (17, 24, 50 and 135), and a Pentax-a 80-200mm which is suprisingly good. But despite my love of primes, i'm not regretting purchasing a da16-45mm. There are many times when I only want to take one lens, or can't decide which primes to take, and while not perfect, images with this lens are definitely a shade better than the kit lens!

Might be worth working out where your sweet spot is photography wise, ie which mm. Then you might be able to focus in better on the old, economical lenses that'll give you a decent bang for your buck

The main appeal to me is the fact that primes are generally faster than consumer zooms, certainly this is why I've been snapping up telephoto primes when I see them for sane money. I now have 120mm, 135mm and 200mm primes, total cost probably around £220. You wouldn't get one current telephoto prime for the same outlay.

Older zooms can be a pain as you need to set the shake reduction manually. I've seen some people set this to the shorter end of the zoom range which probably works on a short zoom (eg 40-80mm or 75-150mm), I generally end up treating the old zooms like primes by just using them at one focal length. Certainly the Pentax-M 75-150mm f4 is very handy for this as it gives you a 150mm f4 in a compact package.

Welcome to Pentaxuser, by the way, Rod!