'Upgrade to K-1' quandary...


LennyBloke

Link Posted 23/01/2020 - 12:09
Benz3ne wrote:
SalT wrote:
Quote:
I was in your boat before with a K3ii, 16-50, 50-135mm etc but took the plunge and built it back up over the years with full frame lenses. Best decision I ever made

So, to read this reassures me that I can go to the K-1 with some confidence and not have to flip across to Nikon or Canon which would entail a major investment in new equipment.

I've just done essentially the same as Gareth but offing the 18-135mm WR and 55-300mm PLM instead of the 16-50 and 50-135mm. Left with only legacy lenses for now, but it won't be too long before that changes I'm sure.

I appreciate your quandary about sports shooting though... Not something I'm very familiar with but I think the frame rate of the K-3ii would outdo the K-1 for that application.

I'm another K1 convert - BUT I don't shoot sports/action - and APS-C has some advantages for this type of photography. You might want to consider waiting a while - the new APS-C (launching this year?) may well be an even better fit for your needs without any changes to lenses
LennyBloke

Helpful

macabee

Link Posted 18/02/2020 - 18:47
I took the plunge and bought the K1 new [SRS] last year and I have not regretted it for a moment I use it mostly for landscapes it is a great FF camera, built like a brick privy!

I also use my K-3 APS-C & FF, can easily co-exist

So go for it.

Cheers

davidwozhere

Link Posted 19/02/2020 - 01:20
I really don't know which old film lenses Stub bought which were "rubbish". I have two 'modern' lenses: the 55-300PLM is not FF and the Tamron 90 (as a concept) is fairly ancient. Neither are used on the K1. All the K1 photos submitted here by me are 'old glass' and most have been well received. There is a reason, for example, why the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm is so expensive, despite its age - it can give a DA* a run for its money. Macro Taks are unbeatable and the Canikon brigade are always snapping up Pentax-K and M primes rather than buying their own brands. None of these are cheap but the 60-80 you pay for them is a lot less than the 1.2K and upwards you seem to have to shell out for new ones.

So No. Don't be fearful about having no lenses to put on your new K1. You can get an M42 > K adapter and a few Meyer Optiks (30mm, 50mm, 135mm and 200mm) for less than 150 and you've got a full kit. In AF a similar set in SMC Pentax-F would be about 450 with the 135mm taking the lion's share.

What's wrong with this one? K1 and FA 80-320 at 320mm, f6.3


Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link
Last Edited by davidwozhere on 19/02/2020 - 01:34

johnha

Link Posted 19/02/2020 - 08:21
I agree, there were a handful of cheap AF zooms (28-80s with slow apertures and plasticky build) that were average or below average on film and should probably be avoided. I don't include the FA 28-80/3.7-4.5 PZ which often gets slated in this as my copy was very good on film.

The M75-150/4 is an amazing lens, as is the M80-200/4.5 (about 20 each), the A35-105/3.5 is described as a stack of primes and the F35-70 is also well regarded (and tiny). I have no issues with my FA20-35/4 on my K-1 (and much more manageable than the 15-30). My old film era Sigma 70-300 APO is just as good as it was on film (IQ drops off a bit towards 300 as it did on film).

Modern lenses would have the benefit of AF, WR and in camera corrections for distortion, CA and purple fringing etc (giving the lens designer an easier job). In my shooting, distortion is the biggest problem and is way more significant than a slight loss of sharpness (it shows up in 'low res' jpegs as evidently as it does in pixel peeping a 36Mp raw image).
PPG Flickr

Benz3ne

Link Posted 19/02/2020 - 08:29
davidwozhere wrote:
I really don't know which old film lenses Stub bought which were "rubbish". All the K1 photos submitted here by me are 'old glass' and most have been well received. There is a reason, for example, why the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm is so expensive, despite its age - it can give a DA* a run for its money. Macro Taks are unbeatable and the Canikon brigade are always snapping up Pentax-K and M primes rather than buying their own brands. None of these are cheap but the 60-80 you pay for them is a lot less than the 1.2K and upwards you seem to have to shell out for new ones.

Agreed - I'm 99% old lenses here, too. In fact, the only lens I currently own with autofocus is the D-FA 100mm WR Macro, which is by far the newest lens I own. Thereafter it's the Voigtlander Ultron and then it's a swamp of SMC-M, SMC-A and some 3rd party manual-focus lenses... All perform superbly in my opinion.

That's a lovely picture with the 80-320. I'm tempted to pick one up just for the reach and autofocus on the K1.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.