Where Do We Draw The Line?

I was pondering over where we would draw the line now between lenses that were vintage/collectible and modern/usable. It matters when considering which sort of categories to use on eBay and the like for maximum effect.

In the end I decided that the second category would be anything with electronic contacts, so the A series onwards. Anything before that, including M and K series, would be vintage/collectables.

I know we can still use all the lenses, even the Asahiflex ones probably with suitable adapters, but I'm thinking of a more generalised perception.

What do you think?

Seems a fair assumption ... Pre electronic contacts would (IMO) count as vintage (not so sure about collectables but that's a more personal subject)

I would be concerned that a description or categorisation of 'collectable' does a disservice to many of our great 'M' or 'K' series, or at least could be misleading to the uniformed. It may cause someone to overlook a very useful and cost effective solution on the assumption that it was more to be preserved or kept as an investment.

For Pentax specifically, would not the K mount itself provide the logical dividing point ? This is on the basis that any K mount (mid 70s) is ready to fit on to any current camera - the technicalities of how you meter with it or control the aperture are Pentax specific details and beyond any ebay classification I'd have thought.

Anything before the K-mount, requiring an adaptor, whilst 'compatable', is not 'current' in that it cannot fit directly to current cameras. These could reasonably be described as vintage don't you think?

I am with Mac. K-mount lenses are very useable, and there are plenty about for those who wish to have fun with them, or even have a very cheap but exceptional option to modern lenses. Even now my K55 F1.8 is used for work, as is my M50 F1.7, and I have the FA50mm F1.4!
M42 can go into the other category, even though that most of the time they are better to use with Av mode on DSLR's (or so I have found). Call them useable collectables.

Johns 'electronic' dividing line would apply more logically to Canon, for example, where pre-eos lenses are not compatable with current cameras.

Its not so clear-cut for Pentax - the significance of the electronic part for us is more about how to control the lens on current bodies, not so much about compatability generally.

Also, it depends on the genre. In macro, lots of lenses without contacts are very usable, especially enlarger lenses & objectives that will never have them.

One way would be how Nikon consider all their F mount lenses. I know they are a different brand, but They do have a line of usability with them on modern DSLR's. Probably not ideal as we all know that certain bodies will only work with in body motors, some with screw motors. none with old F mount. Blurred somewhat by the new Df which is designed with old lenses in mind (are they copying our beloved Pentax now?)

No, I will stick with K mount and M42 as the divider for this suggestion.

If a non crippled mount full frame Pentax was to appear like a digital K1000 (like that new Nik**) I reckon the K & M series lenses would become hot property and even now are still very usable. The M42 mount might be considered vintage/collectable as it needs extra effort to use them.

John K

Interesting replies, many thanks. Any more comments are welcome as well.

No need to further complicate matters. Pentax have already
divided them.

The only mistake Pentax made was using Takumar again for some
cheap non-SMC K-mount lenses.

--

You've lost me there Algi How have Pentax already divided them?

Takumar M42
K
M
Takumar KM
A
A*
FA
Limited
DA
DA*
Etc.

--

That wasn't really what I was referring to Algi, I was thinking about the point at which lenses move into the vintage/collectible arena rather than the commonly usable arena.

Pentax remain compatible for so long, actually for always as I think about it, that it's a bit of a random point to select in many ways.

There you are John, thats how you divide them!

Randomly, you mean Nigel?