Which legacy lenses for K1?


nocturnal

Link Posted 21/02/2017 - 15:48
JAK wrote:
nocturnal wrote:
Quote:
Why is the Pentax 15mm superior in every way for daytime shooting? I think that would be very difficult to argue, even on a theoretical level. Of course you may have practical experience to explain it more .... ? I would have thought that a more realistic view would suggest there are a range of pros and cons for both lenses?

Sorry for the delay,

The HD DA15 is superior into the sun, is comparatively tiny and light, beautifully sun-bursts, virtually zero glare, superior colours, doesn't blow the highlights as much, takes filters and the small Hi-tech 67 system without vignetting, superior microcontrast and colour contrast, superior rendering, virtually zero distortion,has auto-focus and is great with close ups too.

It just is a superb lens and you can crop 10 photos from one image and they still look great. You could spend hours of fun pixel peeping even if you are opposed to such practice. The photos also require little processing so less time on the computer too.

As a mountain photographer and hiker I trailed the Samyang over the Mourne mountains several times whilst knowing I needed the DA15 and I'm glad I did, as true of the Samyang for astro as I was able to photograph the Milky Way albeit faintly from the suburbs of light polluted Belfast. The lack of coma is the other reason why the Samyang 14mm is suitable for astro.

I'm hardly knocking the Samyang and I've a good copy...

[link=http:// https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/milky-way-over-mt-teide--tenerife-95921/large]link[/link]

Hope this helps

Given this thread is about lenses for the K-1 the DA 15mm doesn't meet the criteria for full frame use whereas the Samyang 14mm does. However the SMC Pentax 15mm F3.5 dating from the 1970's is another matter. Wouldn't that make a fairer comparison to the Samyang?

Yes sorry John, I was just replying to Greg.

However, what about the K28 2.8 or K35 3.5 on a K1? The K28 is great with film and I just got the 35. Both are known for their landscape use. I'm talking about the first k mount series which the 15mm f3.5 you mention belongs to.

The M35-70 f2.8-f3.5 is a great lens however I've only used it on a crop body.

Simon
"In a photographic context I don't like the use of the word 'shot' as where I live this word refers to an extreme act of violence and not the beautiful craft of photography"

HarisF1

Link Posted 21/02/2017 - 17:50
If you're looking at the K series lenses then the Takumar versions are probably just as good. As far as I can remember, most of them have the same optics and layout.

nocturnal

Link Posted 21/02/2017 - 20:04
HarisF1 wrote:
If you're looking at the K series lenses then the Takumar versions are probably just as good. As far as I can remember, most of them have the same optics and layout.

I think this is only true for a few of them and/or variants of Takumars. The K35 f3.5 is the same optical design as the last Takumar version plus no need for the m42 adapter.

The K series was an advancement on the Taks in the majority of cases. I have 4 K lenses so far and all of them are dead good and you may see me selling a few M's and A's soon.

For example, the K135 3.5 is a cracking lens and much better than the Tak version. I chose this one over the K135 2.5 as it is smaller and lighter (I have to carry this all day in the mountains).

Almost every K scores >9 and more than most Taks in the forum's database. The zooms aren't as good as the prime's which once you have a single K you want the whole lot of them... Addictive buggers they are

K 135 f3.5 below link

link
"In a photographic context I don't like the use of the word 'shot' as where I live this word refers to an extreme act of violence and not the beautiful craft of photography"

HarisF1

Link Posted 21/02/2017 - 21:17
I had the K135/2.5 and K105/2.8 - both mint - and decided I'd sell them as they didn't get any use. I'm very silly like that -.- I've got a K55/1.8 right now and will be doing the same thing!

nocturnal

Link Posted 21/02/2017 - 23:25
HarisF1 wrote:
I had the K135/2.5 and K105/2.8 - both mint - and decided I'd sell them as they didn't get any use. I'm very silly like that -.- I've got a K55/1.8 right now and will be doing the same thing!

Eeeeeek you could have kept one. Yes I got a K55 1.8 last week as part of a job lot where the auctioneer didn't know what it was, never mind a K35 3.5 as well. Images look great and those K colours have a characteristic of their own.

I wonder how it is for landscapes, at minimum focussing distance it is superb!
"In a photographic context I don't like the use of the word 'shot' as where I live this word refers to an extreme act of violence and not the beautiful craft of photography"

tyronet2000

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 09:45
One of the main reasons for not going full frame is the lens question. I was hoping, as the K-1 and K-1ii have been out a little while there might be a list of FF compatible lenses available. I think I read that the DA lenses can be used with a setting on the camera but doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a FF camera.
Regards
Stan

PPG

bforbes

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 10:21
tyronet2000 wrote:
One of the main reasons for not going full frame is the lens question. I was hoping, as the K-1 and K-1ii have been out a little while there might be a list of FF compatible lenses available. I think I read that the DA lenses can be used with a setting on the camera but doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a FF camera.

Have you seen RiceHigh's chart? link
Barrie
Too Old To Die Young
.
Pentax K1 K5-IIS K-01 K20D A50/2 A50/1.7 DA10-17 DA18-250 DA18-135 DA18-55 DA300 DA40 DA50-135 DA50-200 DA55-300 DA70 F35-70 DFA150-450 FA20-35 FA100 FA135 FA35 FA28 FA43 FA50 FA77 K55/1.8 M135/3.5 M200/4 M28/3.5 M28/2.8 M40/2.8 Q 01 02 MX-1 I-10 Sigma 15 24 105 180 8-16 10-20 17-35 17-50/2.8 24-70 400/5.6MF Tamron 70-200/2.8 17/3.5MF 24/2.5MF 28/2.5MF 90/2.5MF


http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 11:21
McGregNi wrote:
What do people think about my idea of treating the 14mm as a sort of 14-18mm 'zoom', via a shoot-wide-crop-later approach ... ? I'm thinking that with the high optical performance from it, plus the resolution of the K1, it would hardly be necessary to buy the equivilent zoom for such focal lengths on FF ..... ?

Sorry to dredge this up from a few pages back, but yeah... I couldn't decide between the Samyang 14mm and the 20mm; but soon realised that there was plenty of resolution from the Samyang to be able to shoot in 'crop mode' and have a 2-lenses-in-one solution. Admittedly I am not doing this often, because after enjoying the 14mm ultrawide view, 20mm feels a bit pedestrian.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

thingsthatihaveseen

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 13:40
I know Iím a bit late to the party, but here are a few that I regularly use on the K1... worth bearing in mind that I tend to do a lot of travelling, so portability is pretty high up on my list of criteria... all the wider FA primes: FA 20 2.8, FA 28 2.8, FA 35 2.0, FA 50 1.4... I use the A 20 2.8 a lot for landscapes...

In the zooms dept, the FA 24-90 is a gt travel lens imho... some zoom creep on the copy I have, but light, gd resolution and sharp... also the F 17-28 fisheye...

My regular travel kit at the mo is the FA 20 2.8, FA 24-90, PLM 55-300 (light and quick, although a fair amount of vignetting in the middle of the range which I take out in post... have just bought the FAJ 75-300 from LennyBloke on this forum to see how it compares)...

Best
Bill

BillWardPhotography
Instagram
Facebook

KingKenny

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 14:17
Equivalent field of view doesn't make lenses the same - the perspective exaggeration (difference in apparent distance between foreground and background) and DOF will relate to the focal length.

Because you're looking at the middle bit of a 14mm image not the full frame of a 20mm image.

I would have thought these differences in the case of comparing a 14mm versus an 18 or 20 would be significant. I have an APS-C so the comparison I would make would be between the short and long ends of my Sigma 8-16. The differences are about far more than just field of view.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 14:29
Maybe. It's not really worth getting bogged down in, IMHO.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Algernon

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 16:22
KingKenny wrote:
Equivalent field of view doesn't make lenses the same - the perspective exaggeration (difference in apparent distance between foreground and background) and DOF will relate to the focal length.

Because you're looking at the middle bit of a 14mm image not the full frame of a 20mm image.

I would have thought these differences in the case of comparing a 14mm versus an 18 or 20 would be significant. I have an APS-C so the comparison I would make would be between the short and long ends of my Sigma 8-16. The differences are about far more than just field of view.

There's no problem cropping a 20mm FOV from a 14mm FOV. It becomes a 20mm exactly shot. The wider lens shot has all the smaller focal lengths within it as long as you enlarge them to the correct width to recover the correct perspective.

See Barry's recent post on Depressing Review (He's also a member here).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4281521

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 10/05/2018 - 16:28

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 16:55
Isn't your distance-to-subject the key thing in determining 'perspective'? I dunno, I always feel like Father Dougal here when this topic comes up



[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 10/05/2018 - 16:56

Algernon

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 17:35
Yes distance to subject determines perspective, but to compare two lenses the cropped part has to be enlarged to the same width was the wider lens. This is where the whole world has it wrong

If you compare say a 14mm wide angle shot which gives a deep looking perspective to a crop of say what 200mm lens sees the 200mm flattens the perspective, but you won't see it until you enlarge or reduce the original so that both are the same size. Alternatively make A4 prints of both.

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 10/05/2018 - 17:36

McGregNi

Link Posted 10/05/2018 - 17:43
Its a common confusion, I've certainly succumbed to it myself, and have been corrected on this forum. But yes, I believe it is the distance to the subject that determines the 'perspective', not the focal length. So a crop in from, say 14mm to 20mm, will result in the exact same perspective as if the shot was taken with a 20mm lens (assuming the exact same position of the camera).

In terms of visible differences in relation to how much of a lens image circle is captured by a sensor, then something like the 14mm will reveal more edge distortions on FF ..... using a 20mm instead and moving backwards in order to obtain the same field of view will produce an image with less edge distortions .... but a different perspective
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.