I dislike zooms, I use them on occasion of course for convenience, but they cloud my judgement and have too many compromises to excite me. I shoot more film (manual focus bodies) than digital, I prefer manual focus prime lenses - the focus rings are better damped - although the FA primes are pretty good on MF cameras.

Obviously I don't use DA lenses on film but there are some FA's that I've never used on digital - my FA43 & FA20-35 are simply 'wrong' focal lengths on APS-C for me.

I'm not interested in 'pixie dust' or 'magical properties' but do care about the visual effect of the lens parameters in use (focal length, aperture, distortion etc.). At the end of the day it's not the lens but they way you use it that counts.

John.

Exposure depends entirely on technique, the effect you want and your understanding of how the camera responds given the subject, metering method, exposure mode and probably half a dozen different parameters before you even get the image onto your computer.

Welcome to the forum, ignore most of what you read here but shoot what and how you want - oh, and share the results.

John.

I haven't either, but when I bought my FA43 Ltd, I wanted a new lens (which was AIV) rather than a used one. It's a lens I've wanted since originally introduced and I wanted a pristine example that I knew the history of.

If you're looking at buying used, then condition of the lens is far more important than where it was made/assembled. If you particularly want an MIJ then nothing else will do, but I really doubt there will be any significant difference other than the usual, very slight, sample variation when the lens was new.

BJP stated this was one of the best full-frame portrait lenses available, at that time they would all be AIV.

John.

What the 5D'ers see in SMC-Takumars is a mystery to me - they're awkward enough to use on a Spotmatic.

I'm currently shooting more film than digital, I need aperture rings for my film bodies and AF lenses need to have the screwdrive for my AF film bodies. I often travel with both film & digital bodies and don't want to duplicate lenses so I mostly use FA lenses (mostly primes).

Thanks LennyBloke,

Lens received today and looks superb.

John.

Next you'll be wanting FF bellows as well

As someone who's been shooting Pentax for decades I'd spin the question round. Apart from my DA10-17FE & DA17-70/4 (bought because I needed something wider than 24mm on APS-C) all of my lenses cover the 135 format. As a mechanical film shooter, over the years I've bought Tak/K/M/A/F & FA lenses for their coverage & aperture rings.

Given that the 5D MkII/III brigade have been snapping up Super/SMC Takumars (40+ year old lenses with no automation) and paying more for them than equivalent new EF lenses, I'm convinced that most prime lenses will produce more than acceptable results on the Pentax FF body. Zooms are likely to be much more variable.

John.

These are an excellent mix of cool/sophisticated and slightly embarrassed/self conscious portraits - I can't help thinking there's a larger body of work itching to get out, great shots.

My preference is for film, I find it so much more satisfying, it makes every shot an occasion instead of a drudge.

Keep up the good work.

John.

PM sent.

Depending on the camera you could store and toggle between two focal lengths (on the Z-1).

IIRC, the Z-1 could zoom either way depending on setting of a Pentax Function - note the shutter speed had to be within a certain range to get the best effect.

There was another zoom mode (at least on the Z-1), it was a 'portrait' mode which could be set for either 'head & shoulders' or 'full length' - set by a Pentax Function on the camera.

I don't think any of them were useful though, and they drained the (then expensive) Lithium batteries very quickly.

John.