Best old Pentax fixed lens for K100?

The new Pentax lenses seem to cost a fortune (relative to what I can
justfy spending) so I'd like to go the cheap route and buy an old lens
instead.

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better. One
thing I don't want to have to do is deal with something that the camera
can't meter with properly.

What would you suggest? There are so many lenses out there on the
second-hand market that I have no idea what might be worthwhile and what
might be a waste of time and money.

Daniele

On May 21, 4:13 pm, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
The new Pentax lenses seem to cost a fortune (relative to what I can
justfy spending) so I'd like to go the cheap route and buy an old lens
instead.

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better. One
thing I don't want to have to do is deal with something that the camera
can't meter with properly.

What would you suggest? There are so many lenses out there on the
second-hand market that I have no idea what might be worthwhile and what
might be a waste of time and money.

Daniele

Here are a few possibilities:

31mm f/1.8 - giving you approximately the equivalent of a 45mm lens on
a 35mm SLR
35mm f/2 - giving approximately the equivalent of a 52mm lens on a
35mm SLR camera.

This web site has listings of just about everything: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
The new Pentax lenses seem to cost a fortune (relative to what I can
justfy spending) so I'd like to go the cheap route and buy an old lens
instead.

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better. One
thing I don't want to have to do is deal with something that the camera
can't meter with properly.

What would you suggest? There are so many lenses out there on the
second-hand market that I have no idea what might be worthwhile and what
might be a waste of time and money.

Daniele


Here's a reply to a question about the best Pentax for the money also
considering out-of-focus effects (bokeh). I can't find the original thread
on google groups, but I saved this to my harddrive it was so complete.
Thanks to Peter Boorman for the post (aka Bandicoot). Peter wasn't
considering crop factor, and he gives more info than you probably require,
but there's a ton of information from an experienced photographer who uses
Pentax almost exclusively (other than medium format needs):

"Hmmm, best bokeh and sharp for these FLs. Well, I haven't used all of the
options/versions for all of these FLs, but from what I have used, here's my
take:

Perhaps before I go on I should make sure you know what the K, A, etc.
appellations mean. These are all K-mount bayonet lenses that I'm
describing, in chronological order. You could, alternatively, use the older
screw-mount lenses and still get much of the benefit of the optics, but
these days I think the price differential used is so small that I'd probably
only consider the bayonet lenses and bodies (of course, if you get a really
good price on a screw-mount lens, you can still use it on a K-mount body
with an adapter, though you'll have to use stop-down metering.)


K - earliest version, metal, manual focus


M - optimised for compactness. Some use the same optical formula as their K
predecessors, some don't. Not all the lenses that exist in K (or A)
versions were also made as M versions. Metal bodied. Manual focus.


A - first lenses that support shutter priority and programme operation (it's
manual or aperture priority only with earlier lenses). Some of these are K
or M designs with the 'A' feature added, others are new designs. Several K
and M designs were 'tweaked' a little for the A versions. Metal bodied.
Manual focus.


F - first lenses with AF. A few changes from the A optical designs, but
mostly the same designs. Some plastic, some metal.


FA - later AF lenses, the main changes are that more information is
exchanged between the body and the lens, on bodies that support it (KAF2
mount bodies). Some changes from F optical designs in some lenses. Some
plastic, some metal.


FAJ - designed for bodies that can set the aperture, no aperture ring on the
lens itself. An abomination. Plastic.


Then there are some lenses for the reduced sensor size digital bodies, and
some digitally optimised lenses that cover the full frame size.


Also, there are the Limited lenses: these have AF and can be compared to
luxury versions of the FA type: no holds barred optical designs and very
nice mechanicals.


And finally the * lenses - eg. A*, FA*, etc. Originally this was those that
used ED glass types, and essentially now it is an indication of a somewhat
higher quality level, though * lenses don't exist for all FLs, since this
design isn't always necessary. They have nice metal barrels (usually) and
for the AF ones there's a very nice AF/MF clutch mechanism that means that
the focus feel in manual is much better than is usual for an AF lens.


All these lenses have Pentax's SMC coating, but the coating has 'evolved'
over time, and in particular the A and later lenses seem slightly more flare
resistant than the earlier lenses - though the Ks are still more flare
resistant than a brand new Canon lens, so who's complaining? ;-) The
Limiteds have Pentax's "Ghostless" coating, which is a sort of
super-super-multicoating (this and their very good coma is one of the
reasons I find them particularly good for night shooting).


OK, so to specifics:


28mm - the f3.5K is, I think, the sharpest, and has nice bokeh. The f2.8s
may be just behind the 3.5s for sharpness, but are at least their equal for
bokeh - and from f4 or 5.6 are indistinguishable on sharpness anyway. Of
the f2.8s, I think the A is the best version I've used, but the FA is said
to be its equal or perhaps slightly better.


The 30mm f2.8K is probably sharper and with (even) better bokeh than any of
these 28s, but hard to find (no, mine isn't for sale!) The 31mm f1.8 FA AL
Limited is sharper still, with nice bokeh and excellent coma, though for
bokeh per se, the 30mm is at least as good and probably my preference - I
need to do more testing really to tell apart these two lenses both of which
I like a lot.


35mm - the f2 supposedly has the best bokeh. I have an f2M and it is nice,
but I wouldn't say it's necessarily any better than the f3.5K I have, which
I think is the sharpest. The f2A may be better, but I've never used one.


50mm - well, of course here you are spoilt for choice. None of the Pentax
50s is anything less than excellent, and even the ludicrously cheap f2 will
blow the doors off the much touted f1.8s of some other makers we won't
mention. However, everyone seems to agree that the best is the f1.4A, and I
must agree that mine is indeed a very special lens. The f1.2A possibly has
even better bokeh, and wide open a rather special look, but it is not as
sharp as the f1.4 until about f5.6, at which point I can't tell them apart
(though some people claim that they can). The f1.7M is very nearly the
equal of the 1.4A, and will cost you a lot less. The f2.8 A and FA macros
are also incredibly sharp - maybe the sharpest 50s you'll ever find - and
their bokeh is not all that different to the other 50s.


85mm - the f1.4s are said to have the best bokeh, with the A* being the best
for distance work (landscapes) and the FA* more optimised for portraits. I
don't have either of those however. The f2 has a bad reputation in some
parts, though I know people who have it and like it - maybe it's good, just
not as good as the other 85s. The one I have is the f1.8K, and it is an
excellent lens, very compact and with attractive bokeh, good for people and
for landscape. The f2.8F Soft-Focus is also really nice, and if you enjoy
portraits may be worth a look. Don't overlook the 77mm f1.8 FA Limited
either, which may be the sharpest of all of these.


You've skipped the 105mm f2.8K which is a real cracker, and the 120mm f2.8M
which I think is a very undervalued lens these days. Also the 100mm
macros - all are good but the absolute star is the 100mm f2.8 FA Macro: you
won't find a sharper lens, and its bokeh is very good indeed: better than
other macros I've known (some have awful bokeh) and certainly as good as the
much touted 90mm Tamron.


135mm - the 'star' has to be the f1.8A* ED, which is one of my favourites
and a great people lens. But it is very heavy and has become expensive.
Nearly as good, very nearly as sharp and with similar bokeh, but lighter and
cheaper is the f2.5K (not the much cheaper Takumar which is a different
design, cheaper, and not SMC coated). The f2.8 FA IF is very nearly as nice
as the f2.5K if you want AF (though it is a very ugly lens to look at, looks
like the army designed it.) The f3.5 in all its versions is very cheap to
buy, very small and compact, and a good lens by anyone's standards, just not
quite up there with its f1.8 and f2.5 cousins. The 150mm f3.5K is good
too - I like it more than the f3.5 135mm, and it is actually lighter than
the 135mm f2.5K.


200mm - the f4 macros have good reputations but I've never used one. The
other f4s tend not be well thought of: they are not really bad lenses, but
they don't quite reach the standard compared to other Pentax mid-long
primes. The 200mm that I prefer is the f2.8 FA* ED IF - this is remarkably
sharp and contrasty for a 200, and the bokeh is good. Once you get beyond
about 135mm, bokeh often tends to become harsher with anyone's lenses, and
this 200 has bokeh _at least_ as good as anything else I've seen of this
length.


300mm - the f4K/M/A is a good lens, but I prefer a little more contrast.
This you get, along with sharpness and, for a 300, good bokeh, with the f4A*
and f4M*. This (mine is the A* version) is my preferred 300 for
hand-holding and/or if bokeh is a key concern. The f4.5F* ED IF is probably
a tiny bit sharper and is the lens I prefer for tripod use (or if I want AF,
of course) but I think the A* has slightly nicer bokeh. The FA* is the same
optical design as the F*, but lacks the F*'s tripod mount, for some reason.


Phew - hope that's some use. I didn't mention zooms since none really has
bokeh quite as nice as a fixed FL, and I'm writing enough as it is!"


--
www.mattclara.com

(D.M. Procida) wrote:

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better.

For your requirements the best non-budget-busters would be a Pentax-A or
-F 28mm F/2.8 which meter perfectly, though the -A model is manual focus.
Equal to 42mm on digital. Double your ISO and F/2.8 becomes as fast as
F/2.0 :^)

Even with manual focus, when shooting outdoors you won't have to focus
very often.

Don't be afraid to try a similar non-Pentax lens if the price is very
low... besides the very fine Pentax-A 28mm I own a Vivitar A-mount 28mm
which is 95% as good. From the UK I got a cheap Miranda 24mm F/2.8 (36mm
equivalent) which is decent enough, though not spectacular.

On your K100 going wide costs more than going long, since there are tons
of used telelenses available at very low prices.

D.M. Procida wrote:

The new Pentax lenses seem to cost a fortune (relative to what I can
justfy spending) so I'd like to go the cheap route and buy an old lens
instead.

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better. One
thing I don't want to have to do is deal with something that the camera
can't meter with properly.

What would you suggest? There are so many lenses out there on the
second-hand market that I have no idea what might be worthwhile and what
might be a waste of time and money.

You want this web site to compare Pentax and Takumar K-mount lenses:
http://stans-photography.info/

Your camera can meter just fine with any manual lens, as long as you
understand the limitations: http://www.mile23.com/node/26

You can also troll around for M42 screwmount lenses, which you can use
on your camera body with an adaptor.

--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2..._argument.html

Charles Gillen gillen@hisdotcom wrote:

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better.

For your requirements the best non-budget-busters would be a Pentax-A or
-F 28mm F/2.8 which meter perfectly, though the -A model is manual focus.
Equal to 42mm on digital.

That's going to be noticeably wider though, than a closer 50mm
equivalent, isn't it?

Daniele

D.M. Procida wrote:

The new Pentax lenses seem to cost a fortune (relative to what I can
justfy spending) so I'd like to go the cheap route and buy an old lens
instead.

What would you suggest?

Thanks for the excellent and helpful responses.

Daniele

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:09:31 +0100,
(D.M. Procida)
wrote:

Charles Gillen gillen@hisdotcom wrote:

What I want is a 50mm-equivalent, nice and bright, and obviously the
more compatible with things like the camera's autofocus the better.

For your requirements the best non-budget-busters would be a Pentax-A or
-F 28mm F/2.8 which meter perfectly, though the -A model is manual focus.
Equal to 42mm on digital.

That's going to be noticeably wider though, than a closer 50mm
equivalent, isn't it?

But very close to the "ideal" 35mm standard of 43mm.

Incidentally the Sigma 30/1.4 probably meets your needs
quite well :-)

--
John Bean

(D.M. Procida) wrote:

That's going to be noticeably wider though, than a closer 50mm
equivalent, isn't it?

Among the fairly numerous and relatively inexpensive OLDER Pentax lenses,
you have little choice. A 35mm film lens becomes 52.5mm on the Pentax,
so it is safer to start at 28mm and get 42mm, which many folks think is a
far better "normal" focal length, so much so that Pentax even sells the
42mm "pancake" lens for its film cameras. On film 50mm has always felt a
bit too narrow for me, so the 28mm acting like 42mm on digital better
matches what your eye sees.

Don't be afraid of cheap manual focus lenses. Look around eBay... you
can add a 50mm F/2.0 or the better F/1.7 quite inexpensively... they are
great portrait lenses.

Anyhow, autofocus with "fast" lenses isn't as reliable as one would hope,
since the autofocus sensor doesn't really look at the focus screen... but
your eye does. I have an expensive autofocus Pentax F/1.4 which is not
at all reliable at portrait distances. Autofocus seems more accurate
with lenses of F/3.5 or slower.

John Bean wrote:

Incidentally the Sigma 30/1.4 probably meets your needs
quite well :-)

Too true, but in the USA it costs $400... for that much money on eBay a
first-time Pentax K100 owner could buy quite a selection of used lenses
and thus learn what she next wants, when the budget permits. Meantime,
the 18~55mm kit lens is a useful bargain that should not be forgotten.

When I went digital Pentax, I confess to having overbought on eBay,
winding up with multiple 50mm primes and 70~200mm zooms, but the
learning curve was instructive. For persons on a tight budget, a "good
enough" lens in the hand is worth a dozen one lusts for but can't afford.
Thanks to digital processing, even a no-name optical "dog" can usually be
enhanced enough to justify its low cost until one can afford better.

Good luck, Daniele :^)