Reality Check: How usable are legacy lenses on modern Pentax dSLRs?

<p>I've been a luddite and have held off buying a dSLR for quite some time. That plus the never ending "feature creep" that kept me wanting the next great thing. The reality is that the style of color shooting I would have used a 35mm camera for is finally dead to me due to the economics/availability of film and processing. I eyeballed the K5II and came *so* close to pulling the trigger, but held off. The K3 however might tip the scale and if its low light / high ISO performance is at least equal to the K5II, it'll be highly compelling.<br>

I know that on paper, with a few exceptions, all the old Pentax lenses will work on their modern bodies, but I wonder how friendly the workflow is when using old "M" lenses though. The lack of AF is inconsequential to me, but if I can't get into a "groove", I won't use the lenses and I'm not ready to give up on my small stable of old Pentax glass. For example, of all my cameras/lenses including Mamiya and Rollei MF, the 50mm SMC Pentax-M f1.4 is my absolute favorite - quite literally I'd move it from my trusty 28 year old K1000 to the K3. Those of you with experience giving new life to your old glass by using it on a modern body, how has it worked out for you? How well does Pentax implement/support stop down mode? An afterthought or well married to the "UI"?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Doug</p>

 

<p>There are numerous considerations for old lenses. Modern AF DSLR cameras do not, typically, have anything but a ground-glass type focusing screen. Some of them have focus assist indicators which let you know when you're in focus. The bigger thing for older glass is the crop factor. Your 50mm is now a 75mm. If using legacy glass is important to you, you may want to wait and buy the Sony a7. With an adapter you'll get full-frame coverage from your older lenses, as well as focus peaking to assist focus.</p>

<p>Hi Douglas,<br>

Many of the folks who frequent this forum use legacy glass with their Pentax DSLRs and I'm sure they will offer experience-based feedback. In general, old lenses work well, and the bright Pentax viewfinders facilitate accurate focus. In addition, newer DSLRs have LiveView which use the LCD to ensure pinpoint focus accuracy. </p>

<p>Unlike say a forthcoming Sony model priced in the thousands of dollars, you don't need any bulky adapter to use your Pentax "M" lens in any modern Pentax DSLR. </p>

<p>I've used M, A, and M42 lenses on my Pentax DSLRs with generally very good results. I find the M glass to be the most problematic because the camera relies on stop down metering using the Green button. It's easy to do, but I find the results off by a couple of stops and have to do some trial-and-error. M42 and A lenses, however, have more accurate metering and the ease of using the camera wheel to control aperture in AV mode.</p>

<p>Image quality wise, all older Pentax glass produces acceptable results. I have a K-3 coming soon and expect my 30-year old SMC Takumars to render better than ever.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I'm willing to use M lenses for thoughtful, non-rushed shooting. I have a M macro (100/4) and for the kind of macro shooting I do it suits my needs. I prefer A lenses for ease of metering or if I'm in a less-relaxed shooting scenario (models, animals, kids, sports, etc) I want all the automation help I can get. But shooting the M lenses definitely has it's place in my repertoire, albeit a small one.</p>

<p>Simple answer: the reason to go with a modern camera involves using modern lens systems that are designed to work well with that system.</p>

<p>Complex answer: Many of us enjoy fussing about and using old lenses on modern digital bodies, but we do this for FUN, not for serious applications for the most part.</p>

<p>Caveat: Never buy any new system based solely on compatibility with any older manual-focus lenses.</p>

<p>Doug,</p>

<p>The question is, what kind of "groove" do you enjoy now with your K1000? Do you shoot handheld? Do you rely on capturing the "decisive moment"? Do your subjects include anything unpredictable, like people having their portraits taken?</p>

<p>If you answered yes to any of these questions, I can't recommend you use your legacy lenses with a new DSLR. This is my experience having tried to do so over a long history of DSLRs, up to my current K5. The DSLR focusing screens just aren't made for manual focus. They are optimized for "brightness" and don't accurately show focus below say f/4. Which means, when using an f/2.8 or f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, you are unlikely to ever get the darn thing in focus.</p>

<p>There are two solutions to that -- change the focusing screen for an expensive replacement, designed for manual focus. I did that, but was never comfortable that it was actually as accurate as I wished. The other option is to use Live View, which is a great feature for subjects that stay still. But the fact that the mirror has to flip up, then you focus on the screen, then you press the shutter release, and the mirror has to flip back down, then flip up, then the shutter opens... it's not instantaneous, and it's really tricky to do hand-held.</p>

<p>The only digital Pentax that has been PERFECT with manual focus lenses is the K-01. I find manual focus shooting on the K-01 to be a match made in heaven. The camera has no viewfinder, therefore "Live View" is always on and there is no mirror to flop about. The addition of "focus peaking" gives you a nice visual indication of where exactly the focus snaps in. The shutter fires instantly without having to wait for the mirror, and has a nice solid "snick" sound to it. Best of all, the image quality from the K-01 is even better than the image quality from my K-5. I think that's 1/2 because of the inherent IQ, and 1/2 because I can always get my focus critically sharp with the K-01.</p>

<p>If you want to go for a full DSLR with optical viewfinder, I strongly recommend you use autofocus lenses. The DSLRs are great cameras with auto focus. I just can't recommend them for manual focus. My manual focus lenses are used on my LX with 35mm film, or on my K-01.</p>

<p>Hi Douglas.<br>

I used to use any number of screw mount lenses on various bodies. The lenses that I used the most were 40mm f2.8 M pancake, a couple of Russian lenses (85 f2 and a 15mm fisheye) and 500mm f4.5 Takumar. I have subsequently sold the 500mm (I purchased a 600mm A lens) and 85mm, and rarely use the pancake or fisheye. However, I do not find it especially hard to use those lenses.<br>

The switch from film to digital for me is still an on-going process I have to admit. I loved geekdom of the different films and the discipline behind the shutter knowing I had to pay for that shot twice through the film and processing. The transition now is that I take a lot more images. I worry sometimes that it leads one to be sloppy in their photography as you know that 1 out of 100 will be excellent (exaggerated) and that you can tweak images in software. I do very little post processing and I can see that those who do have images regarded much higher than my own. But as far as the experience itself it's still the same. I do appreciate that we generate a lot less harmful toxins than we did in the old days which is obviously a good thing.<br>

I'm rambling, but I'm sure you'll be fine. The K5II is an excellent camera and a steal; I'm sure the K3 will be an equally loved camera. Once you factor in the savings from film and processing the price of the Pentax dSLRs will seem very manageable. And the ability to change an ISO on the fly is a real pleasure when you recall that we had to get through the roll first to change ISOs.<br>

You at least had the discipline to control yourself on bodies. I have two Super Programs, an LX, an MX, and my wife's ZX-5n and K1000 along with a 67. The LX, MS, and K1000 still get some use but it's hard to sell the other cameras for price of a movie ticket.</p>

<p>Doug<br>

</p>

<p>Perhaps I should have set the stage a bit better. I do have a Panasonic Lumix as a "carry about" camera and am very pleased with it in that role. It's generally sharp and produces a color palate I find pleasing. However, I detest menu diving and shutter lag annoys me even more. The final straw is I *hate* looking at a display to frame a photo. I do have a "hand me down", 1st generation digital Rebel, but I can never click with that camera - again, I hate having to dig into menus or switch control mode contexts to get to basic settings like aperture and shutter speed. I'm not actually a luddite, I'm a tech worker who just doesn't want to feel like I'm operating a computer while practicing photography - the interface should assist me, not get in the way. I have a brand new GoPro Black Hero 3+; for its designed task, it's a brilliant little bit of gear.</p>

<p>I never upgraded from the modest K-1000 because it did everything I needed. Sure, the center weighted meter could be fooled, but it wasn't hard to eyeball a scene and compensate as needed. Lack of AF was never an issue; I'd guestimate my subject, preset the exposure and prefocus using hyperfocal distance. The only features I missed on the K-1000 was DoFP and possibly MLU, but the deficiency was forgiven since that camera has been a flawless companion for nearly 30 years. Ignoring the Lumix and Rebel, the K-1000 is the only camera I own with a meter of any kind. I seem to do fine with the Rolleicord IV, C330 kit and RB67 kit - they just aren't very portable and their advantage for color photography is slipping. For B&W work, I'll stick with the medium format gear and the K-1000 for fun. <br>

<br />On a basic level, if I were designing a camera, it would be a fully manual, mechanical camera with digital sensor that represents a great value. I do not practice "spray and pray" photography and I've found the fuzzy logic between my ears to be quite sufficient. I have a few photos that one might call, "decisive moment" images, but I got them because I was prepared, not because I had a megabuck camera. My reasons for considering the K3 (or perhaps K5II) are because of their fully expressed manual controls and their sensor and processing capability which for a lack of better terms, represent the equivalent of excellent "film". Yes, a good AF and auto-exposure system will be nice to have, but they will be necessary to get the job done maybe 10% of the time or less. All I really want is great glass and a great sensor in my hands; I'll take care of the rest.</p>

<p> Douglas Elick<br>

P.S. I thought I read the K3 will do focus peaking - something quite handy when using manual glass, I imagine. I take it the K5II cannot?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The final straw is I *hate* looking at a display to frame a photo. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I pretty much share the spirit of your statement. The Q, because it is so tiny, is as tolerant as I can handle with a non-optical viewfinder--and I've tried the highly praised ones out there. I make an exception for the better LiveView implementations because I only use them in static tripod-mount situations. Brings to mind my 4x5 shooting.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing more of your requirements. I think the K-3 or K-5II would serve you well.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>If you like doing it the old way, why not stick with film?<br /> It's certainly well suited for your way of working, although it is true that some of the later ones are polluted (OPE, POE, etc.) with features like AF and AE. Good scanners are not cheap, but are cheaper than a whole new camera system. Film, especially larger format film, still is in the competition for resolution, although for 35mm-format I think digital is higher resolution/image quality these days.</p>

<p>Why characterize using AF cameras to their fullest as "spray and pray"? You are free to shoot as you please, why the chip on your shoulder?</p>

<p>There are very few AF, AE digital SLR cameras that cannot be used in completely manual mode. If all you want is digital sensor, then just turn off the features you don't use. It wouldn't cost Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company any less to make a camera nowadays without those features.</p>

<p>I still think that modern lenses will in general be improved over the old film-targeted lenses as there are some physical differences in design for digital sensors. The AF can be turned off, as I say, and time has marched on with new and better lens designs, especially in zoom lenses.</p>

<p>BTW, others can answer about the old lenses on Pentax bodies, but there are very inexpensive K>EOS and M42>EOS adapters that will work on any Canon EOS "full-frame" digital body (with the exception of some rear-projecting wide angles) in full metering (stopped down) mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are very inexpensive K>EOS and M42>EOS adapters that will work on any Canon EOS "full-frame" digital body (with the exception of some rear-projecting wide angles) in full metering (stopped down) mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is inaccurate information. Very few K-mount lenses will work in non-cropped Canon bodies. I speak from personal experience here. Certain M42 lenses will work in non-cropped Canon bodies. I speak from personal experience here. Most of these lenses will work in my Canon 7D with adapters.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I misspoke on K to Canon 5D and later, since the aperture lever <em>is</em> often a problem there and full compatibility involves something I don't like to do either - actually modifying the lens.<br /> However, I have literally over a hundred M42 lenses that work just fine with no modification, especially if you get the adapter with the flange for the automatic diaphragm.<br /> The problem with the wide-angle M42 lenses is mirror/lens "interaction", but the vast bulk of M42 lenses work just fine on all Canons.</p>

<p>A list of incompatibilities with the larger mirror 35mm sensor Canons can be found at<br /> http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/</p>

<p>It is true that the Canon APS-C ("crop") bodies are almost universally accepting of M42, at any rate, as well as Nikon, etc., because the mirror is smaller. Of course, shooting on the smaller sensor necessarily involves cropping the lens by a 1.6X factor.</p>

<p>JDM - you answered your own question. Color 35mm film no longer has a clear advantage over digital. Add in the economics and there's why I'm finally considering a nice dSLR; I stated this.</p>

<p>I did not characterize AF cameras as "spray and pray"; rather, that it is not my style. AF is nice, but is not a primary purchasing concern. No chip at all - to each his or her own.</p>

<p>You are correct that most SLRs can be used in manual mode, but the way controls are implemented on various models vary like night and day. Since I've already stated I hate menu diving and appreciate having all the basic functions expressed in real tactile controls, I think it's fair to say a good many SLRs could be eliminated by this criteria alone, wouldn't you agree? Pentax SLRs have been known for their particularly good ergonomics and workflow, which is why I'm strongly considering, "staying in the family" so to speak.</p>

<p>As for the idea that old lenses are to be relegated to the dustbin of history, I disagree. Time might march on, but a great lens formula remains so regardless. Of course I'd augment any new dSLR with modern lenses, but since I've stated I have older glass I'd like to continue using, it's rather silly to suggest I make a choice that abandons the ability to choose the best of new and old lenses. Sure, newer designs might be engineered specifically for APS-C, but does that necessarily automatically mean they're superior? I don't think so. An APS-C prime only has to cover that rather small area, but my old f1.4 50mm for example, had to be reasonably sharp, wide open, out to the far edge of a 135 frame. On an APS-C camera, if anything, that small sensor will be in the sweet spot. But of course pleasing ultra-wide angle formulas for small sensors are completely different animals that are more difficult to economically realize. As for zooms, in general I'm sure most are better these days, but there were some gems even in the days of flying dinosaurs. Like everything in life, there are trade-offs.</p>

<p>Nice tripod by the way; we have something in common apparently. I love my Tiltall.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>I used many MF lenses on Pentax DSLRs and there are just two advantages to using MF K lenses on Pentax DSLRs: IBIS and the lack of need for an adapter. Sony DSLRs will give you IBIS but you'll need an adapter. Canon will need an adapter and will offer no IBIS, but you may be able to use a FF camera (see caveat mentioned earlier in thread - some K lenses can hit the mirror of FF Canon DSLRs). MILCs offer the best focusing helpers but still need an adapter - some have IBIS and they come in MFT/APS-C/FF formats.</p>

<p>If you are considering M42 lenses, I find the experience on Pentax DSLRs the least desirable as it requires an adapter and the operation of that adapter is more inconvenient than on other platforms (see details below).</p>

<p>Here are the problems you can/will hit with M42/K lenses on Pentax DSLRs:</p>

<ul>

<li>M42 adapter is a camera adapter, not a lens adapter - it makes the camera an M42 camera instead of making the lens a K lens. This means that you cannot easily switch between an M42 lens and a K one. This not a problem on any other platform. I wrote a longer post on this aspect <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2011/03/m42-lenses-on-modern-cameras.html">here</a> - that one actually has a follow-up linked at the bottom.</li>

<li>Some third party K lenses have problems with modern K mounts. Problem #1 is Ricoh pin - just do a search for it, problem #2 is Vivitar flange - a metallic piece of the mount that was added by Vivitar to some of their lenses and that needs to be removed to be able to mount the lens</li>

<li>The K mount in DSLRs is crippled - it lacks a coupling that permitted film cameras to read the selected lens aperture - that means that you must use K or M series lenses in manual aperture mode - this is not a worse experience than on other cameras, but it is a missed opportunity where Pentax DSLRs could have offered a distinct advantage but they don't.</li>

</ul>

<p>The best way to use these lenses, however, is on MILCs. DSLRs all have one big issue: with manual aperture, if you stop down the lens, the viewfinder will darken. With MILCs, you'll always see the image according to the exposure settings. I know you mentioned you want a different shooting experience than on your Panasonic - you should look at models with a viewfinder and pick the sensor size you prefer - for such lenses I would look at the newly announced A7/A7R Sony cameras. MILCs also allow you to adapt any legacy lenses, not just Pentax one. The caveat for A7/A7R is that their performance with legacy rangefinder lenses remains to be proven.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Time might march on, but a great lens formula remains so regardless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An optical formula is just one part of a lens and may no longer be great on a capture medium that it was not designed for. Coatings, for example, are also very important and they make a difference in modern lenses. And the digital medium stresses lenses differently than film. For example, a challenge for FF sensors is that they need to capture light well at the borders of the frame. Film wasn't picky about the angle of incidence of light, but digital sensors are. This has led to optical designs that try to project light perpendicularly on a sensor. Some lenses still perform very nicely on digital, especially on cropped sensors where the above issue is minimized. It remains to be seen how well future FF sensors will enable legacy lenses to perform.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the idea that old lenses are to be relegated to the dustbin of history, I disagree. Time might march on, but a great lens formula remains so regardless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never said anything like "dustbin of history". If I felt that way I hardly would have collected over 200 lenses in all kinds of mounts (see my many posts on Classic Manual Cameras &c, for an example see http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00c21t ). <br>

Nonetheless, aside from primes, the vast majority of even the classic <strong>zoom</strong> lenses are no longer so good as newer lenses<strong><em> especially given the special demands of digital sensors</em></strong>, as I already said too (no doubt exaggerated by people who want to sell you new lenses).<br>

However, much as I love old Double Gaussian and Sonnar lenses, the golden age of lens design is NOW. </p>

<p>I don't think it makes much sense to buy a $2000 camera to use a $200 lens, namely the M 50 f1.4.</p>

<p>If it were my money and I were looking to recreate the K1000 experience digitally, I'd go for an Olympus EM-1 with Panasonic Leica 25 f1.4. Set the menus once, lock in ISO 200, and put it in manual mode, single shot. You have twin control wheels to set aperture and shutter and you can even select centerweighted metering if you want, instead of modern evaluative metering.</p>

<p>I've used Pentax M and K lenses on Canon and M4/3 bodies. I find the M4/3 bodies the best for legacy lenses, mainly for live view/ EVF and focus peaking and as Laurentiu points out you don't have to worry about the viewfinder darkening as you stop down. Main problem is the crop factor is 2x.</p>

<p>Geoff - A $2000 body mated to a $200 lens makes perfect sense if it does what I want it to. I'll reiterate that the purchase of a dSLR will of course represent entering into a full system. I fully expect to purchase modern lenses over time, but budget is a concern. Since the modern dSLR is more than just a film transport, I want to get the best body I can afford and mate lenses I acquire over time. Lets not forget there's a huge used market and I already have a stable of older Pentax lenses. Since I couldn't care less about AF functionality, the only criteria I have is how well a particular chunk of glass does its job on the camera. The longevity of the K-mount system is attractive to me - I don't have terribly deep pockets.<br>

<br />I certainly understand that time marches on and one risks irrelevance by ignoring it. That being said, for many, many years, my choice for a portable camera was a 35mm SLR with a tack sharp, fast 50 - the aesthetic grabs something deep inside me. Of course I never have nor am I going to askew wides, teles, zooms, etc, but whatever system I wind up with, I very much want the equivalent of that fast 50. It represents a big dilemma since APS-C changes the FOV, rendering my M 50 into a short tele. What modern Pentax prime would give the equivalent perspective of a 50mm while remaining tack sharp and fast? I prefer available light photography and the prospect of a fast prime on a body/sensor combination that can produce finer resolution (less grain or noise at high ISO) than any film ever could is really exciting to me.<br>

<br />I suppose I should have prefaced all of this by saying my photography has been in the doldrums the past couple of years. The prospect of augmenting my modest stable of cameras with a good dSLR is exciting. I gravitated towards MF for a good while, but I'm missing the 35mm "style" and want to get back to it. </p>

<p>It is apparent that you know your requirements and I think you will enjoy whatever camera you end up with.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What modern Pentax prime would give the equivalent perspective of a 50mm while remaining tack sharp and fast?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I enjoy using 35mm focal length lenses on a cropped sensor lens. Though I have not used the classic "M" and "A" 35mm Pentax lenses, they receive very high rankings on the lens database at Pentax Forums. The f2 version may be tough to find, but it may meet your needs quite well. Obtaining the newer FA 35mm f2 would be easier, but the manual focus ring on some FA lenses is awkward. </p>

<p>I should mention the SMC SuperTakumar f2 and f3.5 35mm lenses. They have great reputations and are very affordable. Of course you need an adapter. I find the argument that newer lenses=better to be untrue for all cases personally. Sometimes I prefer the rendering of the SuperTakumar lenses, especially regarding color. I also enjoy that the rendering seems to reflect human design values rather than the clinical digital precision of some newer lenses.</p>

<p>More recent are the two DA-type Pentax 35mm offerings. The cheaper f2.4 AL is highly regarded. I don't know how manual handling is with this one. The pricier DA Ltd. f2.8 Macro I've used for a few years now and think it is outstanding. Being a true macro lens, the focus throw is longer and thus easier to use manually.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>M42 adapter is a camera adapter, not a lens adapter - it makes the camera an M42 camera instead of making the lens a K lens. This means that you cannot easily switch between an M42 lens and a K one. This not a problem on any other platform. I wrote a longer post on this aspect <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2011/03/m42-lenses-on-modern-cameras.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> - that one actually has a follow-up linked at the bottom.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>This can be hacked.<br>

I have taken away the small springs that lock the adapter into the body and I put one adapter per lens, they all had effectively become K mount lenses. But after some time I gave away the K10 on which they worked better, and on the K5 they only work at full aperture and therefore don't allow good metering (unless I am missing something).<br>

Moreover, as someone already said, the angle of incidence on the sensor does matter, and therefore the splendid 15mm M gave quite poor results, on a par or worse than the 12-24 zoom, so I sold it. The 50mm f 1.4 is great, but I have an A that works better for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What modern Pentax prime would give the equivalent perspective of a 50mm while remaining tack sharp and fast?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here are two more options next to those already mentioned. The FA 31/1.8 Limited is a splendid lens worth its price. And if you want something faster, check the Samyang 35/1.4. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This can be hacked.<br>

I have taken away the small springs that lock the adapter into the body and I put one adapter per lens, they all had effectively become K mount lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To make the hack complete, you also need to drill a hole in the lens mount so it can catch the K mount pin lock. I know all this, but on other systems (Nikon being the only notable exception) you don't have to do any such thing - the adapters adapt the lens just fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and on the K5 they only work at full aperture and therefore don't allow good metering</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The metering on K10D didn't work that well either - I always had to adjust it as I adjusted the aperture. Which program mode were you using?</p>

<p>I have too much that I want to write but I just don't know where to start as many people have many valuable inputs. Pentax have done a reasonable job with the KAF2 mount, at least we can all make use of the K, M and M42 mount and use them well. Two caveats to note on current Pentax digital:</p>

<ul>

<li>Need of green button in metering for the K and M lenses</li>

<li>Crop factor with 1.5 of your focal length in APS-C sensor. Your 50mm is like a 75mm in the field of view when mounted on the Pentax current digital body</li>

</ul>

<p><br />I always prefer the A mount or M42 mount as the extra step in green button in stop-down metering takes away the pure joy of manual focusing lenses and it has become a chore in using MF lenses that don't have the A setting. Damn Pentax for the cripple KAF2 mount. I am grateful though I am a bit resentful for the need of that green button.</p>

<p>When I branch out to the Sony NEX cameras with E-mount, all the adapters for Pentax K, M42, Leica M mount, LTM, M39, Konica AR, Canon FD, Tamron adaptall-2 and dozens of other lens mounts will just work with mostly a simple glass-less adapters. And guess what, there is no need for green button metering as metering will just work charmingly with aperture stopped down. If you love manual focusing lens, you will be totally surprised with how good those old lenses come alive with two features that Sony and perhaps others in Olympus and Fuji have added into MILC systems</p>

<ul>

<li>Focus peeking with different color scheme</li>

<li>Manual focus assist with 4.8x or 9.6 times magnification</li>

</ul>

<p>With the combination of the two features, I use my NEX shooting using the LCD for the last 1+ years and it has worked well for me sans the EVF/OVF. Please take note that I am a casual shooter and my simple cheapo gear can make me just as happy as the more expensive gear. Of course I will prefer the upgrade to have a built-in EVF when the time comes for nex6/7 or the next alpha replacement.</p>

<p>And with the availability of Metabones speedbooster and Zhongyi Lens Turbo adapter, my manual focus lenses retain close to its Full Frame 135 format field of views in the APS-C sensor NEX cameras. A 35mm is like a 37.8mm with the adapter and the LT adds one extra stop of light because of the focal reducer glass element in the adapter. But the caveats lie in degradation of corner performance as well as field curvature that may aggravate barrel distortion on the corners. Not all scenes are acceptable especially landscape but if center crop is your type of of picture, the Lens Turbo may be something to consider. <br /> <a title="Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/9854693933_6edf6a25c8_b.jpg" alt="Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo" width="1024" height="680" /></a><br /> Lens Turbo for Pentax K mount on bottom, Genuine Pentax M42 to K adapter hidden, Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 mounted on top.</p>

<p><a title="DSC04799 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3759/9503462278_b87b9c2d30_b.jpg" alt="DSC04799" width="1024" height="680" /></a><br /> with Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5, Lens Turbo, wide open in nex 5N</p>

<p>And here is a picture from a similar set up but with a Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8 wide open with Lens Turbo adapter</p>

<p><a title="Jawbone Up Band by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2876/9688126210_1b7456058d_b.jpg" alt="Jawbone Up Band" width="680" height="1024" /></a><br /> with Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Lens Turbo, wide open in NEX 5N</p>

<p>In short, the Pentax current newer digital will serve you right in your use with the M 50mm f/1.4 but please take note that there are many other MILC type of alernative cameras that can just adapt to your old lens and perform even more magical that may surprise you in a good way.</p>

<p>My DSLR is a Pentax K-x. I still shoot mostly with film but the K-x allows me to use many older lenses and has its IS built into the body. For portraits I like to use an old 50/1.7 SMC Pentax F. It's sharp and bright to look through. Auto focusing is reasonably fast and not too noisy. I use a 100-300 Sigma DL f/4.5-6.7. It's sharper at the short end but will make sharp images up to a certain size. For macro I will use either a 55/2.8 Vivitar or a 90/2.5 Tamron SP (52BB). The Tamron is especially good with the Pentax. I wouldn't use AF with macro lenses so I don't miss it. I use a 135/2.8 Promaster telephoto which focuses down to 1:5 on a regular full frame film camera. I get additional magnification with the APS size sensor. This turns the lens into a 200mm f/2.8 (202.5mm) with close focusing. The K-x allows me to use K mount lenses, M42 mount lenses, Vivitar and Soligor T4 lenses, Vivitar TX lenses, Tamron Adaptall II lenses and even the old Tamron Adaptall and Adaptamatic lenses. At some point I will find my 35/2 SMC Pentax M to use as a standard lens. The 18-55 kit lens is pretty good but its slow speed can force me to use a higher ISO setting if a tripod is not handy or practical. <br>

In the end you have to try each lens and camera combination to find out which older lenses work well with a particular DSLR or MILC. I saw an inexpensive adapter on eBay for using Minolta manual focus lenses on Pentax cameras. There is no glass in the adapter but I would have fun using some of my Minolta macro equipment, like the Auto Bellows III, with the K-x. I find manual focusing easy with the K-x and the focus confirmation helps too. </p>

<p>@Jeff, I love my white K-x until it drops dead on me on the 9th month mark with dead SD card reader controller. CRIS dutifully fixed it up and mend the broken silver strips for me. I was at a loss with confusion at the time and I sold it and later got a used copy of K-7. There is no doubt if I have to revisit that decision, I would have picked K-x to stay. It is small, lightweight and a fun camera especially for travelling light with pancake types of lens in 15, 21, 35, 43 and 70. Yes, I did one travel trip with all the names mentioned.</p>

<p>My K-x mounted with limited lenses<br>

<a title="_IGP0899 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2527/4147961282_aa4daa1e6f_b.jpg" alt="_IGP0899" width="680" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p><a title="_IGP8431 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4118/4892669731_56cff71942_b.jpg" alt="_IGP8431" width="1024" height="680" /></a></p>

<p>K-x can work alright with manual focusing just like all other Pentax digital body but it has a lacking on AF point not lighted up after obtaining focus. It is unlike other Pentax body that a hexagon (symbol for AF confirmation) comes up while having the AF point stay lighted up after the beep. It takes me sometime to get used to.<br>

<a title="_IGP8422 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4079/4893264372_9d1e5453cb_b.jpg" alt="_IGP8422" width="1024" height="680" /></a><br>

Pentax MX on the back </p>

<p>I miss my white K-x very much .....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am selling this masterpiece of Kiron 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro, the equivalent of Lester A Dine Macro cult classic. It has an A setting and it makes it less a chore in close up. I am not a macro guy and hence I am putting it in PentaxForums marketplace and it is soon getting into the 3rd page without any notice</p>

<p><a title="_IGP0974 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4025/4387766751_9a9c416a64_b.jpg" alt="_IGP0974" width="1024" height="680" /></a></p>

<p>Manual focusing is the best with this macro on my K20D and K-x</p>

<p><a title="_IGP1278 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6202/6141312659_4cb12f8409_b.jpg" alt="_IGP1278" width="685" height="1024" /></a><br /> MF with K20D, hand-held</p>

<p><a title="_IGP1303 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6165/6141867398_1851a8664f_b.jpg" alt="_IGP1303" width="680" height="1024" /></a><br /> missing sharp focus but I love the charming bokeh and color<br /> <br /><br /><br /> This one with white K-x<br /> <a title="IMGP3758 by hin_man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4017/4385736563_2fddf3d123_b.jpg" alt="IMGP3758" width="680" height="1024" /></a><br /> with K-x in f/5.6, should have tried wider aperture</p>

<p> </p>