Pentax Virgin...no more!

[graeme_hodges]

Hi all,

 

Well thanks to Alan Gage, ebay and a little divine intervention I

will soon be the recipient of an ME Super body.

I've been reading (too much!) about lenses and would like your help.

I would like the following prime lenses to start:

 

A close-up macro for jewellery photos (rings, ear rings etc for my

wife's shop);

A wide aperture wide angle (24 or 28mm?)

A wide aperture 50mm;

A wide aperture portait lens (100mm);

Maybe a decent telephoto (200 0r 400?).

Not really looking at zooms at this stage, unless I can be convinced

otherwise.

 

Please note I only want quality so you can assume I am talking about

the SMC/SMC-A range.

By the way, is SMC-A compatible with the ME Super, or is it better

suited to a Super A/Super Program, for example.

 

Thanks in advance...

 

-Graeme.

[jordan2240]

Graeme,

 

Don't know about the backwards compatibility of lenses, but the Sigma 105mm macro lens (which I own) is pretty well-regarded, and it will satisfy both your macro and portrait requirement. I believe Pentax makes a 100mm macro lens, but of course it's more costly. The Pentax 50mm 1.4 SMC (which I also own) is supposedly a very fine "normal" lens. Should be able to pick one of those up fairly cheap I would think.

 

Bill

[jerry thirsty]

Are you asking for lens recommendations, or whether anybody has any of those for sale?

 

If you're asking for recommendations, then:

 

Macro: Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm, Vivitar Series 1 105mm, or Pentax-F or -FA 100mm are all good candidates.

 

28mm: Pentax-FA is generally regarded as the best.

 

24mm: Pentax-FA if you can still find one.

 

50mm: any of the Pentax f/1.4 is good.

 

Portrait: Pentax-FA 85/1.4 is optimized for this, Pentax-A 85/1.4 is supposed to be good too but better for non-portrait as well. If these are out of your price range, you can try to find the older 85/1.8 and /2s, but they are still surprisingly expensive due to low production numbers.

 

Telephoto: Pentax-F or -FA 300/4, Sigma Apo-Tele-Macro 400/5.6 (but only this one specifically; earlier model is junk). You might want to look at the Sigma 70-200/2.8 zoom, either DG or non-DG version; pricey but supposed to be very good.

 

And of course pretty much any of the Pentax "Limited" lenses will be good if you can afford them.

[stemked]

I'm going to disagree a little with Jerry. FA and F lenses (which are autofocus) frankly are not as pleasent to use on manual focus bodies as manual lenses. That's not to say they can't be used, the ME Super can handle anything in a K mount (or screw, P645 or P67 with correct adaptor). With a couple of noteable acceptions, the 24mm f2, the 300mm f4.5 F/FA being ones that come to mind because of the clutch mechanisms, FA and F lenses often have narrow focusing ring (exception 100mm/50mm FA f2.8 macro) or they focus too freely. That is why you will generally enjoy (in Pentax lingo) K, M, or A lenses more with your ME Super.

 

I would second the Tamron 90mm Adaptall lenses (either f2.5 or f2.8) as stunning yet inexpensive macro lens, half the price of a similar Pentax 100mm f4 A. On macro lenses sometimes there are super deals in Pentax 100mm F/FA f2.8 lenses (autofocus) as it seems many photography schools seemed to use those lenses. I often see then with a small drilled hole at the front of the lens (no idea why).

 

Generally any Pentax prime is what you will want to pick up. But in a pinch I wouldn't overlook the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO lenses. They are optcally nice lenses, lightweight, just a little on the fragle side.

 

Still to this day with almost 30 lenses I find I would never part with my 50mm f1.4 A. There are just too many situations where I find I need it. Also the lens I use the most is certainly my 200mm f4 macro. It is expensive, but well worth the cost if you can find it. In the wide side I love my pocketable 24mm f2.8 A lens and use it a lot more than my 28mm f2.8 M, which I'm not overly fond of.

 

And SMC-A is 100% compatable with an ME Super.

[petre_petrov1]

Guys, guys! You will drive poor Graeme into the ground! He has just got a small and inexpensive Pentax camera, and your first suggestions for glass are the 85/1.4, the 300/4 ED, and the 100/2.8 Pentax-F (FA) macro!!! It's one thing to lose your Pentax virginity, it's quite another to send the Pentax gang-bang squad on Graeme's first date! Why don't you throw the 200/2.8 ED into the mix: that way you'll make sure Graeme sells his family in order to join Pentax's!

Graeme, if you want to keep your family and your house, here are my budget-minded suggestions:

 

Wide: SMC 28/3.5 (you should be able to get it for around $60; it is absolutely beatiful)

 

Normal: SMC-A (or M) 50/1.7 (don't pay more than $40; for $60-80 you should be able to get the 50/1.4, which is a tad brighter and perhaps a tad better)

 

Macro: If you want to go really cheap, get the 100/3.5 macro which is currently sold under several different labels (Vivitar, Promaster, etc.). It is very sharp and highly underrated. The MF version cost me $50 on eBay. It's plasticky, but hey: macro work is not a high-risk environment.

 

Short tele/portrait: for a start, you may consider using your macro as a portrait lens. From the Pentax lineup of short teles, I would suggest the (K)135/3.5: it is very good and it won't break the bank ($40-60, depending on the condition).

 

Long tele: you should decide how long you want to go. If you want to shoot sports, even 200mm may prove enough. For birds, you may have to go over 400mm. The Pentax lenses in the super-long range come at a high price. The SMC-M 200/4 is very affordable ($50-80) and, like all Pentax primes, excellent.

[jerry thirsty]

It's hard to tell exactly what Graeme has in mind for a budget, but I assume that if he's looking to buy four or five lenses (macro, wide, normal, portrait, tele) just to get started he must have some $$$ to play with. And because he's "not looking to get into zooms at this stage" I assume he is looking for the best optical quality, which was the criteria I used for my list. I agree that there are many cheaper Pentax primes that will do just fine (and are a lot easier to find). Personally I'm biased toward future compatibility, and IMHO the -F, -FA, and -DFA lenses make the most sense even if the manual focusing isn't as nice.

 

Also Graeme, in case you haven't seen all these yet, here are some sites of interest:

 

http://stans-photography.info/

 

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/

 

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/

 

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

 

If I left any out I'm sure someone else will chime in soon enough.

[jerry thirsty]

It's hard to tell exactly what Graeme has in mind for a budget, but I assume that if he's looking to buy four or five lenses (macro, wide, normal, portrait, tele) just to get started he must have some $$$ to play with. And because he's "not looking to get into zooms at this stage" I assume he is looking for the best optical quality, which was the criteria I used for my list. I agree that there are many cheaper Pentax primes that will do just fine (and are a lot easier to find). Personally I'm biased toward future compatibility, and IMHO the -F, -FA, and -DFA lenses make the most sense even if the manual focusing isn't as nice.

 

Also Graeme, in case you haven't seen all these yet, here are some sites of interest:

 

http://stans-photography.info/

 

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/

 

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/

 

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

 

If I left any out I'm sure someone else will chime in soon enough.

[Jochen_S]

O.K. original "A"lenses should do fine; some 3rd party will lock on the A setting, when you reach it by accident; I have a Soligor of this kind, but I don't mind shooting it on my K1000. But well, I should be payed more then highly to use AF lenses on manual bodys.

 

If you consider switching to digital later, hunt A lenses if possible; they are more convenient with the crippled k-mount of the DSLRs

 

Macros: dirt cheap way around: 3rd party bellows and a good enlarging lens you'll need anyhow later, like a Apo Rodagon 80 -135mm.

 

Probably convenient to use: Pentax 100mm f4.0 There is a 100mm f2.8 A lens too, but I don't like having only 360� or less from 1:1 to infinity; try out Leica's 100mm Makroelmarit R to understand, what I'm talking about. My own example of the Tamron 90mm produces a colored spot in the center of the image if it is stopped down further than f8. But it's a useable portrait lens too. I'd even try the f4.0 to get started. As already mentioned I wouldn't like to use my best lens a FA 100mm f2.8 on a manual body.

 

WAs: my Kiron 28mm f2.0 competes well with the 28mm f2.8 A, I just compared sharpness on f2.8 captures by pixelpeeping. The old f3.5 has a stellar reputation, Sigma 24mm f1.8 should be great on digital too according to a test I read.

 

Fast lenses in general: I don't worship them on film. Google for a DOF calculator to look what a 85mm f1.4 doesn't provide wide open at 3 and 5 feet. Turning the focusing ring just a fraction of a mm will make your exposure hit or mis, according to the rule of sharpness on a subjects front eye. - Stop down to zoom's speed to hit the one behind it too. I'd use such a lens with a AF DSLR more suitable for machinegunnery than my *istD, if necessary in available darkness but would never attempt to focus it manualy and wouldn't like the idea of paying film and processing for one hit/roll. - WAs may be fast, because they provide much more DOF.

 

According to Boz' page the 50mm f1.7 is sharper than the f2.0, so I use it. Normally I'd be fine with f2.0 and use the f2.8 macro on my DSLR, because I like the AF.

 

I own Pentax 135mm f2.8 both as A and F version. The later does a fine job on the digital, the A lens once had aperture trouble. According to Boz these aren't the sharpest imaginable but they do the job. The 77mm limited might be nice to have, but needs a longer counterweight on film. It should make a fine pair with a 135mm. I feel unable to afford a 85mm for Pentax, but it's a lovely focal length.

 

I don't believe the ME super to mate well with extreme telephoto lenses. The body is too small IMHO. The Winder ME(II) might be a little help, although it's a PITA compared to a Motordrive A with a fitting camera, but at least my Super A's bottom plate didn't last very long with it. - If you really consider using long lenses seriously get into another Camera system which provides big bodys like EOS1, R9, F5, some antishake / image stabilization and incredible fast AF motors built into the lenses. - Anything else sucks and buying inferior gear is the biggest imaginable money dump. But surely the 200mm f 4.0 mentioned above is a reasonable thing to have, but at least I won't like to have one combined with only one body, because it needs too much light compared to the other lenses - 4 f-stops more than a 50mm f2.0 at the same risk of camera shake. While shooting comparably slow film to gain maximum resolution with the rest of your gear you might desire something faster with this lens to use it not only wide open at brightest daylight. - Stop dreaming about "00mm f2.0 lenses, I once touched a old Nikkor of this kind and became sure I'd leave it at home whenever possible.

 

Before you spend several fortunes on lenses, keep in mind that the ME Super is probably 20 years old and equiped with electronics which might fail tomorrow. Keep some $$ for a more mechanical body like K/LX, K1000, MX, Ricoh KR5 or whatever. - They are esier to be fixed at free repairshops. - Of course my LX's autoexposure is broken down the 3rd time, but I don't care anymore. 1/75 - 1/2000 sec are useable enough to keep this fine camera, especially with longer lenses.

[mike_h5]

I'm pretty adamant that SMC-A's auto-program mode isn't compatible with the ME Super, as that camera predates A lens BY FAR.

ME Super came out with the M series of lenses.

<p>

Don't forget about M42 lenses also, they will work with your ME Super with a $10 adapter. I picked up a 50mm F/4 Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar on there for $40. It will do 1:2 tack sharp macros. Excellent value. I also got a 300mm F/4 S-M-C Takumar for $105, it really doesn't get any better than that. Additionally, I was lucky and I scored a 35mm F/2 S-M-C Takumar lens for $50, they usually go for $120-150 on ebay. But I'm sure if you look long enough, you'll find the same deal again. The 105mm Takumars were a gem for portraits, so were the 85mm F/1.9s, some of the best built lens of all time. I actually saw one go for $400! A 35 yr old lens selling for the same price as a brand new autofocus equivalent! Don't be fooled by the age. :)

<br><br>

Good luck on your purchase

[graeme_hodges]

Hi all,

 

As always, great suggestions. You guys should be on commission : )

I have already managed to get a 50/1.7 to get me started and will look at a 28mm and 100mm Macro to see me on my way.

 

Thanks again...and Ho Ho Ho to all.

 

-Graeme.

[uccemebug]

I've recently picked up my first Pentax gear for <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=547819">street photography in Tokyo</a>, and I've read this thread with interest. I have followed the link to the lens test results on <a href='http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/'>takinami.com</a>, and am very impressed with the variety of lenses tested there -- what a lot of work!<br />

<br />

The results on the 85/2 have convinced me to avoid the specimen that a local shop has for Y40,000 (CA$400). They also tell me to keep the aperture at or below f/5.6 on my 40mm/2.8. So, thanks to those who posted the links.

[cideway]

The M 50 f1.4 is beautiful and usable at f1.4 on film, so long as you take your A, F, FA out of the "A" position you can use them on your ME Super, if you like F22 you could even use a FA-J and if you like F22 and vignetting you could use a DA,

 

other then that i would sugest for your selection the

K 24 F2.8 minimal distortion great performance fast

M/A 50 F1.4 absolutetly brilliant optics

FA 77 F1.8 LTD, even though this is an AF lens the focus ring has enough feel to it to be useful

and the M 200 F4, other than that i have an old Sun 80-240 F4 which offers results comparable to any prime and with extention rings this lens also doubles as a nice macro estup.

[luben karavelov]

Graeme,

 

You have already a normal 50/1.7 lens. So for the wide angle I would suggest SMC 24/2.8. Sigma mini-wide II 24/2.8 MF is also very nice lens that could be found for less then $80. SMC 35/2 and SMC 35/3.5 are also very good lens. I have not SMC 30/2.8 but it seems to be excellent performer.

 

For the macro work, why don't you try using extension bellows? It is the most cheap way to go.

 

For the portraiture and tele lens I could not give you advice. I am actually using Jupiter-9 85/2 (nice lens but you have bother with adapters and preset diafragm) and sonnar 180/2.8 but this is another story...

 

best regards

luben