A1 metered manual and variable aperture lenses.

wombat2go said:

Here is the A1 with its set of lenses and accessories.
It is certainly top quality equipment and is all in good condition.
A future project will be to try to get the drive charged and working.

The set was given to me by a retired Detroit auto designer (from the clay times) who spent a lot of time in Japan.
Hence the 100 Volt charger.

Although I am mainly manual K-mount collector,
I have enjoyed learning about the A1 and it still takes good photos although I have not used it much.

Click to expand...

You have the 35-105/3.5, one of the best zooms in history, the 50/1.4, one of the best 50mm in history, the A-1 which is a great camera... Why do you need the Pentax gear? Just get a Canon New F-1, and a 24mm lens, and you'll have a fantastic kit.

flavio81 said:

You have the 35-105/3.5, one of the best zooms in history, the 50/1.4, one of the best 50mm in history, the A-1 which is a great camera... Why do you need the Pentax gear? Just get a Canon New F-1, and a 24mm lens, and you'll have a fantastic kit.

Click to expand...

Hi Flavio.
It is because I have been using K-mount ( Ricoh and Pentax) for 35 years, and the lenses along the way are still used on my D***.
I have small collection of about 6 of the simpler bodies and 25 or so Pentax -M lenses.

Actually this A1 is the first non K mount 35mm I ever used!
In one way it adds to the collection because so far I have no other body that can set the lens aperture.

I will look out for a 24mm FD to add.
....Oh Oh.... that 24mm 1:1.4 is expensive, I might have to make do with the 1:2.8.

wombat2go said:

Actually this A1 is the first non K mount 35mm I ever used!
In one way it adds to the collection because so far I have no other body that can set the lens aperture.

I will look out for a 24mm FD to add.
....Oh Oh.... that 24mm 1:1.4 is expensive, I might have to make do with the 1:2.8.

Click to expand...

The New FD 24/2.8 is a favorite of mine. It is sharp, low on flare, focuses really close, and it has no distortion!! I dare to say it is one of the best 24mm lenses by any manufacturer.

I also own the New FD 28/2.0, it is a good lens (and compact). But I like the 24mm focal length more.

flavio81 said:

You have the 35-105/3.5, one of the best zooms in history, the 50/1.4, one of the best 50mm in history, the A-1 which is a great camera... Why do you need the Pentax gear? Just get a Canon New F-1, and a 24mm lens, and you'll have a fantastic kit.

Click to expand...

Forgive me flavio, I'm also a pasdaran of the Canon F-1 but let's be honest, the Pentax SMC Takumar 50 mm f1.4 and the K50 mm f1.4 are MUCH sharper than the 50/1.4, expecially wide open, even the humble Prakticar 50 mm f1.8 (not the Pancolar, the normal Prakticar) is better...sorry, Cartman says so:

Cartman seen by the Prakticar at 1.8:



Cartman as seen by my FTb with my 50 mm f1.4 SSC:



OK, I understand it's a f.18 lens against a f1.4, but the difference is noticeable.

P.S. If you want I can ask Cartman's opinion on the K50 mm 1.4, the M and the A version of the lens, I have them all.

If you are saying that the Pentax 50/1.4 lenses are sharper than the Canon FD SSC or New FD 50/1.4s, I don't know what that's based on. Test 100 of each model under identical conditions with TP and then we can find out whether this is the case. The Pentax and Canon 50/1.4s are both very good. At this point sample variation and condition will mean more than any tests done in the 1970s.

If the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens isn't good enough for your talent you must be a hell of a photographer, because I've been using one for about thirty five years and it's still a better lens than I'm a photographer.

dynachrome said:

If you are saying that the Pentax 50/1.4 lenses are sharper than the Canon FD SSC or New FD 50/1.4s, I don't know what that's based on. Test 100 of each model under identical conditions with TP and then we can find out whether this is the case. The Pentax and Canon 50/1.4s are both very good. At this point sample variation and condition will mean more than any tests done in the 1970s.

Click to expand...

My experience based on the lenses I have (FD 50 mm f1.4 S.S.C, FDn 50 mm f1.4, Pentax K 50 mm f 1.4, M 50 mm f1.4, SMC Takumar 50 mm 1.4, Nikkor 50 mm f1.4 S-C) I would say that the K and the Taks are the best of the lot, the FDn is more or less equal to the M lens, the Nikkor S-C is better than both of them.

The M and the Canons are good performers, not slack, but I can't consider them the best of the class, sorry, I greatly prefer the FDn 50 mm f1.2 and the FD 55 mm f1.2 (even if the latter is a little soft wide open, but I like the dreamy look it gives).

I also agree with you that we are talking about old lenses (the S.S.C. 1.4 is from 1975 and the original lens the Ftb came with and the Fdn is from 1982) and both look well used (the S.S.C. has been CLAd, tough), while the Prakticar is also from the 80s but it's basically a mint lens. Of course, sharpness in a lens is not everything as well, as I wrote in the case of the 55mm f1.2.

benjiboy said:

If the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens isn't good enough for your talent you must be a hell of a photographer, because I've been using one for about thirty five years and it's still a better lens than I'm a photographer.

Click to expand...

Mmm....snarky comment from a Canonite wounded in his pride because I dared to compare one FD lens against Pentax glass and even a lowly Prakticar and I had the nerve to say the Prakticar is sharper! Instead of acting offended, do you have anything to comment on the two Cartmann pictures? If you want I can post more pictures of 50/1.4s I have taken with my little talent and have a mature conversation on that.

More seriously, the legend of the FD system is based of course on their aspherical designs, the wide array of lenses for each use and their general high standard (still have to find a lousy FD lens, not all of them are the best in their class but all the ones I have are at least good performers).

Your conclusions about these lenses are complete erroneous and unscientific because they are based on single samples that you own and you can't possibly conclude that all the hundreds of thousands of other examples of the optics you have "tested" are the same as yours because since their manufacture 20-40 years ago they have had completely different history, use and abuse in the intervening period and it also assumes that they were all exactly the same optically when they were manufactured.

benjiboy said:

Your conclusions about these lenses are complete erroneous and unscientific because they are based on single samples that you own and you can't possibly conclude that all the hundreds of thousands of other examples of the optics you have "tested" are the same as yours because since their manufacture 20-40 years ago they have had completely different history, use and abuse in the intervening period and it also assumes that they were all exactly the same optically when they were manufactured.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, have you READ what I've written? I have some doubts about it.

However it would be fun to have a dedicated thread about the various 50 mm f1.4 people of this board have and compare the results.

cuthbert said:

Out of curiosity, have you READ what I've written? I have some doubts about it.

However it would be fun to have a dedicated thread about the various 50 mm f1.4 people of this board have and compare the results.

Click to expand...

Have you read my post ?, any results from individual examples of a particular optic are not conclusive and mean nothing in evaluating the performance of other examples of the same make and model of lens, how do you know that at some time since it's manufacture it's been dropped or a ham fisted D.I.Y lens repairer hasn't dismantled it on his kitchen table and destroyed the collimation ?

For what it's worth, there is a test on the internet (i think on MFlenses) where the 50/1.4 SSC is compared to many other 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 lenses, including Pentax, Minolta, Nikon and others; and it has visibly higher resolution.

Again, this result, as well as the opposite result, is influenced by sample variation and condition of the lenses. Also bad repairs. I have seen technicians here dissasemble and reassemble a lens without marking down the alignment of each one, etc.

On a french early 90s test on a website, the Canon FD 55/1.2 NON-aspheric is tested against many lenses including a Nikon 50mm rangefinder and a Leica 50mm rangefinder lens; the FD had significantly, drastically higher contrast and saturation than all of them, giving a hard, "crisp" look. (The Nikon and Leica offered higher resolution and much lower contrast, a much lower softer look). Those three (C, N, L) were higher performing than the other lenses tested, which I think included Minolta and Pentax.

Magazine tests of the era, which I have somewhere on my hard disk, show that the Canon 50/1.4 is slightly, just very slightly, better performing than the conteporary Nikon, and those two being better performing than the Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus offerings.

In fact in the early 70s Canon was advertising on magazines the result of a massive lens test conducted by a japanese university, where Canon lenses came out on top (1st place) on many of the categories (i.e. "100mm lens" category, etc).

This is not any chance; by about 1968 it was evident that Canon had made a massive inve$$tment on its camera lens division, and dedicated a big budget for R&D. A full array of higher-performance FL lenses was released that year, no doubt the designs being created in advance for the release of the Canon F-1. The goal was simple: For the F-1 to have success, it's lenses would have to outperform the Nikon offerings!!

flavio81 said:

In fact in the early 70s Canon was advertising on magazines the result of a massive lens test conducted by a japanese university, where Canon lenses came out on top (1st place) on many of the categories (i.e. "100mm lens" category, etc).

Click to expand...

The fact that you citing adverts should already tell you that they are NOT reliable as not independent, ALL the japanese constructors of that era were saying the same thing in their adverts.

There is abundant literature on the matter: in the 70s in terms of coating Fuji and Pentax had an advantage of their competitors (tests from magazines of that era), including Nikon (the first multicoated Nikkor was the S-C, that arrived on the market in 1974 if memory serves correctly) and Canon, even the Soviets took Pentax as benchmark for the coating system.

Regarding the massive investment Canon did in the late 60s, it was mainly to develop the remarkable F-1 (among the "pure mechanical" cameras probably my favourite) and the enormous FD system, remember they were more than 10 years behind Nikon, and of course the diamond head of the system were the aspherical designs like the FD55mm f1.2 L (I think they first one were hand grinded or something like that, they were bloody expensive), the 85 mm etc...all lenses that after the redesign after the introduction of the FDn are still in production in EF more or less unchanged I think.

However this is History and I think we all know it well, now let's the shots in the 50/f1.4 battle royale thread.

benjiboy said:

Have you read my post ?, any results from individual examples of a particular optic are not conclusive and mean nothing in evaluating the performance of other examples of the same make and model of lens, how do you know that at some time since it's manufacture it's been dropped or a ham fisted D.I.Y lens repairer hasn't dismantled it on his kitchen table and destroyed the collimation ?

Click to expand...

As I expected you read NOTHING about my post, especially the part in which I pointed out the 50 mm f1.4 S.S.C. has been recently CLA'd by Mr.Nigel Whitehead, a reputable FD specialist well known in the UK that also serviced my black FTb, here you can see how lens and camera look like now:



Nothing to say, besides that Cartman is NOT happy with you. At all.

cuthbert said:

The fact that you citing adverts should already tell you that they are NOT reliable as not independent, ALL the japanese constructors of that era were saying the same thing in their adverts.

Click to expand...

The advert cited a ranking made by a japanese university, not by Canon, and they could mail you the full report if you wished.

cuthbert said:

There is abundant literature on the matter: in the 70s in terms of coating Fuji and Pentax had an advantage of their competitors (tests from magazines of that era), including Nikon

Click to expand...

Note that not Fuji. Their EBC method supposedly was able to deposit 11 layers of coatings on the lens surface but when the aforementioned "tests from magazines of that era" did a ranking, the lenses with the consistently lower percentage of flare were from Pentax and then Canon. Fuji was not leading the list.

Which brings me back on topic: We were discussing the resolution or sharpness of the lens, not their coatings. Any optical engineer will tell you that, for lenses with four or five or six lens groups, such as most prime lenses, single coating does just fine, and your average multicoating is just excellent. Flare performance is not just down to coatings; the lens design itself, as well as the construction and internal baffling, will have an influence.

cuthbert said:

ent Canon did in the late 60s, it was mainly to develop the remarkable F-1 (among the "pure mechanical" cameras probably my favourite) and the enormous FD system, remember they were more than 10 years behind Nikon, and of course the diamond head of the system were the aspherical designs like the FD55mm f1.2 L (I think they first one were hand grinded or something like that, they were bloody expensive), the 85 mm etc...all lenses that after the redesign after the introduction of the FDn are still in production in EF more or less unchanged I think.

Click to expand...

Since you touch this topic, this is what Canon did at about 1968-1971:

- Developed a method of artificially growing flourite glass, and then released telephotos (FL-F line) that were vastly superior in performance to the previous state-of-the-art.
- Released the first production aspheric lens
- Developed methods to automatize grinding of aspheric surfaces (this is a major achievement. Leitz could not do this and thus had to release their late 50/1.2 lens using conventional surfaces, to the detriment of performance. Erwin Puts had an article of this.)
- Developed the standard zoom using a 2-group zooming configuration that had performance superior to the state-of-the-art and which was then copied by practically all manufacturers. (First one was the Canon 35-70 f2.8-3.5, a truly groundbreaking lens)

the 80s and the EF line brought even more innovations, and the designs are not the same, btw. Don't get started me on the EF line, or i'll have to post more blahblahblah!!

cuthbert said:

Cartman is NOT happy with you.

Click to expand...

I don't care about Eric and his dissolute mom.