Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Ah Fred, that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly useless. I often get much closer than that. Can any zoom handle that better? It's primes for now then. :-) Paul Delcour From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:36:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:36:58 -0400 The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe rectilinear distortion. heavy frown It is true that the A 28-135/4's strongest point is certainly not its distortion (it does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at the wide end of its zoom range, and it does show more distortion in this regard than its sibling, the A 35-105/3.5), but it ~IS~ a good lens overall (considering that it ~is~ a zoom and that it ~does~ cover a rather wide range). Yes, it's heavy, too, but I've gladly lugged one of these critters over many a mile - it's one of my favorite walking around lenses. Some quotes from a review of the lens from Amateur Photographer for August 6, 1983: 28-35mm must be the most versatile 'standard lens' around. Other examples of this focal length are on the way but Pentax were first on the scene. The lens incorporates most popular wideangle and telephoto lengths, plus everything in between. The f/4 aperture is modest but quite good considering the range. It's a fairly large lens and very heavy, but feels comparatively well balanced on camera. Focusing ring is large with a chunky grip, with minimum focusing distance of 1.7m. Behind this, the zooming ring has a short throw (like the focusing ring) with a click stop at the 28mm setting. Turning past this click stop engages the 'macro' mode, which enables focusing down to under 8in. Because the focal length at this setting is still wideangle, this isn't particularly close and well off true 1:1 macro. Focusing and zooming controls on our sample were not particularly smooth; the zooming ring was also a little stiff. Despite this, the short twist required to zoom or focus makes for fast handling. Overall, the lens is built to a high standard. Filter size of 77mm means more expensive filters - but this can't really be avoided if you want the range and decent working maximum aperture. Handling is fast and generally as good as a lens of much shorter range. It matches well with the Super A body. It's one thing to design a lens with such a long range, but quite another to build in good performance. here the Pentax comes as a pleasant surprise. Definition was very adequate throughout, with edge performance lagging just a little behind the centre. Softness was evident at full aperture and one stop down (f/5.6) at the edge, but otherwise the lens will cope with most assignments on any type of film. The 28-135mm lens is expensive but takes the place of three or four other lenses comfortably. Overall Performance - Very Good Central Definition - Very Good Edge Definition - Good Image Contrast - Very Good Optical balance - Good Best Central Definition - f/8, f/11, f/16 Best Overall Definition - f/11 Best Edge Definition - f/11 Fred
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Paul Delcour wrote: that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly useless. I often get much closer than that. Can any zoom handle that better? The FA28-80/3.5-5.6, 0.5m across the zoom range. The FA50/1.7 is 0.45m, for comparison. OK, not making it to 135, but still more versatile than any prime :-) Kostas
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Myself, I'd be using only primes for situations that required low rectilinear distortion.) What he said! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Ah Fred, that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly useless. I often get much closer than that. Min focus distance is an annoying aspect of many lenses - for me, it's not a constant annoyance, but only an occasional frustration, but sometimes - depending on the situation, of course - a l-o-n-g minimum focusing distance can rear its ugly head and bite ya - g. It's primes for now then. It's almost always safer to use a prime, when you can, I guess. Still (in my humble opinion), zooms can have their place... Fred
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Paul wrote: PD that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly PD useless. I often get much closer than that. Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8. Servus, Alin PD Can any zoom handle that better? PD It's primes for now then. PD :-)
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
My SMC Tak 135mm f/2.5, Model I, gets down to 1.5 meters. My Tak (Bayonet) 135mm f/2.5 gets down to 1.2 meters. keith whaley Paul Delcour wrote: I see. O well, I'll have to live with that. Anyone know if the Takumar gets closer? :-) Paul Delcour From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:27:49 +0300 To: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:30:22 -0400 Paul wrote: PD that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly PD useless. I often get much closer than that. Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8. Servus, Alin PD Can any zoom handle that better? PD It's primes for now then. PD :-)
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8. Or the F135/2.8, but I recommend the FA which has better mechanical design. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
I'll go for the K 135/2.5 since the F and FA are probably more expensive. I may decide to get the Takumar as well as some of the pictures I have seen taken with it look very nice indeed. Then I'll choose. Got the fisheye 17/4 for 230 euro's. Probably a bit too much, but I really wanted one. :-) Paul Delcour From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:29:43 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:29:53 -0400 Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8. Or the F135/2.8, but I recommend the FA which has better mechanical design. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Hi all, you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses... I'm still considering to get a good zoom for parties, weddings, any situation where switching primes can be tedious and makeing me miss shots. There's an A28-135/4 on a secondhand site for sale at about 200$. From what I've read on some Pentax lens review sites it is not a bad lens. Someone advised to look at a Tamron 24-135, said to be a great lens. How do these two compare? There are so many zooms about. I feel my decision for the 135/2.5 has to be the SMC. In the end I think I'll appreciate the quality. The Takumar is probably very nice, but softer which for some subject such as portraits might be very nice. But I like good sharp contyrasty picture. Does this help in indicating which zoom would be good? It seems that using studioflash with zooms that have changing aperture (ie 3.5-4.5) is a pain, since you never know which aperture is actually used. So if the 28-135/4 has a constant aperture, that looks good. Many thanka to all who responded to my questions. Hope to be able return something useful soon! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue assoicated with the SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight. Other lenses you might consider included SMC-A 35-105/3.5 Tamron SP 28-75/2.8. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses... I'm still considering to get a good zoom for parties, weddings, any situation where switching primes can be tedious and makeing me miss shots. There's an A28-135/4 on a secondhand site for sale at about 200$. From what I've read on some Pentax lens review sites it is not a bad lens. Someone advised to look at a Tamron 24-135, said to be a great lens. How do these two compare? There are so many zooms about. I feel my decision for the 135/2.5 has to be the SMC. In the end I think I'll appreciate the quality. The Takumar is probably very nice, but softer which for some subject such as portraits might be very nice. But I like good sharp contyrasty picture. Does this help in indicating which zoom would be good? It seems that using studioflash with zooms that have changing aperture (ie 3.5-4.5) is a pain, since you never know which aperture is actually used. So if the 28-135/4 has a constant aperture, that looks good. Many thanka to all who responded to my questions. Hope to be able return something useful soon! _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Alan Chan wrote: I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue assoicated with the SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight. Hi Alan, Long ago I resolved that I would bear the weight of any lens that helped me produce the results I wanted. big grin The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe rectilinear distortion. heavy frown Other lenses you might consider included SMC-A 35-105/3.5 Tamron SP 28-75/2.8. I have no experience of the Tamron but the SMC-A 35-105/3.5 is definitely my favourite zoom. Sharp, with very low distortion and excellent bokeh, it is (to me) the zoom lens that every Pentax user should own and use, use, use ... this is a *very happy* lens!! John
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Paul, I owned an A28-135/4 for a while. The photo quality was good, but it is indeed a large lens. It has a very large front element (77mm filter diameter) and only does macro (close focus) at its 28mm setting. Try one if you can to see if you like the handling. --Mark Paul Writes- Hi all, you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses... I'm still considering to get a good zoom for parties, weddings, any situation where switching primes can be tedious and makeing me miss shots. There's an A28-135/4 on a secondhand site for sale at about 200$. From what I've read on some Pentax lens review sites it is not a bad lens. Someone advised to look at a Tamron 24-135, said to be a great lens. How do these two compare? There are so many zooms about. I feel my decision for the 135/2.5 has to be the SMC. In the end I think I'll appreciate the quality. The Takumar is probably very nice, but softer which for some subject such as portraits might be very nice. But I like good sharp contyrasty picture. Does this help in indicating which zoom would be good? It seems that using studioflash with zooms that have changing aperture (ie 3.5-4.5) is a pain, since you never know which aperture is actually used. So if the 28-135/4 has a constant aperture, that looks good. Many thanka to all who responded to my questions. Hope to be able return something useful soon! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe rectilinear distortion. heavy frown [and I replied] It is true that the A 28-135/4's strongest point is certainly not its distortion (it does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at the wide end of its zoom range, and it does show more distortion in this regard than its sibling, the A 35-105/3.5), but it ~IS~ a good lens overall (considering that it ~is~ a zoom and that it ~does~ cover a rather wide range). Yes, it's heavy, too, but I've gladly lugged one of these critters over many a mile - it's one of my favorite walking around lenses. I have some photos taken using the A 28-135/4 in the Pentax Lens Gallery at http://plg.komkon.org/a28-135_4/a28-135_4.html . The pincushion at the wider end of the zoom range does show readily in the brick wall photos, and would certainly be a problem for some architectural photography, but, hey, it's not really designed for architectural photography (or for brick wall photography, either - g). (Myself, I'd be using only primes for situations that required low rectilinear distortion.) Fred
