reputations, the FA 2.0 also. The only one I've heard really bad things about is the A 2.8 which has mixed
reviews, sample variations anyone?
The 135's are also given mostly high marks. The K 3.5 2.8 and A 1.8 lenses are legendary, The FA 2.8 and F 2.8 are
at least equal in optical quality to the K's the M 3.5 is a solid performer if not quite up to the standards of the previous
lenses. Only the A 2.8 has a less than stellar reputation. Which is just what you'd expect from a class of lenses that
has had the amount of history and R&D that 135's have had lavished on them over the years.
The non SMC models of the 135's are another matter entirely, but they were budget lenses.
Robert & Leigh Woerner wrote:
The SMC F 28-80 f 3.5-4.5 rates a 3.3 of 5.0 on Photodo if this means anything---a pretty significant score compared to other short zooms.
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
I finally put my finger on why the apparent lack of good Pentax wide-tele zooms (28-xx) is so irksome. Look at their record with primes in that focal length range:
28: 2.8s mediocre, 2.0s solid, 3.5s excellent 30: excellent 31: excellent 35: all excellent (not true of, say, Nikon) 40: apparently pretty good for its size 43: excellent 50: 1.2s nasty wide open, all others excellent 55: very good or better 77: excellent 85: 2.0 mediocre at wide stops, all others excellent 100: ? supposedly inferior to 105, perhaps mediocre 105: excellent
At slightly greater extremes (24 and 135) Pentax is a bit shakier, as are most manufacturers. Some of the more limited range zooms (A35-70, M24-35, etc) were pretty good for their day. This re-enforces my feeling that the industry considers most 28-xx zooms to be "throwaways", or perhaps it is simply too hard to build a cheapish 28-xx zoom that can compete with primes. Granted, an expensive 28-xx zoom is about the same size and cost as the set of primes it replaces.
On a mildly related note, my quest for an M20/4 suffered another temporary setback today as I felt compelled to buy an F* 300/4.5 from KEH for my girlfriend. I've read very favorable reviews of it, and I found the barrel extension on my old A* 300/4 made it hard to use compared to an IF lens and hard to focus which made my leery of the M*. The A setting and AF are a plus for a *istD user, too. It was also $100-150 cheaper than the M* 300/4 (probably a cult classic--I'd expect the F* to be better) and a LOT cheaper than an A* or FA* 300. I'm looking forward to testing it against my Super Takumar 300/4 (same as K 300/4?) and Nikkor 300/4.5 EDIF, plus the 300/2.8s.
DJE
