I'll second that, Fred. I bought the Pentax-A 35-70 f4 for use on my LX, and it is a really nice piece of workmanship, although a bit heavy (balances fine though). Takes sharp photos and the macro is pretty good too - I think it goes down almost to 2:1.
Hi, Jim. Thanks for "coming out of the woodwork" to join in.
I am curious, however, about your "a bit heavy" comment - I think that the
A 35-70/4 is about the lightest lens I've got (except maybe for a 50mm
prime - <g>).
Yes, the macro feature (at, nicely, at the 70mm end) is quite good (see
http://plg.komkon.org/a35-70_4/a35-70_4.html , for example). I think that
the specs for maximum magnification for the lens is supposed to be 1:2.7,
which isn't bad at all for a so-called "macro zoom" (most "macro zooms" do
much worse) - the minimum focus distance is well under a foot, I think. It
does have a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end than I would like,
but, all in all, it's not a bad little lens.
Fred
Thanks for the welcome, Fred. Although I'm new here, I've been posting in the DPReview forums for about 4 years now. My *ist-D has rekindled my interest in Pentax manual focus lenses and film photography and that's not the best forum to discuss film issues, so here I am.
Regarding the weight issue, I guess it depends on what you're used to. Compared to my primes, the A 35-70 f4 at 330 grams is definitely heavier. My A 50 f1.4 weighs only 235 grams and my A 28 f2.8 is even lighter at 170 grams. It's actually about the same weight as my FA 24-90.
It could be a perception based on size - the 35-70 is definitely a solid piece of hardware for its size, and it weighs a lot more than you expect compared to today's plastic lenses. I'm not complaining, though - I bought it because I wanted that old-time Pentax manual focusing heft and feel.
Regards, Jim
