Re: How good or bad?
Hi, shortly saying - the prints I got yesterday are fine. Very capable lens! BR, Margus Jens Bladt wrote: The F 4-5.6/35-80mm is not crap. I've had better lenses, but this litle Pentax zoom is very well made. And it does a good job for the money. Since my 2.6-2.8 AT-X Tokina 28-70mm was given in for repair, I have found myself using this F Pentax for almost everything (on the *ist D). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Margus Mannik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. marts 2005 21:35 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: How good or bad? Hi, well, my remark was addressed to cheap 3rd party lenses vs. Pentax ones. I don't count all of 3rd party products bad (having couple of Sigmas myself and pretty happy with 'em), but my experience shows that Pentax lenses have been generally better. Coatings, build quality, feel...or am I wrong? BTW, that zoom should be optically the same as F and FA 35-80 f4-5.6 versions. I think, that lens shouldn't be total crap if they didn't changed optical build for later series. BR, Margus Fred wrote: it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? I'm not familiar with that particular Pentax zoom, Margus, but your not some Sigma or Tokina comment got my attention - there ~are~ some good Tokina zooms, you know - g - (in the normal range zoom, the ATX 35-70/2.8 comes to mind, for example). If the A 35-80/4-5.6 doesn't work out for you, you might keep your eyes open for an A 35-70/4, which is also a neat (and compact) normal range zoom, too, with a very good macro function. Fred
Re: How good or bad?
Hi, lurkin' around in komkon.org pages I found SMC F 35-70 /4-5.6 lens tested... However, I don't see such a lens in Bojdar Dimitrov pages. Is this lens something very uncommon or just an error? http://plg.komkon.org/f35-70_4-56/f35-70_4-56.html Meanwhile I have tested my new toy... just as I hoped and expected - maybe not a super-top-quality lens, but a super-top-value lens for a money I paid (8.5EUR+shipping). Surprisingly it focusses and zooms very smooth, even better than metal-bodied Pentax -M lenses I have had before. Images do show some geometric distortion, but flare is less than expected. Quite sharp and contrast. BR, Margus
Re: How good or bad?
Quoting Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, lurkin' around in komkon.org pages I found SMC F 35-70 /4-5.6 lens tested... However, I don't see such a lens in Bojdar Dimitrov pages. Is this lens something very uncommon or just an error? http://plg.komkon.org/f35-70_4-56/f35-70_4-56.html Perhaps a misprint for SMC F 35-80 /4-5.6 ERNR
Re: How good or bad?
Quoting Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, lurkin' around in komkon.org pages I found SMC F 35-70 /4-5.6 lens tested... However, I don't see such a lens in Bojdar Dimitrov pages. Is this lens something very uncommon or just an error? http://plg.komkon.org/f35-70_4-56/f35-70_4-56.html Perhaps a misprint for SMC F 35-80 /4-5.6 ERNR More likely a misprint for 35-70mm f4. Looking at the content, which is only photos showing flare tests, it seems likely that this is the second page of photos made using the f4 zoom. The first page, properly captioned, shows sharpness tests. Regards, Jim
RE: How good or bad?
The F 4-5.6/35-80mm is not crap. I've had better lenses, but this litle Pentax zoom is very well made. And it does a good job for the money. Since my 2.6-2.8 AT-X Tokina 28-70mm was given in for repair, I have found myself using this F Pentax for almost everything (on the *ist D). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Margus Mannik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. marts 2005 21:35 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: How good or bad? Hi, well, my remark was addressed to cheap 3rd party lenses vs. Pentax ones. I don't count all of 3rd party products bad (having couple of Sigmas myself and pretty happy with 'em), but my experience shows that Pentax lenses have been generally better. Coatings, build quality, feel...or am I wrong? BTW, that zoom should be optically the same as F and FA 35-80 f4-5.6 versions. I think, that lens shouldn't be total crap if they didn't changed optical build for later series. BR, Margus Fred wrote: it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? I'm not familiar with that particular Pentax zoom, Margus, but your not some Sigma or Tokina comment got my attention - there ~are~ some good Tokina zooms, you know - g - (in the normal range zoom, the ATX 35-70/2.8 comes to mind, for example). If the A 35-80/4-5.6 doesn't work out for you, you might keep your eyes open for an A 35-70/4, which is also a neat (and compact) normal range zoom, too, with a very good macro function. Fred
How good or bad?
Hi, lately I purchased P30t and as it come without lens, decided also to buy some cheap MF zoom. Made some e**ying and today SMC Pentax-A 35-80 1:4-5.6 arriived. OK, understandible, it is pretty dark compared to my loved AF primes like FA 50/1.4 or 28/2.8 and I do not expect any equal quality from it. On the other hand - it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? How does it perform compared to other Pentax MF normal zooms? BR, Margus Z-1p for slides Z-20 for color negs P30t for BW ?
Re: How good or bad?
it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? I'm not familiar with that particular Pentax zoom, Margus, but your not some Sigma or Tokina comment got my attention - there ~are~ some good Tokina zooms, you know - g - (in the normal range zoom, the ATX 35-70/2.8 comes to mind, for example). If the A 35-80/4-5.6 doesn't work out for you, you might keep your eyes open for an A 35-70/4, which is also a neat (and compact) normal range zoom, too, with a very good macro function. Fred
Re: How good or bad?
Yes, it's a bit dark/slow, but overall it's not a bad lens. http://www.matoe.org/pics/MIT_060702/020_17.jpg - this picture was taken with the exact camera and lens in question. Film was Royal Gold 400, and the lens was pretty close to wide open. There is a bit of color fringing in the scan, but I don't see it in the print that I have, so I suspect it may be a scanning artifact. If you browse the directory, you'll find a bunch of other horticultural pictures that I took the same day, with the same lens/camera. -Mat On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:21 +0200, Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, lately I purchased P30t and as it come without lens, decided also to buy some cheap MF zoom. Made some e**ying and today SMC Pentax-A 35-80 1:4-5.6 arriived. OK, understandible, it is pretty dark compared to my loved AF primes like FA 50/1.4 or 28/2.8 and I do not expect any equal quality from it. On the other hand - it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? How does it perform compared to other Pentax MF normal zooms? BR, Margus Z-1p for slides Z-20 for color negs P30t for BW ?
Re: How good or bad?
Hi, well, my remark was addressed to cheap 3rd party lenses vs. Pentax ones. I don't count all of 3rd party products bad (having couple of Sigmas myself and pretty happy with 'em), but my experience shows that Pentax lenses have been generally better. Coatings, build quality, feel...or am I wrong? BTW, that zoom should be optically the same as F and FA 35-80 f4-5.6 versions. I think, that lens shouldn't be total crap if they didn't changed optical build for later series. BR, Margus Fred wrote: it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? I'm not familiar with that particular Pentax zoom, Margus, but your not some Sigma or Tokina comment got my attention - there ~are~ some good Tokina zooms, you know - g - (in the normal range zoom, the ATX 35-70/2.8 comes to mind, for example). If the A 35-80/4-5.6 doesn't work out for you, you might keep your eyes open for an A 35-70/4, which is also a neat (and compact) normal range zoom, too, with a very good macro function. Fred
Re: How good or bad?
Hi Mat, thank you for sharing those photos! Meanwhile I've played with my new toy and I quite like the feel how it handles. From your photos I see, that it's also quite good performer. At least in right hands :) BR, Margus Mat Maessen wrote: Yes, it's a bit dark/slow, but overall it's not a bad lens. http://www.matoe.org/pics/MIT_060702/020_17.jpg - this picture was taken with the exact camera and lens in question. Film was Royal Gold 400, and the lens was pretty close to wide open. There is a bit of color fringing in the scan, but I don't see it in the print that I have, so I suspect it may be a scanning artifact. If you browse the directory, you'll find a bunch of other horticultural pictures that I took the same day, with the same lens/camera. -Mat On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:21 +0200, Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, lately I purchased P30t and as it come without lens, decided also to buy some cheap MF zoom. Made some e**ying and today SMC Pentax-A 35-80 1:4-5.6 arriived. OK, understandible, it is pretty dark compared to my loved AF primes like FA 50/1.4 or 28/2.8 and I do not expect any equal quality from it. On the other hand - it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? How does it perform compared to other Pentax MF normal zooms? BR, Margus Z-1p for slides Z-20 for color negs P30t for BW ?
Re: How good or bad?
I'm not sure that my hands are the right hands, but the results I've gotten from the lens have certainly impressed me. :-) For a while, I made a small carry kit out of a P30T, A50/1.7, and the A35-80/4-5.6, and an A80-200/4.7-5.6. Not the fastest of lenses, but nice and light and portable. If I poke around, I can find some examples of the 80-200 as well. -Mat On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:44:26 +0200, Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mat, thank you for sharing those photos! Meanwhile I've played with my new toy and I quite like the feel how it handles. From your photos I see, that it's also quite good performer. At least in right hands :)
Re: How good or bad?
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. Regards, Jim (Newbie here; been lurking for a while, though.) On Mar 7, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Fred wrote: it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? I'm not familiar with that particular Pentax zoom, Margus, but your not some Sigma or Tokina comment got my attention - there ~are~ some good Tokina zooms, you know - g - (in the normal range zoom, the ATX 35-70/2.8 comes to mind, for example). If the A 35-80/4-5.6 doesn't work out for you, you might keep your eyes open for an A 35-70/4, which is also a neat (and compact) normal range zoom, too, with a very good macro function. Fred
RE: How good or bad?
I don't have any experience with that lens Mat but I know a beautiful picture when I see one. That pale yellow rose pic is outstanding. Very nicely done. Don -Original Message- From: Mat Maessen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 1:59 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: How good or bad? Yes, it's a bit dark/slow, but overall it's not a bad lens. http://www.matoe.org/pics/MIT_060702/020_17.jpg - this picture was taken with the exact camera and lens in question. Film was Royal Gold 400, and the lens was pretty close to wide open. There is a bit of color fringing in the scan, but I don't see it in the print that I have, so I suspect it may be a scanning artifact. If you browse the directory, you'll find a bunch of other horticultural pictures that I took the same day, with the same lens/camera. -Mat On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:21 +0200, Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, lately I purchased P30t and as it come without lens, decided also to buy some cheap MF zoom. Made some e**ying and today SMC Pentax-A 35-80 1:4-5.6 arriived. OK, understandible, it is pretty dark compared to my loved AF primes like FA 50/1.4 or 28/2.8 and I do not expect any equal quality from it. On the other hand - it's quite compact / light and SMC Pentax lens after all, not some Sigma or Tokina, right? How does it perform compared to other Pentax MF normal zooms? BR, Margus Z-1p for slides Z-20 for color negs P30t for BW ?
Re: How good or bad?
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
Re: How good or bad?
Thank you! It was one of the first serious shots I ever took, and I really didn't know much about what I was doing. I guess sometimes you just get it right. :-) -Mat On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:25:30 -0600, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have any experience with that lens Mat but I know a beautiful picture when I see one. That pale yellow rose pic is outstanding. Very nicely done.
Re: How good or bad?
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
