Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
That's possible. I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me (haven't seen it yet) and it's presumably got some small (I hope) glitch in it's 'macro' feature. Odd that it's essentially the same lens. I'll be wringing it out as soon as I get it. I'll report back... I was sort of wishing it had been an f/2.8 instead, but perhaps it won't matter. We'll see. keith whaley Joseph Tainter wrote: > Pål reported here that he has had problems of build quality/mechanical > failure with this lens. Has anyone else had such problems? (Pål has also > acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that he is hard on equipment.) > > Thanks, > > Joe
RE: FA 28-70 f2.8
> -Original Message- > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Pål reported here that he has had problems of build > quality/mechanical > failure with this lens. Has anyone else had such problems? > (Pål has also > acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that he is hard on equipment.) I used this lens about 50% of the time for 2 or 3 years. Bought it used from Charlotte Camera, who told me it had belonged to a NASCAR photographer before me. It must have been *his* main lens, as it was cosmetically fairly beat up. It's not the greatest thing mechanically if you compare it to other * lenses, however I never had a real problem with mine. The zoom and focus rings were slightly wobbly, but worked fine. tv
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Joe, I think Pal's complaint is a bit excessive. I purchased a used copy of the lens and like it - quite sharp, honestly rivaling the best of Pentax's primes. But it is a BIG, HEAVY lens. I use a grip strap on the PZ-1p when I mount it. Pal's problem, and my lens has it too, is that the powerzoom function stops at 35mm. The lens is too heavy for the PZ-1p motor to zoom all the way out to 28mm. You have to do this manually. The other alternative is to point the lens straight downward and power zoom. This works to 28mm as the weight seems better distributed and the zoom mechanism is easier for the motor to turn. You can feel the complicated internal movements of the lens when you manually zoom from 35mm to 28mm, but it is no big deal. I have long used my powerzoom lenses on manual as the batteries don't seem to last long if you are powerzooming. The manual force required is just a bit more than with the A35-105/3.5, which also seems to have a point of complicated internal movements. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Pål reported here that he has had problems of build quality/mechanical > failure with this lens. Has anyone else had such problems? (Pål has also > acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that he is hard on equipment.) >
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Joseph Tainter a écrit: Pål reported here that he has had problems of build quality/mechanical failure with this lens. Has anyone else had such problems? (Pål has also acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that he is hard on equipment.) I have a used FA* 2.8/28-70, very good but heavy. No optical or mechanical problem, I like the power-zoom and the clutch mechanism for AF/MF and manual/power-zoom. Only problem with the broken "auto-zoom" switch and push-button. I glue it and now it works. Michel
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Only problem with the broken "auto-zoom" switch and push-button. I glue it and now it works. Seems like a common problem with PZ lenses. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
At 10:36 AM 7/19/2003 -0700, Keith Whaley wrote: I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me (haven't seen it yet) and it's presumably got some small (I hope) glitch in it's 'macro' feature. Hmmm - there isn't a macro feature per se on this lens - unlike some zooms that you flip into a special macro mode, the FA 28-70 f4 AL just focuses very close. I'll be wringing it out as soon as I get it. I'll report back... There seems to be a lot of sample variation on this particular lens. Some folks have had very negative experiences, other think it is great. My sample is excellent - holds its own vs most primes. Before he was possessed by the Cave spirits, Valentin speculated that the manufacturing process used in this lens accounts for that. Basically, the aspherical element is plastic molded onto a glass element. Inconsistency in the plastic component may account for the variation. I don't know if that's the case but I hope you get a good one. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Mark Cassino wrote: > > At 10:36 AM 7/19/2003 -0700, Keith Whaley wrote: > > >I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me (haven't seen it yet) and > >it's presumably got some small (I hope) glitch in it's 'macro' feature. > > Hmmm - there isn't a macro feature per se on this lens - unlike some zooms > that you flip into a special macro mode, the FA 28-70 f4 AL just focuses > very close. Yes, you're right. I just got the lens, and find that contrary to the specifications that say it focuses down to 0.4 m (15+ inches,) my sample indeed goes clear down to just a smidgeon under 10". A very nice, useable close focus distance. The only "glitch" I found, which the seller warned me about before hand, was that the rubber-covered focus ring gets a stick-slip motion at the very end of the rotation - either way. And, I'm finding, not all the time... so if that's all it is, I see no problem with that. I think the rubber is rubbing on the fixed lens body. If I put two fingers on the ring, 180° apart, and rotate it that way, I don't feel it. If I rotate the ring in the usual manner, with my left index finger under the ring, as I would tend to do in the field, it tends to exhibit that stickiness on occasion. In fact, as I try it out right now, I find the zoom ring does the same thing. Occasionally showing some stickiness, occasionally moving quite smoothly. I can deal with that quite nicely. > >I'll be wringing it out as soon as I get it. > >I'll report back... > > There seems to be a lot of sample variation on this particular lens. Some > folks have had very negative experiences, other think it is great. My > sample is excellent - holds its own vs most primes. Before he was > possessed by the Cave spirits, Valentin speculated that the manufacturing > process used in this lens accounts for that. Basically, the aspherical > element is plastic molded onto a glass element. Inconsistency in the > plastic component may account for the variation. I don't know if that's > the case but I hope you get a good one. I'm puzzled by the flat outermost front element. It's very slightly concaved. I expect outer front lens surfaces to have more curvature, and be convex! Just a minor observation. keith whaley > - MCC > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Apart from the hassle of a rotating front lens tube, my lens was plagued with all kinds of recurring problems. I owned it for 2 years and it spent 1,5 of those at service. It was unable to power zoom past the 35mm setting. Lots of samples of this lens have the same fault. It is a design weakness. The power zoom button came loose - repeatedly. It was fixed equally repededly but it always came loose again. Power zoom stopped working completely and the lens needed about 1 hour rest in order for the power zoom to work again. When this was fixed, a sluggish aperture mechanism was the result. When this was fixed, power zoom stopped working again etc...etc. etc This went on for years - in and out if service fixing new problems and promtly after returned older problems came back. I finally throwed the lens in the garbageBefore throwing it away, I dissasembled it and figured out that the lens could never be made to work. The contacts for power zoom touched the aperture mechanism when they had contact with the electrical contacts on the lens mount. In order to free the aperture mechanism you had to bend the contacts away. This meant that contact with the lens mounts contact could not be ensured. Basically you had a choice of working aperture or working power zoom. It was the largest piece of shit I've ever owned (optically it is just fine) and if it wasn't for the release of the 43 Limited I would have been a Nikon owner by now. Pål
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Hi Pål, That doesn't bother me, because I don't have an automatic Pentax. I plan to use this lens on my MG and my MX. Manual only. Ought to give me many years of use before it kicks the dust... I'll never be able to say it's a bad lens, so long as I don't run it on power...! Thanks for the report... keith Pål Jensen wrote: > > Apart from the hassle of a rotating front lens tube, my lens was plagued with all > kinds of recurring problems. I owned it for 2 years and it spent 1,5 of those at > service. It was unable to power zoom past the 35mm setting. Lots of samples of this > lens have the same fault. It is a design weakness. The power zoom button came loose > - repeatedly. It was fixed equally repededly but it always came loose again. Power > zoom stopped working completely and the lens needed about 1 hour rest in order for > the power zoom to work again. When this was fixed, a sluggish aperture mechanism was > the result. When this was fixed, power zoom stopped working again etc...etc. etc > This went on for years - in and out if service fixing new problems and promtly after > returned older problems came back. I finally throwed the lens in the > garbageBefore throwing it away, I dissasembled it and figured out that the lens > could never be made to work. The contacts for power zoom touched the aperture mech! an! > ism when they had contact with the electrical contacts on the lens mount. In order > to free the aperture mechanism you had to bend the contacts away. This meant that > contact with the lens mounts contact could not be ensured. Basically you had a > choice of working aperture or working power zoom. > It was the largest piece of shit I've ever owned (optically it is just fine) and if > it wasn't for the release of the 43 Limited I would have been a Nikon owner by now. > > Pål
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
That lens probaly wouldnt be that well balanced on an MX or MG :) - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:36 PM Subject: Re: FA 28-70 f2.8 > Hi Pål, > > That doesn't bother me, because I don't have an automatic Pentax. I plan > to use this lens on my MG and my MX. Manual only. > Ought to give me many years of use before it kicks the dust... > I'll never be able to say it's a bad lens, so long as I don't run it on power...! > > Thanks for the report... keith > > Pål Jensen wrote: > > > > Apart from the hassle of a rotating front lens tube, my lens was plagued with all kinds of recurring problems. I owned it for 2 years and it spent 1,5 of those at service. It was unable to power zoom past the 35mm setting. Lots of samples of this lens have the same fault. It is a design weakness. The power zoom button came loose - repeatedly. It was fixed equally repededly but it always came loose again. Power zoom stopped working completely and the lens needed about 1 hour rest in order for the power zoom to work again. When this was fixed, a sluggish aperture mechanism was the result. When this was fixed, power zoom stopped working again etc...etc. etc This went on for years - in and out if service fixing new problems and promtly after returned older problems came back. I finally throwed the lens in the garbageBefore throwing it away, I dissasembled it and figured out that the lens could never be made to work. The contacts for power zoom touched the aperture mech! > an! > > ism when they had contact with the electrical contacts on the lens mount. In order to free the aperture mechanism you had to bend the contacts away. This meant that contact with the lens mounts contact could not be ensured. Basically you had a choice of working aperture or working power zoom. > > It was the largest piece of shit I've ever owned (optically it is just fine) and if it wasn't for the release of the 43 Limited I would have been a Nikon owner by now. > > > > Pål >
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Keith, > Better to say you are planning to mount the MG/MX cameras on the FA28-70/2.8 > as the lens will overpower the camera, outweighing it by 3-5X. You will need > something else like a winder to make holding it comfortable on those small > cameras. > Regards, Bob S. Hah! You're right, Bob. I misread. Or maybe mis-stated. Along the way, the thread began mentioning both the f/2.8 and the f/4.0. I have the 4.0. Which is not to say if I found a 2.8 somewhere I might not have tried to get it! I can see why you thought the lens might overbalance the body! That's a big one! The f/4.0 version is far more reasonable in size. It's almost identical in size to my SMC Pentax-A zoom 1:4 35-70mm lens. keith whaley > > Hi Pål, > > That doesn't bother me, because I don't have an automatic Pentax. I plan > > to use this lens on my MG and my MX. Manual only. > > Ought to give me many years of use before it kicks the dust... > > I'll never be able to say it's a bad lens, so long as I don't run it on > > power...! > > Thanks for the report... keith
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
gfen wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me (haven't seen it yet) and > > it's presumably got some small (I hope) glitch in it's 'macro' feature. > > There's a "macro" feature? No, no, no! I unintentionally misled, based on what I _thought_ I heard from the seller. My error. This lens focuses down to just over 9", which is not quite "macro," but is quite close for a constant focus zoom. Doesn't matter if you're at 28mm or 70mm. Near focus is the same. For this lens, that is a very nice close focus distance. It does have some manual focusing problems, in terms of it's focusing ring sort of sticking and moving on, at the end of it's travel, but that turns out to not be a problem. Totally predictable, and it still works just fine. keith
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Hi Keith, If i understand you correctly then this is perfectly normal, the focus ring is supposed to turn past infinity and closest focus, but with more resistance. Regards, Paul From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It does have some manual focusing problems, in terms of it's focusing > ring sort of sticking and moving on, at the end of it's travel, but that > turns out to not be a problem. Totally predictable, and it still works > just fine.
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Peter Alling wrote: > > The magnification is approximately 1:4 at 70mm. Almost macro. Thanks for the info. I'm really looking forward to seeing the prints... Very versatile range and a decent close focus... This might be a keeper! keith whaley > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me [...] and after receiving the lens, Keith wrote: > >This lens focuses down to just over 9", which is not quite "macro," but > >is quite close for a constant focus zoom. > >Doesn't matter if you're at 28mm or 70mm. Near focus is the same. For > >this lens, that is a very nice close focus distance. [...]
