| Author: | | New Member Registered: October, 2011 Posts: 5
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 16, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Versatile zoom range, build decent, good IQ | | Cons: | No SMC, quite heavy, hood a bit flimsy | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 7
Camera Used: Pentax K-r
| |
Good example, well built, no zoom creep on this one.
Picks up at F8, sharpness better at 150mm
| | | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: January, 2013 Posts: 3
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 31, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Solid, crisp, brilliant | | Cons: | no SMC | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-x
| |
I recently bought this lens I tried it only during the day with amazing results. I already have a Tamron 28-200 aspherical if and I must say that it far exceeded in brightness and sharpness, colors much more natural and sharper focus. I use it on the body K-x and I was very satisfied. A click around is worth a thousand words.
 | | | | | Closed Account Registered: March, 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 415
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 7, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Real Takumar stuff: tack sharp, great build, classic. | | Cons: | Contrast is average because no SMC (?), might be to big by today's standard. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 6
Camera Used: K5
| |
I'm posting this review because of the previous ones: one did not like it and the other was more in line with what I am finding and I would like to add my 2 cents to it.
I just bought this zoom for birding and am testing it. I got it from the local Pentax Halifax, Nova Scotia, repair shop and I am really happily surprised by the perfect shape it is still in although I find it expensive compared to what I see online.
I agree with paperbag846 about the use of this zoom: don't use SR or only if you use it at a specific focal length; because of very average (no SMC?) contrast use levels to repair that and sufficient USM will bring back the image to life. My test shot below was taken at 200mm (300mm on K5) at the 3rd aperture stop past 4.5 (F8.0?), ISO 400 (no noise), and AWB corrected with a WhyBal card in RAW.
May 17,2012 update. I am downgrading the aberration on this lens to 6 (maybe 5?) although tests show that an image may be acceptable at a fairly small size - 5x7or so). I can confirm that I have not noticed any distortions at max tele/wide open/max range (200mm). I will confirm also that sharpness is very good but contrast is average but that basic p.p (levels+USM). will deliver an excellent image.
This lens was still a little expensive but you get a Takumar "tank" for your buck!
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2010 Posts: 2,395
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 3, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Built like a tank, built in hood, constant f, good bokeh | | Cons: | heavy and large, no super duper coatings | |
I am going to have to disagree with the previous post, except for the part stating that the SMC M lens is better. This lacks SMC coatings, and the M lens often goes (these days) for much more than 10 - 30 dollars. As far as construction quality goes, this lens is great. I have a very clean sample. Glass is crystal clear.
This lens is sharp for an old zoom (optically identical to the M version), but colours do suffer a little (I believe due to the lack of SMC coatings) compared to something like the A 50mm 1.7. However, it is better than every other budget consumer zoom I have tried from the era in the 80-200 ish range. Most lenses in this range are not constant aperture. This lens is very sharp in the 80-150 range from 5.6, but needs to be stopped down as you approach 200mm. Therefore this lens is for well lit applications.
There are a few ways to see soft images from this lens. I was unhappy with it for a while until I realized it was my fault, not the lens'.
1) Turn shake reduction off. It works if you stay at the exact focal length you enter, but that is not really going to happen once you get into shooting.
2) Don't park it at 200. Like most zooms, it is weakest at the extreme telephoto, and the lens is FAR better at 150. Use 200 only when you really need the reach.
3) Use conservative shutter speeds. This is a heavy lens, and you will find you hands wobble more when holding this than many other lenses.
The reasons you should look elsewhere would be:
A) You can afford a better lens with SMC or comparable coatings.
B) You want something light.
However as a budget telephoto intro lens this one exhibits less CA / PF, is sharper, has a constant aperture, and pretty good bokeh for it's class. At 80mm, you can deliver reasonable portraiture subject separation.
Very similar to this lens, for much less. All you lose are the fancy coatings:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-80-200mm-F4.5-Zoom-Lens.html | | | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: Oldham Posts: 8
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 3, 2010 | Not Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | Solid, seemingly well constructed | | Cons: | Not sharp at any focal length or aperture | |
I bought one of these for a song on Ebay. I was very pleased that the glass is squeaky clean - not a hint of fungus or anything else untoward. The lens looks absolutely mint - not a mark on it. I have no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a perfect example of this lens.
It is a very heavy lens and feels solid and well constructed. Unfortunately, it isn't sharp at any focal length or aperture, even on a tripod using the 2sec delay/mirror lock - though you might be able to get decent looking prints at 6x4 or 7x5. Even 30year old consumer zooms such as the SMC Pentax-M 75-150mm completely blow it away.
If someone wants one for a collection then fair enough. I would definitely not recommend that anyone buys one with the intention of taking photos with it. Avoid at all costs - it's a dog.
| | |
