| Author: | | Showing Reviews 1-10 of 10 | | Junior Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: Winchester Posts: 36 | | Lens Review Date: August 31, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $65.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Well built, reasonably fast, good AF | | Cons: | Soft/halo wide open, close focus too long for some uses | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
I bought this lens for a particular reason - to take pictures of trains - for this use, the 35mm wide end is wide enough on APS-C and the extra 30mm compared to the 28-105 (Tamron) I had been using is a plus.
Well built lens, pretty good optically once I had applied a bit of AF correction to my K20D. Reasonably fast (1/2 a stop up on the Tamron, which my son has nicked anyway) although this lens is a little lacking in contrast and is a bit soft full open, with halo/comma effects. Stop down 2/3 -1 stop and things are much better. Also use a hood, this helps too.
The long close focussing distance is not a problem for the type of shots I am using it for.
I like this lens a lot, probably a 8.5 for me, but given it an 8 to reflect the slight negatives for others.
Great value for me at £55
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 1,406 | | Lens Review Date: June 12, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp, range, color | | Cons: | slow (f-stop) | |
I sold this lens some time ago, and I still miss it. It's a great outdoor zoom. Some time ago, I went through older images of my daughter and most of the keepers were shot with this lens, even over the DA* 16-50 that I had. Excellent choice if you can live with the f-stop and range.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2010 Location: Gold Coast, QLD Posts: 25 | | Lens Review Date: May 28, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $15.00
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | Nice zoom range (35-135mm), compact even when fully extended and sharp at various apertures | | Cons: | not as good for macro photography as as true macro lens would be | |
Got this with a MZ-6 for $15 secondhand.
Have only used it on Pentax film SLR cameras.
Very good construction-plastic but light and easy to handle. It's quite compact-even extended to 135mm, it's not too long and very easy to focus manually.
Focus ring is a bit different from say, my smc-Pentax A 35-105mm being made of plastic instead of metal with a ribbed non-rubber design.
Quite sharp at apertures like f5.6 or f8, and at maximum aperture of f3.5 is very nice.
It'd not as good for macro photography as as true macro lens would be-quite tricky to get a nice macro shot with it.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2011 Posts: 2 | | Lens Review Date: April 15, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Excellent quality, low price, useful range. | | Cons: | Fairly soft at full aperture. | |
This lens does not seem to be very common here in the UK, being very rarely available from dealers. My copy cost £49 in 2010 but without the original caps. I bought it out of curiosity as I already owned an excellent A35-105.
I must say that this little zoom has exceeded all my expectations and is now probably my 2nd most used lens.
As other reviewers have pointed out it is somewhat soft when fully open, but by f5.6 is sharp at all focal lengths producing vibrant, well saturated colours, unlike many older lenses. AF is quick and accurate, the only real disappointment is that the minimum focus distance in normal mode is 5 feet. The "macro" function is usable at 135mm and results are acceptable providing the lens is stopped down.
If you can find one of these at a reasonable price buy it, you will not regret it!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2010 Location: New York Posts: 660 | | Lens Review Date: February 11, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: No |
Price: $80.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | cheap, good build, relative fast focus, good IQ at slow aperture | | Cons: | very poor IQ wide open(soft, halo, PF), long min focus dis | |
[FONT=Calibri]This is my third lens. I want longer reach. I find 35-135 is good for outdoor use. Of course it would always be nice if it goes wider. But price would be a matter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Build is good. Feel solid. Zoom ring and focus ring feel ok.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]One reason to choose this lens is the relative fast aperture. But it turns out the photo taking at max aperture is pretty useless. Very soft. Loss contrast. Has pronounced halo and PF. Photo become good at f5.6. By f7.1 it is kind sharp. But nothing spectaculars compare to kit lens. This really tells me how good Pentax kit lens is. Halo also gone stopped a bit. PF do reduced a lot but still present. Overall definitely avoid max aperture. Sign…..[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]The focus is faster compare to kit lens. I tested on my kx, 0.9s run from min to infinite. Need 1.1s for kit lens. This is good.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Another major annoying is the very long minimal focus distance (about 1.6 m/5 feet). Switch from kit lens to this one, I really can not get used to it, especially indoor where space is limited. Marco at 135mm is just a bit closer focus. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]I paid 80 bucks for it. Well, good for beginner like me. Actually it is quite a good out door lens if you stick to aperture slow than f5.6. But if you have money buy better one.[/FONT]
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: San Francisco Posts: 117 | | Lens Review Date: October 11, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fast lens even at 135mm. Sharp throughout its range Cheaper than the 50-135. Short (physically) and easy to carry. | | Cons: | Cannot focus close up except at 135 (in the macro range on the adjuster) | |
Well I said most of what I would say in the positive and negative section of the form for posting this review. It is really not a great walk around lens but that is not what I got it for either. I got it for taking to the zoo where I wish to get animals as well as catch my son doing the odd cute thing if necessary, and it will shine there I think (have not gone yet). It is, as the others said, really a heavy lens, but it is compact and easy to get in and out of a bag when on the camera. Also as others said, it is a sharp lens all through its range. I am really happy with it so far. When I was looking at getting this lens, finding photos take with it at both ends of the range were hard to come by so I will let the photos do the rest of the talking. Here are some at both 135 and 35.
135mm:
135mm at f/4.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysonlorenzen/3998821429/
135mm at f/4.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysonlorenzen/3999641524/
135mm at f/4.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysonlorenzen/3999807308/
35mm:
35 mm at f/4.0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysonlorenzen/3999029769/
35 mm at f/4.0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysonlorenzen/3999055915/ | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 482 | | Lens Review Date: September 21, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good range. Decent built quality. | | Cons: | Not really a macro lens. Pretty soft when using largest aperture | |
This is a well-built zoom lens. F lenses seem to have slightly better built quality than FA lenses. It is also easier to manually focus. It has a good range and the apertures are large enough for normal use. The image quality is fine. But one has to avoid the largest apertures if possible. The images can get soft.
I am quite disappointed with the macro function. This is my first pseudo macro zoom lens, so I have no experience with this type of lens. But the macro is quite soft and dreamy. While it may be OK for portraits, I do not like this as a macro character. You have to use aperture smaller than f8 to make it work.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 39 | | Lens Review Date: March 19, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $60.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | excellent range, relatively fast | | Cons: | halo, slower focusing | |
My shots have been plenty sharp and color is very nice. I'm pleasantly surprised with the out of focus blur, its smoother than I expected. I've mostly used this lens for taking outdoor candids of my kids at play in the 100+mm range, mostly in a portrait orientation. This lens has made me put my 2 kit lenses away.
The autofocus is a little different. It seems to have to work a little harder and longer than the DA kit zooms I've been using. As well, the front element rotates when focusing - not an issue for me but thought I'd point it out. High contrast shots have had a bit of halo if not stopped down. Focusing distance is on the long side as well unless you're using the macro (really just a close focus) feature of this lens, but then you're stuck at 135mm.
I'll highly recommend this lens for general walkabout photography, out of doors, inclement days or anywhere you don't really want to carry around an expensive piece of glass. Grab one if you can find one cheap. The focal range is perfect for my tastes. At 3.5-4.5 it is fast enough for outdoor shooting. Perhaps a (very) poor man's version of the DA* 50-135?
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Marion, IA Posts: 11 | | Lens Review Date: June 18, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness and image quality, focus speed | | Cons: | Coma/Halo until stepped down 1 stop, minimum focus distance | |
Image quality from this lens is outstanding at both 35mm and 135mm. Close focus ability is pretty good at 135mm. This lens focus very quickly from near to far, and doesn't hunt much at all. My pictures at 35-40mm are barely distinguishable from the DA 40mm ltd.
The downside is high contrast subjects have a large halo around them wide open, and don't go away for about 1 to 1.5 stops. It seems very usable from 5.6 at the wide end and f6.7 to f8 at the telephoto end. The other problem with the lens is the minimum focus distance is around 3ft, and the close focus function only works at 135mm.
This has quickly become my favorite inexpensive zoom.
I have only used this lens with digital, never with film.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2007 Location: Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan Posts: 190 | | Lens Review Date: January 24, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $135.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Virtually no lens flare sharp with nice contrast. | | Cons: | Not a true Macro but does well in a pinch, not slow but not real fast | |
This lens was quite a surprise. It is kind of a middle of the road lens with amazing high end characteristics. Considering its length this lens will fit very well in the portrait category as well as the landscape. Certainly this lens is not for "sports" or fast moving subject photography.
Obviously its length and reach is limited at 135 but this is where this lens shows amazing high end characteristics.
Within this lenses range it exhibits excellent actually quite extraordinary competence with "excellent" sharpness, contrast with extraordinary colors and bokeh.
When using this lens on the K10-D it actually surpassed the image quality of the SF10n film but I found it had to stepped down one stop to acquire the desired image effect.
Optically, I have never been disappointed with its performance within its reasonable expected range.
Best of all the price is right. I highly recommend this lens if one can be found for they are not very common
| | |
