| Author: | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2011 Posts: 95
6 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 11, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast focus, light, bright, cheap | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
This is lens one little gem, very sharp, nice colors, fast focus, for this money I highly recommend it. Sharper, lighter and smaller then the kit 18-55 and it has better auto focus 
100% crop:
Bridge:
100% crop:
 | | | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: August, 2010 Posts: 20
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 9, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very nice colors, sharp, light | | Cons: | "Plastic" | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
It was on my Pentax SFX and tried it for a year ago on my K-x. I was wondered about the quality of this lens. Ever since it is with my photo gear.
Very bright and saturated colors, quite sharp for this price tag and a nice macro possibility.
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2011 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 26, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | wonderful bright color, sharp all the way around, cool macro setting, small size | | Cons: | cheap plastic-y build, front rotates when focusing, f3.5 is slow | | Sharpness: 10
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
This lens looks very cheap and flimsy, but it gets remarkable images, very sharp with bright, warm color. The macro setting is quite nifty and useful, especially if you cannot afford a lens specifically for that. On a dslr 35-70mm is a small, but practical range. It is great for portraits, flower shots, and even landscapes. Comparing it to the 18-55mm kit lens, it is sharper with brighter color, faster at the 35-50mm range, has nice bokeh and has the macro setting that the kit lens doesn't. However, the kit lens is comparable with it's wider range, and some colors I find are more pleasant. The 30-70mm is a nice alternative lens or companion and definitely worth the low price for any beginner to amateur shooter.
   | | | | | Forum Member Registered: October, 2011 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 94 | | Review Date: December 13, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light, small, cheap | | Cons: | Haven't found one | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
I found this is the used bin at Henry's Camera outlet store in Mississauga for CDN$25 and I thought I couldn't lose. I had been looking for a reasonable macro lens for doing some food photography. The glass was dirty when I found it but it came with a body side cap which is a bonus as they are almost impossible to find here in Toronto.
I find that this lens stays on the camera almost full time. The macro is useful, the images are sharp and AF is as good as an *istDL can get. The lens only comes off when I need to pull out the Tamron 75-300 or I need some low light assistance by going to my A50/f2.
A fantastic bargain.
| | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,030
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 10, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small, Light, Useful FL Range, Inexpensive | | Cons: | Would be nice if it were faster, but hey... | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
This little zoom is a real treat with a DSLR. A useful focal range, insanely fast AF (in good light) and so tiny you hardly notice it's there, even with a hood. Hardly bigger than most normal FL primes, but a lot more versatile.
This is a nearly ideal walk-around AF Zoom, the only improvement would be if it were f2.8 constant. Which would then certainly be reflected in the price!
Possibly the best $50.00 lens around.
The AF is noisy but effective, racking to it's pinpoint setting like it was greased lightning and stopping so fast, you eye has trouble keeping up. Wwrrrr, clunk, beep; You're done. Takes about a second, I'm not kidding!
It does hunt a bit in low light, but no more than expected from an f3.5-f4,5. The MF ring is typically small and poorly-placed, but works OK, if a bit soft in damping. Perhaps I'm spoiled by my M lens collection!
Macro mode takes a little getting-used-to, but soon you figure it out and from then on it's extremely useful, ultra sharp and handy to not have to change lenses for the odd close-up.
Combined with (either) a 24mm or 28mm prime and perhaps an 85mm or100mm prime, you would have a daytime 3-lens kit that's light, compact and complete.
If you see one for a good price, grab it! You won't regret the purchase.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2011 Posts: 118
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 17, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $95.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, very contrasty, compact, fixed rear element | | Cons: | need a hood, wish it were F2.8 | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
Great little lens that produce same type of color rendition seen only in Limited and * lenses.
Looks like a prime, shoots like a prime, and feels like a prime, but it is a zoom lens !
Front element of this lens is not recessed enough unlike most primes, so it is a must to use a hood with this lens, IMHO.
It's so cheap that if you are intrigued enough to be reading these reviews, you should go out on ebay and just buy one to try.
Make sure you get a good copy with clear glass elements because I've had friends who told me this lens sucks but they turn up with copies that are either fogged inside or have chipped glass surfaces. It's easy to damage the front glass beacuse it is very close to the filter thread.
I use this lens when I can bring my flash indoor where I could use the flexibility of a short zoom. At F4/F5.6 it certainly is as sharp and contrasty as primes.
Some say bring a 17-50/2.8 third party variety but I feel most of them the colors are a little bit flat.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,223
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 2, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Small, neat, sharp, light and AF | | Cons: | None - Maybe not too fast, but does not matter | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I bought this lens from KEH about a year and a half ago after looking at some photos taken with this lens. Also, after I learned that someone used to copy documents and archive them. This lens is great for that, it doesnot distort the document. Besides, I take it quite often out and take nice sharp photos. It is the best of the cheapo AF zoom. I really like it.
------------------
Update: March 2, 2014.
Using this lens on the K3 is something really different. The AF flies at the speed of light, noisy and scary, but I like it. The IQ, etc, are great.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2008 Location: Fishtown, Philly PA Posts: 55
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 20, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $53.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | price, colors, size | | Cons: | "plastic-y" | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
Picked this up used on ebay because I was looking for something with the 70mm length to figure out if the DA 70 or FA 77 would be a useful addition to my bag.
Got a decent deal, but it seems like prices are going up on this one. Used it at a wedding and found it to be a nice lens outdoors, great colors, easy to shoot, better than some other glass of mine. OTOH, indoors it did seem to have a little trouble focusing in very low light--wedding reception was in a planetarium so very dim.
I must say though, on the digital I found that the focal length--70mm--was not quite enough. I think 100mm might be more what I need.
But overall, I think this zoom represents a great value. I am quite happy with price and the results. I will try some portraits next as well as check out the macro function...
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: MD Posts: 1,029
6 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 8, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $22.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | clarity, contrast, useful range, macro | | Cons: | soft wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| |
I really like this lens, and it has come to replace the DAL 18-55 much of the time on my K-x.
I have done some comparison shots, and this is what I have determined.
Compared to the DAL 18-55 where I made shots at 35 and 50mm:
- At comparable focal lengths, the 35-70 is brighter (by which I mean I can take faster shots or lower ISO)
- Comparing shots at both 35 and 50mm, the 35-70 is a bit softer when both are wide open, but that also is because the 35-70 is shooting a whole stop faster. When I match the stops (I tried both lenses out at both 4.5 and 9), the 35-70 was significantly sharper.
- Color on the 35-70 was a bit warmer and contrast was similar.
Compared to the DAL 50-300 where I made shots at 50 and 70mm:
- At all comparable settings, the 50-300 is sharper and brighter.
- Color on the 35-70 was a bit warmer and contrast was similar.
- One big advantage that the 35-70 does have is that it can focus on objects much closer than the 50-300 can. (I.e., at 50mm, I can focus on something about 2' away with the 35-70, but I need about 5' for the 50-300.)
For me, what this means is that when I'm shooting in the 35-50 range, I will be using this 35-70 lens. If I plan to do anything in the 50+ range, I will use the 50-300 lens. The pics in the 50-70 range on this 35-70 lens are certainly acceptable, so it will work as a versatile, easy to use lens in a range I seem to take a lot of pics in. Of course, I'll have to use my 18-55 when I want anything more wide angle than this 35-70 lens can do.
More specifically about this lens:
- It's quite compact, significantly smaller than the 18-55, and so it's easy to leave on the camera and use as a walk around lens.
- It is a bit noisy as it focusing, but it focuses fast enough for me and at a similar quickness to my other lenses.
- The 2x zoom of the 35-70 is a bit restricting, but I find it to be a range in which I can get a lot of use.
- It has macro capability. At its lower range, I can get w/in a foot of the subject. That's a handy feature...
- It has ended up being a great lens for theater shots w/ their challenging lighting.
Conclusion: While the lens is limited by its 35-70mm range, it is still a fantastic lens that is remarkably versatile and cheap. I'd rate it about an 8.5 but given its cost and value, I marked it a 9.
HERE is a Flickr set using this lens.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: May, 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Posts: 636 | | Review Date: July 24, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, color | | Cons: | min distance = 0.7m | |
I think this more than my DAL18-55.
It's smaller, and I like the range of it on my DSLR, except the min distance is 0.7m.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Winnipeg MB Posts: 350
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 4, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, sharp, good color reproduction | | Cons: | Plastic construction | |
I use this lens on my K-x for traveling. It has the right focal length for all my shootings outdoors and inside the museum. I use a 3rd party rubber lens hood. I think it is necessary because the lens is more sensitive to flare. This lens is getting more attention, one was sold for $96 recently on ebay. This is a sample photo taken with MZ-5N:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/97...ots-winnie.jpg | | | | | Junior Member Registered: June, 2010 Posts: 47
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 6, 2011 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Sharp, very compact, little to no CA | | Cons: | Color for the sky and skin tone, flare | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 6
Value: 5
Camera Used: K10d, K7
| |
First of all, this is a super sharp lens at all focal lengths. It is essentially prime quality in that respect. However, I have found that I end up discarding most landscape pictures by this lens as I do not like the coloration of the sky or anything that is yellow-colored in the picture like dead grass. That is just a preference thing as most people in this post list the color as a plus. I really wish I liked the color more, as I would use it a lot!
On the flip side, it does excellent with people-shots, and city night scenes, in my opinion. Unfortunately I don’t take a whole lot of people shots. The focus on mine is very quick and accurate. Low to no CA present.
That is my opinion, take it for what it is worth.. based on everyone else’s review, you very well may love the color it produces for landscapes! I will definitely be hanging on to it for portrait and night, though.
I forgot to add, I have used this on a k10d and k7, not a film camera.
Modified 8/10/12: Ok, so now that I HAVE been doing more portraits in the last year, I have a different opinion on the portrait shots. I do not like what it does to the shadows on people's skin in portraits. It gives shadows a green/yellow hue (using the lens on a k7). Adjusting white balance does not help, because when the skin tones in the non-shadow areas are showing as accurrate, the shadow areas have that hue. I have spent too much time trying to edit the pics to make them look good. I have to knock my rating down to a 5. If all that mattered was a sharp lens, this would probably get a 10 (being a zoom), but to me the color rendition is awful for the sky, grass, and skin tones, which makes this lens unusable to me. It's only good use in my opinion may be macro type shots of flowers. This lens is on the shelf now and probably wont come back down. I use a Tamron 24-135 which has great color rendition for landscapes (portraits are just ok) but not as sharp as this one. If this lens had the color/contrast of the 70-210-f then I would love it. A rating of 5 is pretty generous for a lens that I will never use again.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509 | | Review Date: March 28, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good image quality; good color; quite affordable | | Cons: | A bit less resistance to flare | |
Hard to rate this lens.
Built: Good for what it is for. Rotating front which is less convenient for polarizing filters. Focusing fast. Since aperture is small, focusing accuracy is less of an issue.
Image quality: Good for a zoom, rivaling weak prime lenses. Good color rendition and contrast. A bit more prone to flare than primes. Macro usable, which is not always true for zoom macro lenses.
Overall: Good to have in the pocket even in the digital age. Good for daylight portraits.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Strand Posts: 1,366 | | Review Date: March 3, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Small, cheap, sharp, contrast, walk-around lens | | Cons: | Noisy AF, not for bokeh | |
For it's price and IQ, I rate this lens as 8.
This lens is often ignored by new DSLR owner. Also it is cheap and feels cheap plastic, but respectful when you compare with the kit lens DA18-55 AL II at focal 35-50/55. This lens is a stop faster than the kit lens. At comparable apertures, this lens is significantly sharper and less CA. Half size of the kit lens, this had been my first choice when walking out with family.
This lens flares easily. A rubber hood is needed for highkey photos like snow, sun or flash.
How much you can get for 20 usd? - A tiny gem, with AF and designed for FF.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 9, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Cheap, light, decent quality | | Cons: | Nothing really | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I haven't had this lens long, but took it out last weekend, and got a few nice portraits.
Of course, it is a slightly limited range, but of course that is what allows it to be so small while being 3.5-4.5.
Ultimately though, there is just something I really like about the lens. I think I just like the feel and look of the lens, and on the k-r is very light - reminds me of the FA 50mm 1.4.
Ask people: if you were limited to 2 primes (and nothing else) what would you choose? I bet a lot of people would say 35mm and 70mm (especially if they like photographing people).
I'd say this is a great second lens (after the kit lens) for someone on a budget: People typically suggest a 50-200 as the ideal second lens to go with the kit lens. But I hardly ever used the 50-200. For me, I found I wanted to go wider than 50mm too often. The 35-70 is that bit wider, and also faster and better.
Update:
A couple of months ago I was burgled, and my camera stolen (and this was the lens on the camera). Even though none of my other lenses were stolen, and although I have a 50-200, and 35, 50 and 90mm primes, I bought a new copy of the lens. I really like it as a compromise between size, speed, focal range and quality.
Update 2:
This lens is growing on me even more now, and I really use it a lot. I have started to prefer smaller kit, and this can fit into the same lens case I originally bought for carrying prime lenses. And I have also found the flare control to be pretty good as well. I increased the rating from 8 to 9. And if I was rating it, considering price as well, I think it would have to be a 10. If these cost 5 times the price, I would still be tempted to get one.
I kind of think of it like a prime. Carry with a wide prime (like the 21mm) and it is like a 3 lens kit in 2 lenses (21mm, 35mm, 70mm). Of course, it isn't as fast as a prime, and someone could say, carry a 17-70mm and it is like have a 3 lens kit in one lens. But the 17-70 isn't the size of a prime lens. This is, more or less.
| | |
