|
Author
|
|
Alfie1965
Member
Registered: January 2007
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 79
|
|
Review Date: Mon January 15, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Ligtweight, durable
|
|
Cons:
|
No real negatives
|
|
I used this lens on my MZ10 for many years, and despite me dropping it on its nose at about a week old it never failed me.
I have recently been playing around with this on my K200 and I am pleased with the results, the focusing is a little slower than the 18-55 kit lens but the slightly longer length is what i've been wanting and for that it's been brilliant. raised my score to reflect current use.
|
|
|
|
|
ShadZee
Site Supporter
Registered: November 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 109
|
|
Review Date: Sat February 3, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, light
|
|
Cons:
|
not as sharp wide open
|
|
I used this lens for over a year. I should not have sold it  the Tamron 28-75 replaced it in my bag.
However, the FA28-70 is much lighter and smaller than Tamron and at above F/5.6 is just as good.
My copy was in great cosmetic and physical condition. But, this lens has a bad reputation. Some of the internal elements tend to separate prematurely
|
|
|
|
|
Dana G
Pentaxian
Registered: October 2006
Location: Masachusetts
Posts: 245
|
|
Review Date: Sun March 4, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, good focal length range for walkaroune with the digital cameras
|
|
Cons:
|
Not the most solidly built lens I've ever seen
|
|
This is a nice, light lens with a handy range for everyday use with the digital cameras. It ranges from close to normal to a medium telephoto.
Seems sharp enough, performs best stopped down a step or two. AF is fast and accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
OldSwede
Site Supporter
Registered: March 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Tue March 20, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $170.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good optical quality. Good focal length range . Very light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap built.
|
|
I bought this lens new, from a dealer in Germany a month ago. My first feeling was a good deal of suspicion, bur it works very well with my K10D.
It’s reasonably sharp even at F/4 over the whole focal length range. Color is good. AF is fast and accurate. To sum it up: A great lens for the money (130 €)
|
|
|
|
|
elho_cid
Junior Member
Registered: December 2007
Location: Prague
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Thu December 27, 2007
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast AF, dependable results, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
not wide enough on crop
|
|
(Rating is only valid in its class)
I like this lens a lot. I bought it used and soon I found myself using my set 18-55 only for wide shots and this lens for everything else.
Despite its weight I found it being very reliable companion for my K10d. It gives steadily good results through whole focal range even on widest setting and it is surprisingly sharp when stopped down. No sign of CA means I can shoot directly to JPG which I use mostly for the social events.
|
|
|
|
|
bc_the_path
Pentaxian
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Posts: 343
|
|
Review Date: Wed May 7, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, fixed maximum aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I have got this lens on an MZ-3. The price I paid for both (and a tele converter and a dedicated case; all in very good condition) was less than USD200. It remained on the MZ-3 for some time and after seeing its performance on film, I have moved it on to my digital bodies. I am pleasantly surprised. In spite of its plasticky feel, this small & light lens performs really nicely. Optically, I have no complaints whatsoever... It is at least as good, within its range and same f value, as my other pricey zooms... Autofocus is no problem. Manual focus is not as nice as the metal bodied cousins. It is a semi- or quasi- macro lens as well and gets decent close range shots. Remember, the more expensive and far heavier alternatives to this lens are not far superior at f/5.6 and f/8 to this one. If you do not desperately need the availability of "f/2.8", you can be really happy with a good copy of this one.
|
|
|
|
|
viking79
New Member
Registered: January 2008
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sat July 5, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, relatively large aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, short focal range.
|
|
EDIT: Updated my review and drastically improved my rating.
This lens is a great lens. Focus is sharp, especially stopped down. Typical Pentax rendering with nice colors and contrast. Minimal distortion, and pretty even sharpness across the frame.
I had to manually focus for testing the lens because my K20D was front focusing so severely even maximum correction couldn't get it within spec. The comparison with my 35-135mm is unfair, because the 35-135mm was focusing more accurately on my K20D.
Even though my rear lens group might be showing the first signs of the dreaded separation, it doesn't seem to impact image quality much. This is a great compact/lightweight zoom. This isn't much bigger than a 50mm f1.4. The only really draw back to it is the marginally useful focal length range on digital (normal to slight telephoto).
Test Camera: Only K20D, didn't test on film.
|
|
|
|
|
nanao.
New Member
Registered: September 2007
Location: Pressburg, Eur
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Sat September 27, 2008
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
very light and compact for a zoom; constant f4.0; colours, rendering & resolution once stopped down (positively spectacular results on film around f8.0)
|
|
Cons:
|
wobbly plasticky build (not very confidence inspiring on hikes back then!); front element rotates
|
|
My first lens and the kit zoom coming with the venerable MZ-3. As said, capable of wonderful results stopped down and a pleasingly light standard zoom with film slrs for hiking.
Apart from the so-so build quality, using a polarizer filter with it was quite a nuisance as the front element rotates when focusing. Also naturally, no internal zooming, i.e. it extends towards both the short and long ends, with shortest physical length as shown here at 50mm.
I haven't used it much on digital as it obviously starts at too long for my general use which inclines to landscape-compatible lengths.
|
|
|
|
|
Hannican
Pentaxian
Registered: October 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 395
|
|
Review Date: Thu April 30, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $120.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, Small, Great Color, Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
I don't like the extending lens barrel, or the non internal focusing mechanism- makes polarizers difficult to use
|
|
So far I love this lens. I've run a couple rolls of film through my MZ-3 with it and the shots are coming out spectacular. Apparently this was the kit lens that used to come with the MZ-3, so I kind of lucked out on putting two potentially long-lost siblings together!
I feel like for the money, it's a spectacular deal. Very useful range, especially on film, but even on digital. I love this thing because it's light and small, and makes a great respite from carrying around the big DA* 16-50mm.
I don't think I'd trust it through a rainstorm or anything like that, but I do think the build quality is good enough, and mine seems to be in perfect condition. Props to the original owner(s)!
|
|
|
|
|
ajuett
Loyal Member
Registered: July 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 626
|
|
Review Date: Wed May 20, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $75.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even at f/4, Light weight, Inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing
|
|
I've been using this lens on a film body for the last few weeks. The film I have got back so far has exceeded my expectations and it hasn't left the camera much. It's a sharp lens, even at f/4, stopped down is even sharper. For outdoors or well lit indoors you can't go too wrong. The FA 28-70 f/4 is my everyday go-to lens. To add it is very inexpensive.
|
|
|
|
|
yyyzzz
Site Supporter
Registered: March 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Fri August 7, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, constant aperture, reasonablly good, close focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Hard to manually focus, just a little bit noisy focusing
|
|
I love this lens so much that I rarely carry my k10d kit lens. Used a while on my MZ-5 and moved onto my k10d now. 12-24mm would be a great compliment. I do not have many zooms and this is one of my best.
While this lens does a lot of things well, it is rarely superb. So I have to go back to my primes from time to time. I wish zoom lens could be as good as primes.
More sensitive to direct sunlight than primes. A little bit soft at 70mm.
|
|
|
|
|
bretti_kivi
Junior Member
Registered: March 2009
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Sun August 23, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $75.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light, rapid focus, great colours
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood
|
|
Great lens for the minimal price I paid. Nice length for walkaround, though 24 would be even better, as would 105..... even so, it's on my K10D a lot.
Better than kit for not much money.
|
|
|
|
|
frozy
New Member
Registered: August 2009
Location: Singapore
|
|
Review Date: Tue September 29, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, cheap, good IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, rotating front
|
|
I bought this lens 1 yr ago.
it is a very good lens for the money. The range is very useful, the weight of the lens is very light and the image quality is very good.
Sometimes 28mm is not wide enough for a big group photo, and the build quality of the lens is not as good the DA series. from 35-50 the sharpness of the lens almost as sharp as the DA 16-45.
so it is a lens that is value for money if you are not into wide angles
|
|
|
|
|
dbuffington
Junior Member
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Thu October 8, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good sharpness, excellent contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I'm a news photographer, and I bought this lens on a lark, looking for a single lens I could use when I go to accidents on a motorcycle.
It's not an A* or Limited, but it exceeded all my expectations, and I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Registered: May 2009
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 107
|
|
Review Date: Sat October 17, 2009
|
Would you recommend the lens? Yes |
How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
extremely fast focus, very good at 5.6, excellent at f8, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
feels a bit too plastic
|
|
I am really happy with this lens as this one changes my kit. It focuses extremely fast, and low light focus is very very good without hunting. At f4 It is a bit soft (especially at 70mm) but from 5.6 it produces very good results. Smooth bokeh, lightweight although feels cheaply made. But no requirements for lens which costs 100 bucks. No doubt, highly recommended lens.
|
|
|
|
|
