is this lens for real ?? SMC K 18/3,5

ewig · 04-07-2011, 12:52 PM

i just want to ask about this lens ..because recently .. i find this on ebay , and i take a look that this lens has a 4 built in filter ???
can someone please explain this ? i never heard before about this lens ... is the quality good , and how you change the filter if has 4 built in in your lens body ??

thx b4

regard

Adam · 04-07-2011, 12:57 PM

Check the lens database for more details on the lens:

Pentax Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database

The filters are internal because external filters would likely cause vignetting. There's a ring at the end of the lens that let's you change filters, but in the digital age, they're still borderline useless.

The lens is probably no better than a consumer zoom would be these days at 18mm- this has been my experience with the k15mm.

DirkG · 04-07-2011, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Adam

The lens is probably no better than a consumer zoom would be these days at 18mm- this has been my experience with the k15mm.

Allow me to disagree.
In a (fairly well controlled) comparison of K15/3.5 and Sigma 10-20 set at 15mm, I found
- that center performance was similar in terms of sharpness, with visible differences mainly due to white balance control;
- that K15 outperformed Sigma 10-20 in terms of off-center sharpness and distortion control.

A similar comparison between K18/3.5, Tamron 17-50 at 18mm and Pentax 18-55 at 18mm revealed K18/3.5 as a clear winner (except for the presence of chromatic aberration, which - as often with lenses from the manual era - is stronger in K18/3.5).

In addition, let me quote from my comments on K20/4.0 in the lens review section: "I have compared the K20/4.0 on digital with the DA21 and the Tamron 17-50. My conclusion is that K20 outperforms the other two, in terms of detail rendered and in terms of liveliness of colors. It is not as superbly sharp as K28/3.5 or K35/3.5, but it's better than the widely acclaimed DA21 or a very good zoom like the Tamron."

I imagine there will be other voices to make themselves heard, but my experience concerning K-series lenses in comparison to modern zooms (and even some primes) is consistently in favor of the K's.

**gofour3** · 04-07-2011, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by ewig

i just want to ask about this lens ..because recently .. i find this on ebay , and i take a look that this lens has a 4 built in filter ???
can someone please explain this ? i never heard before about this lens ... is the quality good , and how you change the filter if has 4 built in in your lens body ??

thx b4

regard

As well as the K18/3.5, the following K series lenses had built-in filters, which are selected via a filter ring.

K15/3.5
K17/4 Fisheye
K28/3.5 Shift
K1000/11 Reflex (ND & filter)
K2000/13.5 Reflex (ND & filter)

The quality of all K series lenses is superb.

Phil.

Adam · 04-07-2011, 02:49 PM

The DA 15mm (it is a prime after all) and the DA 12-24 sit the K lens down as far as I've observed- the zoom might not be sharper, but the exposure and CA are both much better.

There's some unexplained issue with the A 15mm also, as it overexposes by 1.5 stops on digital (consistently) whereas this isn't the case on A-series film bodies.,

paperbag846 · 04-07-2011, 04:14 PM

That lens only makes sense on film I'm going to guess.

**gofour3** · 04-07-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

That lens only makes sense on film I'm going to guess.

Agreed, all those K series ultra wides I listed above are better suited for film.
On film the 15/3.5 is still the king of ultra wides, an amazing 111 degree angle of view with no distortion!

Phil.

ewig · 04-07-2011, 10:17 PM

i think the quality of SMC its not going to be ask here, i mean even its A or K or M series...... all bring the superb IQ, i just wonder how 4 built -in filter can be in the same lens..

event though some of thread in forum argued about the significant CA that occurred in digital Body.. UW manual prime lens still the best value in my opinion... thats why sometimes i just hope the price K 15/3,5 not even ekspensive then sigma 10-20 ... but now its kinda rare ...huh

i try to look for other variant , like 18 or something else, but its not cheap either

stevebrot · 04-07-2011, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

Agreed, all those K series ultra wides I listed above are better suited for film.
On film the 15/3.5 is still the king of ultra wides, an amazing 111 degree angle of view with no distortion!

Phil.

Though there is some stiff competition from M-mount rangefinder lenses at the same or shorter focal lengths.

Steve

creampuff · 04-07-2011, 10:22 PM

Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper.

ewig · 04-08-2011, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper.

yup...im agree with you.. just looking the value because recently ..friend of mine just got sigma 18/3,5 with cheap price ..

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-08-2011, 06:23 AM

While I don't disagree that the K ultra wides, 15, and 18 mm rectalinear and 16 and 17mm fisheye are excellent lenses, they are quite expensive for what you get in terms of an ASP-C sensor.

While not as good on linearity, I opted for the samyang 14mm F2.8.

It does have barrel distortion which is easliy corrected, and has excellent sharpness, control of CA even at the corners, as well as excellet resistance to flare. For the price, it may be the best bang for the buck.

Unless you are a collector, I am not sure why you woould go after some of the legacy lenses. (although I find myself keeping an eye open for them , but only cheap)

eddie1960 · 04-08-2011, 06:49 AM

If it was cheap as Lowell says then grab it otherwise for digital there are many better lenses as pointed out by all the above posts,
Also if you shoot film regularly on a k mount body then it may be well worth a look (the built in filters then become damn useful for a b/w shooter like many of the film community are)
it was a pretty expensive lens back in the day and a pretty esoteric piece even then, that's why you see so few and they go for so much

DirkG · 04-09-2011, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Unless you are a collector, I am not sure why you woould go after some of the legacy lenses.

Well, have a look at some pictures: corner performance on K7 of DA21 to the left, K20 to the right; the subject is a dimly lit railway hall.

Now convince me that (convenience of lighter weight and AF apart) a legacy wide-angle like K20 is not a good choice on digital ...

**gofour3** · 04-09-2011, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper.

You can mount filters in the front of the K18/3.5, as it has a 58mm filter thread. It also has a 58mm diameter clip-on plastic lens hood.

It’s vignetting that will be an issue with front mounted filters. You can also use rear mount gelatin filters, so you have three choices.

Phil.

04-07-2011, 12:52 PM	#1
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312	is this lens for real ?? SMC K 18/3,5 i just want to ask about this lens ..because recently .. i find this on ebay , and i take a look that this lens has a 4 built in filter ??? can someone please explain this ? i never heard before about this lens ... is the quality good , and how you change the filter if has 4 built in in your lens body ?? thx b4 regard

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
When will we get a REAL Pentax wildlife lens?	Aditya Panda	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	01-25-2020 12:25 PM
Real World Tests of the SMC K 50 f/1.2	rparmar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	62	01-06-2012 06:13 AM
SMC 50mm 1.2 HALF SILVER.. Is this REAL or..?	minahasa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	03-30-2011 08:58 PM
HELP! The Nagging Question...Is it real or is it LENS FLARE?	chefpete1	Photographic Technique	9	03-03-2011 10:01 AM
What is the best ultra wide lens for real estate photography?	HermanLee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-07-2010 11:54 AM

04-07-2011, 12:57 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Check the lens database for more details on the lens: Pentax Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database The filters are internal because external filters would likely cause vignetting. There's a ring at the end of the lens that let's you change filters, but in the digital age, they're still borderline useless. The lens is probably no better than a consumer zoom would be these days at 18mm- this has been my experience with the k15mm.

04-07-2011, 02:01 PM	#3
DirkG Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 72	Originally posted by Adam The lens is probably no better than a consumer zoom would be these days at 18mm- this has been my experience with the k15mm. Allow me to disagree. In a (fairly well controlled) comparison of K15/3.5 and Sigma 10-20 set at 15mm, I found - that center performance was similar in terms of sharpness, with visible differences mainly due to white balance control; - that K15 outperformed Sigma 10-20 in terms of off-center sharpness and distortion control. A similar comparison between K18/3.5, Tamron 17-50 at 18mm and Pentax 18-55 at 18mm revealed K18/3.5 as a clear winner (except for the presence of chromatic aberration, which - as often with lenses from the manual era - is stronger in K18/3.5). In addition, let me quote from my comments on K20/4.0 in the lens review section: "I have compared the K20/4.0 on digital with the DA21 and the Tamron 17-50. My conclusion is that K20 outperforms the other two, in terms of detail rendered and in terms of liveliness of colors. It is not as superbly sharp as K28/3.5 or K35/3.5, but it's better than the widely acclaimed DA21 or a very good zoom like the Tamron." I imagine there will be other voices to make themselves heard, but my experience concerning K-series lenses in comparison to modern zooms (and even some primes) is consistently in favor of the K's.

04-07-2011, 02:38 PM	#4
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by ewig i just want to ask about this lens ..because recently .. i find this on ebay , and i take a look that this lens has a 4 built in filter ??? can someone please explain this ? i never heard before about this lens ... is the quality good , and how you change the filter if has 4 built in in your lens body ?? thx b4 regard As well as the K18/3.5, the following K series lenses had built-in filters, which are selected via a filter ring. K15/3.5 K17/4 Fisheye K28/3.5 Shift K1000/11 Reflex (ND & filter) K2000/13.5 Reflex (ND & filter) The quality of all K series lenses is superb. Phil.

04-07-2011, 02:49 PM	#5
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	The DA 15mm (it is a prime after all) and the DA 12-24 sit the K lens down as far as I've observed- the zoom might not be sharper, but the exposure and CA are both much better. There's some unexplained issue with the A 15mm also, as it overexposes by 1.5 stops on digital (consistently) whereas this isn't the case on A-series film bodies.,

04-07-2011, 04:14 PM	#6
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	That lens only makes sense on film I'm going to guess.

04-07-2011, 05:46 PM	#7
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by paperbag846 That lens only makes sense on film I'm going to guess. Agreed, all those K series ultra wides I listed above are better suited for film. On film the 15/3.5 is still the king of ultra wides, an amazing 111 degree angle of view with no distortion! Phil.

04-07-2011, 10:17 PM	#8
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	i think the quality of SMC its not going to be ask here, i mean even its A or K or M series...... all bring the superb IQ, i just wonder how 4 built -in filter can be in the same lens.. event though some of thread in forum argued about the significant CA that occurred in digital Body.. UW manual prime lens still the best value in my opinion... thats why sometimes i just hope the price K 15/3,5 not even ekspensive then sigma 10-20 ... but now its kinda rare ...huh i try to look for other variant , like 18 or something else, but its not cheap either

04-07-2011, 10:19 PM	#9
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by gofour3 Agreed, all those K series ultra wides I listed above are better suited for film. On film the 15/3.5 is still the king of ultra wides, an amazing 111 degree angle of view with no distortion! Phil. Though there is some stiff competition from M-mount rangefinder lenses at the same or shorter focal lengths. Steve

04-07-2011, 10:22 PM	#10
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper.

04-08-2011, 05:10 AM	#11
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	Originally posted by creampuff Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper. yup...im agree with you.. just looking the value because recently ..friend of mine just got sigma 18/3,5 with cheap price ..

04-08-2011, 06:23 AM	#12
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	While I don't disagree that the K ultra wides, 15, and 18 mm rectalinear and 16 and 17mm fisheye are excellent lenses, they are quite expensive for what you get in terms of an ASP-C sensor. While not as good on linearity, I opted for the samyang 14mm F2.8. It does have barrel distortion which is easliy corrected, and has excellent sharpness, control of CA even at the corners, as well as excellet resistance to flare. For the price, it may be the best bang for the buck. Unless you are a collector, I am not sure why you woould go after some of the legacy lenses. (although I find myself keeping an eye open for them , but only cheap)

04-08-2011, 06:49 AM	#13
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	If it was cheap as Lowell says then grab it otherwise for digital there are many better lenses as pointed out by all the above posts, Also if you shoot film regularly on a k mount body then it may be well worth a look (the built in filters then become damn useful for a b/w shooter like many of the film community are) it was a pretty expensive lens back in the day and a pretty esoteric piece even then, that's why you see so few and they go for so much

04-09-2011, 06:58 AM	#14
DirkG Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 72	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Unless you are a collector, I am not sure why you woould go after some of the legacy lenses. Well, have a look at some pictures: corner performance on K7 of DA21 to the left, K20 to the right; the subject is a dimly lit railway hall. Now convince me that (convenience of lighter weight and AF apart) a legacy wide-angle like K20 is not a good choice on digital ...

04-09-2011, 10:04 AM	#15
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by creampuff Imo don't waste your money on this legacy lens. It's just no longer wide enough on digital, it costs too much money, you can only use it in manual mode, you can't mount filters in front, it is a challenge to focus manually at this focal length even with a focusing screen with manual focusing aids, there are modern lenses that perform a lot better or a lot cheaper. You can mount filters in the front of the K18/3.5, as it has a 58mm filter thread. It also has a 58mm diameter clip-on plastic lens hood. It’s vignetting that will be an issue with front mounted filters. You can also use rear mount gelatin filters, so you have three choices. Phil.