[conradj]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I know that there is a bit of luck involved with sample variation; my 1st DA L 18-55 which came with my K2000 was noticeably sharper at the extremes than the DA L 18-55 that came with my K-x.

ok, i went and twisted the FA onto my camera and adjusted the heck out of its microfocus, and used it a bit: i do have to change my tune.

My new observation is that it's ok for sharpness center frame wide open, lots better stopped down to f8 and below; borders and corners become unobjectionable by f9.

As benhai says:

1. More vivid colors and more fine color transition details. 2. Longer range. 3. It blurs the background nicer then the kit lens. I normally take kids picture, so the 28-70mm f4 is always on my camera.

The 18-55mm AL feels stronger. Colors that the kit lens renders are darker and less transition. If I use smaller aperture then I can make it very sharp.

i see plainly the different colour transitions between the 2 lenses as he describes: more saturation in the kit lens. The Tamron rebadge FA28-105mm leans in the 18-55 direction. The SMC-F28-80 is in the FA28-70 camp, but seems more brownish.

When i shoot at night with a tripod, tend to stop all the lenses i use down to f11 or f10. All these lenses here have seemed ok for sharpness stopped down that far, or at any rate with long exposures the K-7 sensor noise behavior and high red-blue saturation levels becomes more prominent than lens optical subtleties from these lenses.

---

Last edited by conradj; 06-29-2011 at 03:59 AM.

[luftfluss]

I have the FA 28-70mm F4 for quite a while now. I also have the 18-55mm kit lens, not the WR. Compare the two, I prefer the 28-70mm f4 for the following reasons. 1. More vivid colors and more fine color transition details. 2. Longer range. 3. It blurs the background nicer then the kit lens. I normally take kids picture, so the 28-70mm f4 is always on my camera.

The 18-55mm AL feels stronger. Colors that the kit lens renders are darker and less transition. If I use smaller aperture then I can make it very sharp. I still keep it cause the 18mm wide end is usable.

My biggest concerns regarding the 28-70mm f4 is the build quality. It is almost all plastic except the mount. So if you drop it then you are very likely to get hit. I got mine from KEH with excellent+ condition for about $100.

Here are some random pictures taken with this lens. The last picture was taken from 18-55mm AL lens at very small aperture.
https://picasaweb.google.com/Benhai.Zhang/K7_test#

Hope this can be some help.

^_^

ok, i went and twisted the FA onto my camera and adjusted the heck out of its microfocus, and used it a bit: i do have to change my tune.

My new observation is that it's ok for sharpness center frame wide open, lots better stopped down to f8 and below; borders and corners become unobjectionable by f9.

As benhai says:



i see plainly the different colour transitions between the 2 lenses as he describes: more saturation in the kit lens. The Tamron rebadge FA28-105mm leans in the 18-55 direction. The SMC-F28-80 is in the FA28-70 camp, but seems more brownish.

When i shoot at night with a tripod, tend to stop all the lenses i use down to f11 or f10. All these lenses here have seemed ok for sharpness stopped down that far, or at any rate with long exposures the K-7 sensor noise behavior and high red-blue saturation levels becomes more prominent than lens optical subtleties from these lenses.

Thank you, gentlemen, for all this wonderful information and samples. I have to say that I am impressed with both the FA 28-70 & F 35-70, and I will probably go for whichever one I can get the most satisfying deal on.

[luftfluss]

Just an update on this, today I acquired an F 35-70, and I am pleased with it. With regard to image quality, the 35-70 beats the kit 18-55 in every way, wide-open and stopped down.

Thank you, feverbeaver & Blue, for turning me on to this lens!

[conradj]

That F35-70 really is a lovely lens: hope you enjoy yours for a long time.

i'm currently awaiting delivery of an old Power zoom FA28-105mm, going to see if i like that one.

[RioRico]

Note that it is easier to design a good 2x zoom than a good 3x or 5x or 14x. (And even some early 2x zooms ain't so great.) The F35-70/3.5-4.5 is a good bargain and I really like it within its rather limited range, which happens to be where I shoot a lot in the right situations. I also use zooms with even more limited ranges, like 100-150/3.5 Ektars, just 1.5x. It's not really fair IMHO to compare zooms with very different ranges. The greater the range, the more design compromises are needed to produce usable pictures. Also consider that a fixed max-aperture zoom (like a 28-80/4) is more complicated than one with a floating max-ap (like an 18-55/3.5-5.6). Courses for horses, or whatever.

Anywat, congrats on getting the F35-70, it's a splendid performer on its turf.

[luftfluss]

That F35-70 really is a lovely lens: hope you enjoy yours for a long time.

i'm currently awaiting delivery of an old Power zoom FA28-105mm, going to see if i like that one.

Thanks. I was looking at a couple of 28-105's, but the price and relative slowness (I couldn't find a 3.2-4.5) keep tme away. It will be interesting to read your thoughts about the lens.

Note that it is easier to design a good 2x zoom than a good 3x or 5x or 14x. (And even some early 2x zooms ain't so great.) The F35-70/3.5-4.5 is a good bargain and I really like it within its rather limited range, which happens to be where I shoot a lot in the right situations. I also use zooms with even more limited ranges, like 100-150/3.5 Ektars, just 1.5x. It's not really fair IMHO to compare zooms with very different ranges. The greater the range, the more design compromises are needed to produce usable pictures. Also consider that a fixed max-aperture zoom (like a 28-80/4) is more complicated than one with a floating max-ap (like an 18-55/3.5-5.6). Courses for horses, or whatever.

Anywat, congrats on getting the F35-70, it's a splendid performer on its turf.

35mm was a little tighter than I would have preferred, but I figure I'll simply have to work my way around it, or use my M 28. 35-70 is more useable for me than, say, 18-35. That 35-70 sure is a tiny little thing!

[conradj]

Thanks. I was looking at a couple of 28-105's, but the price and relative slowness (I couldn't find a 3.2-4.5) keep tme away. It will be interesting to read your thoughts about the lens.

o!

Unfortch my copy of this lens so far tests out to be a poor sample so i haven't much to say abt it other than that i like it's colours better than that of the Tamron rebadge 28-105.

In direct comparison the Tamron rebadge shows an overall green cast, what you'd get if you shot up the Green slider on the colour temperature adjustment when importing a RAW file into PP software.

[luftfluss]

o!

Unfortch my copy of this lens so far tests out to be a poor sample so i haven't much to say abt it other than that i like it's colours better than that of the Tamron rebadge 28-105.

In direct comparison the Tamron rebadge shows an overall green cast, what you'd get if you shot up the Green slider on the colour temperature adjustment when importing a RAW file into PP software.

Oh no, I'm sorry to hear this.

[Blue]

. . .


35mm was a little tighter than I would have preferred, but I figure I'll simply have to work my way around it, or use my M 28. 35-70 is more useable for me than, say, 18-35. That 35-70 sure is a tiny little thing!

That is one of the things I liked about it. Plus, it doesn't change in size much at all from 35mm to 70mm.