Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2012, 10:01 PM   #16
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,680
BTW, the FA* 28-70/2.8 is easily the best zoom i've ever used. I rented it a couple of times to shoot some concerts over the years and finally saved up my pennies to buy one a couple months ago. The copy I got is every bit as good as the ones I had rented.

The only drawback is the rotating front element which makes using a circular polarizer a little challenging, but not impossible. Besides that, it is a rockin' piece of glass!!

09-18-2012, 04:46 AM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 85
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
you may notice there was a guy with a fake moniker, "oswego-otter" who left a "1" rating for the FA* 28-70/2.8 just to sandbag the average. He even admitted doing so in his review. Interestingly, that same guy also reviewed the DA 55-300 and gave it a perfect 10.
Where is the justice? moderators??
Subtract that one and it becomes a 9.2, which makes a lot more sense.
09-18-2012, 06:31 PM   #18
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 85
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
BTW, the FA* 28-70/2.8 is easily the best zoom i've ever used. I rented it a couple of times to shoot some concerts over the years and finally saved up my pennies to buy one a couple months ago. The copy I got is every bit as good as the ones I had rented.

The only drawback is the rotating front element which makes using a circular polarizer a little challenging, but not impossible. Besides that, it is a rockin' piece of glass!!

One of the online lens rental sites lists it, so if I get to seriously wanting one, I'll try out a rental first.
09-18-2012, 07:47 PM   #19
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,659
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
you may notice there was a guy with a fake moniker, "oswego-otter" who left a "1" rating for the FA* 28-70/2.8 just to sandbag the average. He even admitted doing so in his review. Interestingly, that same guy also reviewed the DA 55-300 and gave it a perfect 10.
Where is the justice? moderators??
See here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/forum-suggestions-news-help/127069-sugges...ml#post2073777, where I suggested removing that review because it was garbage.

I have the f/4 version coming my way now in the mail. I'll post my impressions here when I get to use it a little.

09-19-2012, 12:04 PM   #20
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,659
The lens arrived today and as luck would have it I'm off work, so I mounted it to my K10D and took a few quick snaps. I couldn't believe how quickly the lens focused. This is my first FA non-Limited or FA* lens so I was surprised at the short focus throw from one end to the other. The camera didn't hesitate at all to lock focus, there was no back-and-forth movement either. My other lenses are quite nice with manual focusing, I think the FA 28-70/4 would be a little more difficult. I also found it to be very sharp.

Anyway here's one, click it for a couple more with this lens:
09-19-2012, 07:36 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 85
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
The lens arrived today and as luck would have it I'm off work, so I mounted it to my K10D and took a few quick snaps. I couldn't believe how quickly the lens focused. This is my first FA non-Limited or FA* lens so I was surprised at the short focus throw from one end to the other. The camera didn't hesitate at all to lock focus, there was no back-and-forth movement either. My other lenses are quite nice with manual focusing, I think the FA 28-70/4 would be a little more difficult. I also found it to be very sharp.

Anyway here's one, click it for a couple more with this lens:
I'd say your results look good. I'll have to keep an eye out for sales at KEH.

edit - I just checked email and KEH is offering a 3-day sale. With 2nd day air shipping, is was about $70 (FedEx 2nd day air was the same cost as UPS ground and $2 more than FedEx ground - the local FedEx ground depot is a pain to deal with when picking up packages).

Last edited by eastman; 09-19-2012 at 08:54 PM.
09-29-2012, 11:57 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12
From you may notice there was a guy with a fake moniker, "oswego-otter" who left a "1" rating for the FA* 28-70/2.8 just to sandbag the average. He even admitted doing so in his review. Interestingly, that same guy also reviewed the DA 55-300 and gave it a perfect 10.
Where is the justice? moderators??

From PentaxForums.com: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/199162-fa-28-7...#ixzz27sutNrWP

Hi there MikeSF, Sorry I hurt your feelings. Tell me a few things though...
1) why is my moniker "fake"? You're at leaste as bad as what you accuse me of. I sandbagged the 28-70 and you snadbag my name.
2) If you actualy read my review then you (as you admit) see I explained myself clearly. More on this in a moment.
3) I think you own this lens and don't want to see your investment hurt, am I correct by any chance (just guessing)?

There are plenty of people in this thread alone that have commented on the fact they found the lens over rated. note too, on ebay the completed auction list is continuously showing items removed (because of shill bidding). I mention this because I want to point out that as a rare item people are able to take advantage of buyers.

Having used the lens but not owning it I feel my review is impartial. The lens performs respectably for a zoom it is better than average, but then again so is the 55-300... side by side you find that the picture quality differs little but one gives 3 times the range and weighs 1/3 as much, is twice as fast and cost 1/3 as much....... soooooo If I said the 28-70 rates an 8 then that would put the 55-300 at a 10...

It's a logigical conclusion. I love the 55-300 for what it is, there is no better 6x lens out there! It's cheap, light and gives great pics if you don't need prime quality buy it! That is why I said it's a 10! AND if you wanted clarification then all you had to do was read my post where I was very clear in that the image quality was not my only concern.

The 28-70 is has little nicer pic quality than the 55-300, but it is no where near "Prime Quality". the*77mm kicks that idea all to hell. It's a zoom Period. Take an optics course and do the ray tracing experiments your self. I wish it were posible but alas it is not! Zooms do not compete with primes. I wish the forum would seperate the two scales for this reason. Physics does not allow all points of light to be connvergent over a range of focal lengths with sliding glass elements that have fixed focal lengths. Ergo primmes are better!

Is the 28-70 a 1??? at 1,500 dollars weighing in at one ton and only a smidgen better than its competition it sure to hell is!

Last edited by oswego-otter; 09-29-2012 at 01:03 PM.
09-29-2012, 03:39 PM   #23
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,659
Wow, you sure have a strong opinion on a lens borrowed for a short time. Don't get me wrong, we welcome your opinions, even if they are different from ours. That's what makes this a forum.

While I can respect your opinion it's your actions that I have a problem with. Skewing the results of a rating because the lens didn't live up to its reputation for you is just wrong. Especially when you say "soooooo If I said the 28-70 rates an 8 then that would put the 55-300 at a 10." You contradict yourself and I'd turn that statement around and say if you gave the 55-300 a 10 you should have given the 28-70 an 8!

It's not our job to try and make the lens ratings balanced. We can do our part and give an item a fair score and description of your experience, which of the latter you did very well.

09-29-2012, 07:45 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
Yeah, it's hard enough to put a lot of weight in the ratings due to a random group of rankers with different expectations and backgrounds. It's even more difficult to use an avg rating with only 11 ratings due to small sample size. it's pretty obvious that one of the ratings for the FA* does not belong - one 1 rating, two 8 ratings, four 9 ratings and four 10 ratings.

I've always thought that the average lens rating should have a slightly more complex formula that reduces the effects that the highest/lowest ratings.
Possibly use a Median rather than an average score. Will reward lenses with consistantly high scores as if more than 50% of reviews are a nine, the lens will get a nine however there will only be a score graduations of 0.5

E.g. Review scores 1, 5, 8, 8, 9,10 average score= 6.83 median= 8
09-29-2012, 07:55 PM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 53
QuoteOriginally posted by oswego-otter Quote
There are plenty of people in this thread alone that have commented on the fact they found the lens over rated.
I've read this whole thread twice and the only ones, who said that they found the FA* 28-70 overrated, are Pal Jensen and you. Now I am not a native english speaker, but I was under the impression, that "plenty" usually means a lot more then "two".

QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
Wow, you sure have a strong opinion on a lens borrowed for a short time. Don't get me wrong, we welcome your opinions, even if they are different from ours. That's what makes this a forum.

While I can respect your opinion it's your actions that I have a problem with. Skewing the results of a rating because the lens didn't live up to its reputation for you is just wrong. Especially when you say "soooooo If I said the 28-70 rates an 8 then that would put the 55-300 at a 10." You contradict yourself and I'd turn that statement around and say if you gave the 55-300 a 10 you should have given the 28-70 an 8!

It's not our job to try and make the lens ratings balanced. We can do our part and give an item a fair score and description of your experience, which of the latter you did very well.
+1
09-29-2012, 09:29 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,825
QuoteOriginally posted by oswego-otter Quote
The 28-70 is has little nicer pic quality than the 55-300, but it is no where near "Prime Quality". the*77mm kicks that idea all to hell. It's a zoom Period. Take an optics course and do the ray tracing experiments your self. I wish it were posible but alas it is not! Zooms do not compete with primes.
It seems that your internal ranking system of them on the same scale is a mistake, period. By this same logic, I believe it would be safe to say that for most, the 77mm is totally inferior to the stock 18-55 lens. Most people dont want to shoot that much telephoto, and simply cannot handle shooting without using a zoom, therefore, clearly any prime lens, but especially one above 50mm should be marked as a 1.

QuoteOriginally posted by oswego-otter Quote
I wish the forum would seperate the two scales for this reason.
Meh, the forum leaves it up to you to self select how you want to rank your lenses. Based on what you've said, I believe you rank things in this order: Cost to sharpness. Flexibility to sharpness. If I use those two factors, clearly the 55-300 comes out on top, the 77 comes out second, and the 28-70, a zoom with limited range, comes out a distant third. My ranking would be different, but then again, the 55-300 hasn't ever been in my collection. It's not sharp enough.
09-29-2012, 09:30 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,825
QuoteOriginally posted by wisent Quote
I've read this whole thread twice and the only ones, who said that they found the FA* 28-70 overrated, are Pal Jensen and you. Now I am not a native english speaker, but I was under the impression, that "plenty" usually means a lot more then "two".
I did ask a similar question a while back and the broader answer I got was that the FA* 28-70 is overrated for it's price, but that it is really sharp glass.
09-29-2012, 10:27 PM   #28
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,659
QuoteOriginally posted by eastman Quote
I'd say your results look good.
Thanks. After a little more use I find the lens really should be used with a hood, although mine doesn't have one. The picture above was taken in the shade, but comparing it to a few others taken in the sun, there's a big difference.
09-29-2012, 11:23 PM   #29
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,680
QuoteOriginally posted by oswego-otter Quote
From you may notice there was a guy with a fake moniker, "oswego-otter" who left a "1" rating for the FA* 28-70/2.8 just to sandbag the average. He even admitted doing so in his review. Interestingly, that same guy also reviewed the DA 55-300 and gave it a perfect 10.
Where is the justice? moderators??

From PentaxForums.com: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/199162-fa-28-7...#ixzz27sutNrWP

Hi there MikeSF, Sorry I hurt your feelings. Tell me a few things though...
1) why is my moniker "fake"? You're at leaste as bad as what you accuse me of. I sandbagged the 28-70 and you snadbag my name.
2) If you actualy read my review then you (as you admit) see I explained myself clearly. More on this in a moment.
3) I think you own this lens and don't want to see your investment hurt, am I correct by any chance (just guessing)?

There are plenty of people in this thread alone that have commented on the fact they found the lens over rated. note too, on ebay the completed auction list is continuously showing items removed (because of shill bidding). I mention this because I want to point out that as a rare item people are able to take advantage of buyers.

Having used the lens but not owning it I feel my review is impartial. The lens performs respectably for a zoom it is better than average, but then again so is the 55-300... side by side you find that the picture quality differs little but one gives 3 times the range and weighs 1/3 as much, is twice as fast and cost 1/3 as much....... soooooo If I said the 28-70 rates an 8 then that would put the 55-300 at a 10...

It's a logigical conclusion. I love the 55-300 for what it is, there is no better 6x lens out there! It's cheap, light and gives great pics if you don't need prime quality buy it! That is why I said it's a 10! AND if you wanted clarification then all you had to do was read my post where I was very clear in that the image quality was not my only concern.

The 28-70 is has little nicer pic quality than the 55-300, but it is no where near "Prime Quality". the*77mm kicks that idea all to hell. It's a zoom Period. Take an optics course and do the ray tracing experiments your self. I wish it were posible but alas it is not! Zooms do not compete with primes. I wish the forum would seperate the two scales for this reason. Physics does not allow all points of light to be connvergent over a range of focal lengths with sliding glass elements that have fixed focal lengths. Ergo primmes are better!

Is the 28-70 a 1??? at 1,500 dollars weighing in at one ton and only a smidgen better than its competition it sure to hell is!
Thanks for coming out of hiding to compose your , uh, 7th post ever, and prove to me you are real...a real freak!
You are entitled to your opinion about any lens - i've no problem with you liking or not liking a lens. I am annoyed that you've made assumptions about the other reviewers of the lens, including me. You are obviously wrong. I also cannot imagine how you are privy to some shill bidding activity on eBay involving prior auctions of this lens. Also, your ridiculous calculation about the 55-300 (3 times, longer, 1/3rd the price...) is laughable at best.
Come back when you have something pertinent to contribute here; otherwise, think awhile before you sit down to pen post #8.

Last edited by Ash; 09-30-2012 at 02:16 PM.
09-29-2012, 11:37 PM   #30
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,680
here is a recent shot with the FA* 28-70/2.8



here is a crop to show some detail

Last edited by mikeSF; 09-29-2012 at 11:44 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
fa, fa*, job, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, vs, vs fa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top