Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

rawr · 04-23-2013, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by builttospill

I thought the A-series lenses communicate with the camera;

Pretty sure all the data A lenses pass onto the body is aperture and (perhaps?) LensID, but not active focal length.

sam-joseph · 04-23-2013, 11:31 PM

I had an A-35-105 a few years back. I paid $11 for it on ebay ($3 winning bid + $8 postage), as it was supposedly full of fungus.
I unscrewed the end element group, cleaned the fungus out and took it and my then K100D Super on a family holiday to Port Macquarie, a bit further North of where I live.
Here's a shot from the holiday.

I was impressed with the lens, but I was trying to raise funds for a K7, so I sold it for $130 on ebay. I still see those lenses from time to time and think I might get another one day.
More shots here:
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5442_zpsdc5f138c.jpg
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5369_zps65f23b2e.jpg
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5454_zps77f77398.jpg

Regards

**MSL** · 04-24-2013, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Pretty sure all the data A lenses pass onto the body is aperture and (perhaps?) LensID, but not active focal length.

I don't think it passes along a LensID other than the smaller aperture of the lens (i.e. when the lens is wide open). The A contacts let the body do proper metering and control the aperture.

**NaClH2O** · 04-24-2013, 06:06 AM

I really like my A 35-105. It's zoom range fits my shooting preferences quite well, stopped down a bit (5.0/5.6) it's sharp corner to corner and it renders reds better than any other lens I own. It's main disadvantages are: a) it's a brick of a lens weighing in at 615 g; and b) the macro mode is weird, it works best if you fine focus with the zoom ring. But a) all zooms of that era were heavy and b) it's weird but it works. BTW, "macro" as in most all zooms, means close focus, not true macro. I used it last year in the Single in May challenge, and had a blast using it. If you are interested the images can be found here

NaCl(don't think it's * quality but it's close)H2O

**monochrome** · 04-24-2013, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by MSL

I don't think it passes along a LensID other than the smaller aperture of the lens (i.e. when the lens is wide open). The A contacts let the body do proper metering and control the aperture.

To find the answer to this question read the EXIF info in any image taken with the lens. PhotoMe (though seemingly abandoned) is one resource for this, as is ExifTool.

GibbyTheMole · 04-24-2013, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

it's sharp corner to corner and it renders reds better than any other lens I own. It's main disadvantages are: a) it's a brick of a lens weighing in at 615 g; and b) the macro mode is weird, it works best if you fine focus with the zoom ring. But a) all zooms of that era were heavy and b) it's weird but it works.

I agree with that assessment. I love my 35-105, especially for portraits. It's very very very sharp, and I like the bokeh. "Stack of primes" is not much of an exaggeration, IMO.

Not crazy about the macro mode on the 35-105 because sometimes the subject I shoot is exactly at the engage/disengage point of the ring. On these occasions I just get a little closer or back up. Still, a bit of a nuisance. I really don't mind the weight much, though.

There is actually one zoom I own with a real macro mode. The Tamron SP 23A 60-300 gets you 1:1.55x magnification. Pretty darn close. It's quite an excellent lens.

**MSL** · 04-24-2013, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by GibbyTheMole

Not crazy about the macro mode on the 35-105 because sometimes the subject I shoot is exactly at the engage/disengage point of the ring. On these occasions I just get a little closer or back up. Still, a bit of a nuisance. I really don't mind the weight much, though.

I debated to mention this or not, but I've had the same problem with the lens on shooting portraits indoors. A minor quibble, and I can't see that this is a lens I would sell as long as I'm shooting with a Pentax.

Doundounba · 04-24-2013, 10:50 AM

I'll agree with many of the responses here. This lens is a surprisingly endearing tank. It's plenty sharp with great color. For some reason, I have more trouble nailing focus with it than with my other MF zooms - I think that's because once you really nail it, you realize how sharp this lens can be! I can't compare with current (expensive) *-line zooms, as I don't have any. I've also experienced the minor annoyance where the subject is exactly at the point of macro engagement (1.5m, I think). And I must admit that 35mm is really not wide-enough to use as a walkaround (on APS-C), at least for the type of urban photo I mostly do. When I leave with the 35-105 on my K-01, I usually wind-up switching for the Sigma 17-70 pretty quickly. And yet the 35-105 has produced some of my best photos, and I don't think I'd want to part with it. For around $100 these days, it's still a really fantastic value. But if you already have the 18-135, unless you're looking to increase your arm strength, I don't think the 35-105 would add a whole lot to your photographic experience...

rawr · 04-24-2013, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

To find the answer to this question read the EXIF info in any image taken with the lens.

Done. According to EXIFTOOL, the data read from the lens and recorded in both the EXIF 'Lens ID' and 'Lens Type' fields is simply 'A Series Lens'. Aperture is also recorded, as well as the focal length set in the SR, and whether 'Auto Aperture' is on or off. And a million other things recorded by the body, of course.

**monochrome** · 04-24-2013, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Done. According to EXIFTOOL, the data read from the lens and recorded in both the EXIF 'Lens ID' and 'Lens Type' fields is simply 'A Series Lens'. Aperture is also recorded, as well as the focal length set in the SR, and whether 'Auto Aperture' is on or off. And a million other things recorded by the body, of course.

I think FA and DA lenses are chipped to supply their actual model names and max/min apertures as well.

lesmore49 · 04-24-2013, 07:26 PM

I've had one....which I bought new in 1984. Use it on my digitals every so often. It's better than my 16-45 but not quite as good as my 12-24. It's a great lens, well built.

**Kerrowdown** · 04-25-2013, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by dboeren

How does the Pentax-A 35-105mm hold up these days?

A lot of folk here on the forum seem to like it, have you checked it out the lens review section?

SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 Reviews - A Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

rawr · 04-25-2013, 03:42 AM

There are also some photos from the lens in the lens sample photo archive:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/153146-pentax-35-105mm-f3-5-a.html

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
That's The Problem These Days...	Lupine	General Talk	6	11-03-2012 11:09 PM
Question How long does it take for a posted pic to show up on the forum?	jpzk	Site Suggestions and Help	3	03-09-2012 08:08 AM
how well does shake reduction work for video? and how does mJpeg stand up to grading	clark	Video Recording and Processing	23	06-22-2010 09:35 PM
So, these days, how "limited" are the Limiteds?	brecklundin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-10-2009 05:49 PM
What's up with Prodigital2000 these days?	k100d	General Talk	124	11-22-2008 02:35 PM

04-23-2013, 10:18 PM	#16
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by builttospill I thought the A-series lenses communicate with the camera; Pretty sure all the data A lenses pass onto the body is aperture and (perhaps?) LensID, but not active focal length.

04-23-2013, 11:31 PM	#17
sam-joseph Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,086	I had an A-35-105 a few years back. I paid $11 for it on ebay ($3 winning bid + $8 postage), as it was supposedly full of fungus. I unscrewed the end element group, cleaned the fungus out and took it and my then K100D Super on a family holiday to Port Macquarie, a bit further North of where I live. Here's a shot from the holiday. I was impressed with the lens, but I was trying to raise funds for a K7, so I sold it for $130 on ebay. I still see those lenses from time to time and think I might get another one day. More shots here: http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5442_zpsdc5f138c.jpg http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5369_zps65f23b2e.jpg http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad276/sam-joseph/tn_IMGP5454_zps77f77398.jpg Regards

04-24-2013, 04:49 AM	#18
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,756	Originally posted by rawr Pretty sure all the data A lenses pass onto the body is aperture and (perhaps?) LensID, but not active focal length. I don't think it passes along a LensID other than the smaller aperture of the lens (i.e. when the lens is wide open). The A contacts let the body do proper metering and control the aperture.

04-24-2013, 06:06 AM	#19
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I really like my A 35-105. It's zoom range fits my shooting preferences quite well, stopped down a bit (5.0/5.6) it's sharp corner to corner and it renders reds better than any other lens I own. It's main disadvantages are: a) it's a brick of a lens weighing in at 615 g; and b) the macro mode is weird, it works best if you fine focus with the zoom ring. But a) all zooms of that era were heavy and b) it's weird but it works. BTW, "macro" as in most all zooms, means close focus, not true macro. I used it last year in the Single in May challenge, and had a blast using it. If you are interested the images can be found here NaCl(don't think it's * quality but it's close)H2O

04-24-2013, 06:06 AM	#20
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by MSL I don't think it passes along a LensID other than the smaller aperture of the lens (i.e. when the lens is wide open). The A contacts let the body do proper metering and control the aperture. To find the answer to this question read the EXIF info in any image taken with the lens. PhotoMe (though seemingly abandoned) is one resource for this, as is ExifTool.

04-24-2013, 07:39 AM	#21
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	Originally posted by NaClH2O it's sharp corner to corner and it renders reds better than any other lens I own. It's main disadvantages are: a) it's a brick of a lens weighing in at 615 g; and b) the macro mode is weird, it works best if you fine focus with the zoom ring. But a) all zooms of that era were heavy and b) it's weird but it works. I agree with that assessment. I love my 35-105, especially for portraits. It's very very very sharp, and I like the bokeh. "Stack of primes" is not much of an exaggeration, IMO. Not crazy about the macro mode on the 35-105 because sometimes the subject I shoot is exactly at the engage/disengage point of the ring. On these occasions I just get a little closer or back up. Still, a bit of a nuisance. I really don't mind the weight much, though. There is actually one zoom I own with a real macro mode. The Tamron SP 23A 60-300 gets you 1:1.55x magnification. Pretty darn close. It's quite an excellent lens.

04-24-2013, 08:05 AM	#22
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,756	Originally posted by GibbyTheMole Not crazy about the macro mode on the 35-105 because sometimes the subject I shoot is exactly at the engage/disengage point of the ring. On these occasions I just get a little closer or back up. Still, a bit of a nuisance. I really don't mind the weight much, though. I debated to mention this or not, but I've had the same problem with the lens on shooting portraits indoors. A minor quibble, and I can't see that this is a lens I would sell as long as I'm shooting with a Pentax.

04-24-2013, 10:50 AM	#23
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	I'll agree with many of the responses here. This lens is a surprisingly endearing tank. It's plenty sharp with great color. For some reason, I have more trouble nailing focus with it than with my other MF zooms - I think that's because once you really nail it, you realize how sharp this lens can be! I can't compare with current (expensive) *-line zooms, as I don't have any. I've also experienced the minor annoyance where the subject is exactly at the point of macro engagement (1.5m, I think). And I must admit that 35mm is really not wide-enough to use as a walkaround (on APS-C), at least for the type of urban photo I mostly do. When I leave with the 35-105 on my K-01, I usually wind-up switching for the Sigma 17-70 pretty quickly. And yet the 35-105 has produced some of my best photos, and I don't think I'd want to part with it. For around $100 these days, it's still a really fantastic value. But if you already have the 18-135, unless you're looking to increase your arm strength, I don't think the 35-105 would add a whole lot to your photographic experience...

04-24-2013, 03:24 PM	#24
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by monochrome To find the answer to this question read the EXIF info in any image taken with the lens. Done. According to EXIFTOOL, the data read from the lens and recorded in both the EXIF 'Lens ID' and 'Lens Type' fields is simply 'A Series Lens'. Aperture is also recorded, as well as the focal length set in the SR, and whether 'Auto Aperture' is on or off. And a million other things recorded by the body, of course.

04-24-2013, 05:15 PM	#25
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by rawr Done. According to EXIFTOOL, the data read from the lens and recorded in both the EXIF 'Lens ID' and 'Lens Type' fields is simply 'A Series Lens'. Aperture is also recorded, as well as the focal length set in the SR, and whether 'Auto Aperture' is on or off. And a million other things recorded by the body, of course. I think FA and DA lenses are chipped to supply their actual model names and max/min apertures as well.

04-24-2013, 07:26 PM	#26
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,350	I've had one....which I bought new in 1984. Use it on my digitals every so often. It's better than my 16-45 but not quite as good as my 12-24. It's a great lens, well built.

04-25-2013, 01:57 AM	#27
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,867	Originally posted by dboeren How does the Pentax-A 35-105mm hold up these days? A lot of folk here on the forum seem to like it, have you checked it out the lens review section? SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 Reviews - A Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

04-25-2013, 03:42 AM	#28
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	There are also some photos from the lens in the lens sample photo archive: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/153146-pentax-35-105mm-f3-5-a.html