[Zewrak]

Whats up with the hate of this lens? People seem to dislike it everywhere, even a low score in the reviews here.

I got mine in the mail this morning and I am more then statisfied, was a bit scared when I bought it because of all the bad reviews of it.

Here are some testshots I took today with it.

Testphotos on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All pictures in that set are straight from the camera, just converted to JPG, nothing else. The horse pic looks more then awesome when some unsharpmask have been applied. I don't get it, is it really that much worse then the 200mm and the 135?

Edit: since they are all uncropped etc, they should be viewed in atleast Large.

---

Last edited by Zewrak; 05-07-2008 at 12:37 PM.

[k100d]

the horse hair is quite clearly defined! i haven't heard much about this lens, but probably gets overshadowed by the 50 and 100 F4 macro taks which are nice lenses.

on the review database it scored 5 and 9 so it's not that bad ...
Pentax Lens Review Database - 150mm F4

[Zewrak]

the horse hair is quite clearly defined! i haven't heard much about this lens, but probably gets overshadowed by the 50 and 100 F4 macro taks which are nice lenses.

on the review database it scored 5 and 9 so it's not that bad ...
Pentax Lens Review Database - 150mm F4

Well I read a few other places that recommends the 135 and 200 over the 150 because of the bad CA etc. I don't think there is any CA problems at all. Am I just used to really bad lenses or what? .

[YarPcola]

I bought one of these back in 1973 and still have it. I bought it because Pop Photo (or maybe Modern Photo back then), did tests on it and found it to be one of the sharpest telephotos they ever tested. I just pulled it out of my old Spotmatic kit and did some tests with it on my k10d. It resolved very nicely at all f-stops tested. I also have the 100 f/4 macro and the 150 did significantly better at f/4. The compressed file attached doesn't show enough detail, so if you want the large files of these tests let me know & I'll e-mail them to you.

Other lenses tested: 18-55 kit, 50-200 kit, 50/2.8 macro F, 50/1.4 FA, 24/3.5 M42, 55/1.8 M42, 80-200, 28-90, and Sigma 21-35.

Attached Images

 

[Zewrak]

I bought one of these back in 1973 and still have it. I bought it because Pop Photo (or maybe Modern Photo back then), did tests on it and found it to be one of the sharpest telephotos they ever tested. I just pulled it out of my old Spotmatic kit and did some tests with it on my k10d. It resolved very nicely at all f-stops tested. I also have the 100 f/4 macro and the 150 did significantly better at f/4. The compressed file attached doesn't show enough detail, so if you want the large files of these tests let me know & I'll e-mail them to you.

Other lenses tested: 18-55 kit, 50-200 kit, 50/2.8 macro F, 50/1.4 FA, 24/3.5 M42, 55/1.8 M42, 80-200, 28-90, and Sigma 21-35.

So... once again.. Why the hate on it? I got mine for £13. My 200mm cost £55 and the 135/3.5 £40 and the 135/2.8f €42. I don't get it at all.

[spb37]

More people have , or have had the 135 / 3.5 and other tak lenses in the 135 ranges. Consequently the 150 gets "overshadowed". My guess

[YarPcola]

More people have , or have had the 135 / 3.5 and other tak lenses in the 135 ranges. Consequently the 150 gets "overshadowed". My guess

This is very true. The 135 was the "standard" long lens. The most common kit was 35, 50, and 135mm. Later, the 28 seemed to give the 35 a run for the money, and the 100 had a share of followers, but the 135 reigned supreme among the long lenses.