[ChristianRock]

Like the sites that all hate on the A 135/2.8...there is an old review site where they said it wasn't a sharp lens. This site says sharpness is a 9.5...

For example...Brief Comments Though most of the comments on that site praise the 28/2.8s. Even the M...

Most of the comments on that site date back to the film days. Which is actually a reason why I think they might be more relevant to my uses than a lot of the newer super-pixel-peeping reviews that you see nowadays.

Regarding the SMC-A 135 2.8... there might be a lot of copy variations on this one. The one I had, I didn't like... it exhibited some behavior that I don't see in the Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8 that I have now, which has an identical optical formula and supposedly inferior coatings. So I assume I just had a bad A 135 2.8.

Here's my A 135 2.8 at f/2.8, 100% crop (but you could see the softness even at normal web viewing size):


And that wasn't even a particularly challenging lighting condition...

It did get better stopped down, this is f8:


But I found that my SMC-A 70-210 f4 was better than the A 135 2.8 from f4 and up... Here's the A 70-210 at f5.6:


So the SMC-A 70-210 f4 @f/5.6 was sharper than the SMC-A 135 2.8 @f/8...

Of course this is all hand held so it's not scientific and not meant to be used as a means to see what either lens is capable of achieving when stopped down. Obviously I'm not concerned about my holding technique in the wide open shot since the stopped down shots came out pretty sharp (and I did several takes, all very similar to one another).

I love the Takumar Bayonet I have now... so I'm not tempted to try another copy of the SMC-A 135 2.8

[thazooo]

Yeah it's mostly a film site. Until PF came along with ratings it was about all there was.It will be interesting to see how some of these older lens rate on the new full frame.
MFLense.com is interesting but man you have to dig.....

[PKMike]

Not really a technical person about lenses. If a lens makes me happy about the images I make with it then I tend to use it. The F28 is a favorite! I use it with DA Limiteds (15, 21, 40, and 70 on a K3) and the DA 70 and F28 tend to get the most use. It may not be quite as sharp as 40 and 70 at certain apertures but overall very pleasing to me.
No experience with A28 but used a M28 quite a bit on film and loved it (focal length was right for me and the images were pleasing). My 2 cents worth.

[savoche]

Yep and like I said if you read both you'll get a better idea what folks think of a lens.
And I haven't found a 28/ 2.8 that I didn't like....except maybe the Soligor.....

I don't have many to go by, but I don't particularly like my Tokina RMC - it sometimes gives a purple cast to the entire image. The FA28, otoh, is one of my favourites; small, sharp, good colours. Again, a lens that scores lower than the F28 in this site's reviews, but I suspect that is more of a "cult" thing going on than the F being perceptively better than the FA. Then again, I have never tried the F.

[ChristianRock]

I don't have many to go by, but I don't particularly like my Tokina RMC - it sometimes gives a purple cast to the entire image.

I had an Auto Sears 28 2.8 that was made by Tokina that did exactly the same thing. It was a very well made lens and quite pretty to look at. But in the end I knew I wasn't going to use it so I sold it pretty cheap, 20 bucks I think...

[boriscleto]

I love the Takumar Bayonet I have now... so I'm not tempted to try another copy of the SMC-A 135 2.8

I have always been happy with the A 135/2.8 that I have. Must be a good copy...

[arnold]

But I found that my SMC-A 70-210 f4 was better than the A 135 2.8 from f4 and up... Here's the A 70-210 at f5.6:

The A 70-210 is remarkably good. I think it is even better than my M200/4 prime, from casual observation.
[IMG]

[whojammyflip]

side by side comparisons are easier to evaluate as you are not looking at an absolute measurement, rather a relative judgement is being made

in this respect, the 28mm f3.5 m series lens is miles sharper than the 28mm f2.8 m series v1 lens, as I have tested these two on tmx film on a tripod, with an Edmund resolution target, and then looked at it through a nikkor 50 2.8N and a 25x scope, achieveing 250x magnification

under these circumstances, I think its fair to say an objective measurement was taken and the 28mm 2.8 literally had about 60% of the resolution of the 28mm 3.5

[TwoUptons]

I have both the 28mm f2.8 M and the A. I honestly can't tell any difference between them in optical performance.

That said, I'm happy with them, generally, and while they do sharpen up as they're stopped down, they're OK wide open for my purposes.

I will admit that I'm really spoiled by the A-lens functionality, particularly with flash, and autofocus would be really nice for how I like to use the lens...

If I found a really good deal on a F model, I would probably upgrade...

-Eric

[MSL]

More sharp pics because of the presence of AF perhaps?

That might be part of it, and it may be the A28 is hard to use in some circumstances.

My theory is that the A carries over some of the reputation of the M 28/2.8. And the F, being AF, gets a pass on that reputation...

I was wondering about something similar, and also whether this might impact reviews across all the lenses, with the newer F series and above doing better just because of the separation from earlier lenses, and their appeal to a different user base.

talk about hood, F28 didn't come with a hood. if you not already have done it, It might help if you put on a hood for your A28. I got a cheap metal hood from eBay which work very well on K-5. I select the one with a similar size to hood from FA43.

Good advice. I got the hood for the smc 28/3.5 when I bought a 35/3.5 (the hood for the former is far more commonly found from what I've seen) If it fits I'll start using it.

I think you're reading too much into the scores - there's not much between them.

a) Ratings are completely subjective, and can be heavily skewed. Some people are more critical, some have higher standards, some are more relaxed, some have irrational expectations, etc. All of this together gives you a score which is a good indication, but not enough to allow scientific analysis and comparisons.

I accept this to a point, but there are enough ratings that this isn't a case of too small a sample size, and the fact that for all 3 of the criteria listed there is a bias to the F lens raises the question of whether there is something real there, or it is just bias. I'm not heavily swayed by the ratings when buying lenses - I dig into comments whether it is here or other online sites. But in this case, because the coatings and optical formulas are the same, a head to head comparison seemed to make sense.

The A 70-210 is remarkably good. I think it is even better than my M200/4 prime, from casual observation.

It may be better than the M200, but I've not been overawed by my A70-210. It works well below about 150-180mm, but beyond that it fades pretty quickly and you lose a lot of contrast and sharpness

[pres589]

Wondering if the coatings were improved with the F.

Wondering when Ricoh will put another 28 into production...

[arnold]

It may be better than the M200, but I've not been overawed by my A70-210. It works well below about 150-180mm, but beyond that it fades pretty quickly and you lose a lot of contrast and sharpness

My shot was at 210mm, and I don't see the flaws you mention. (Zoom in on flicker if you wish)

[boriscleto]

Wondering if the coatings were improved with the F.

Wondering when Ricoh will put another 28 into production...

2017 or later...

[MSL]

My shot was at 210mm, and I don't see the flaws you mention. (Zoom in on flicker if you wish)

Arnold - hard to tell with a shot like that because nothing is being shown in fine detail. The lens is also known for its purple fringing. I'll admit I haven't given mine a proper testing, although I did compare it to two Tamron adaptall lenses and it was far better than either of them. Note that the F version became a variable 4-5.6 minimum aperture, and my guess is that at 210mm you really can't push it at F4 and expect it to be nearly as sharp as at the 70mm end.