[BigMackCam]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

From the photos I've seen, the DFA* rendering looks quite similar to the Canon. They just aren't easy to find. There's one in the marketplace that I think the seller rated as "fair", but if I'm going to drop that much money on a "fair" used lens, I'll just drop more to get one new. Obviously it's not available new though.

I'm confused as to which lens you're talking about

The D FA 24-70 f/2.8 is the current full frame lens, released alongside the K-1. I assume you're talking about the FA* 28-70 f/2.8, right?

I'd be interested to see how the newer D FA lens (with greater wide angle range) performs compared to the film era FA*... I haven't shot either of them, but you'd think the the D FA would be much better corrected for digital use...

[RobA_Oz]

There seems to be some confusion over a number of things, here. Firstly, the D-FA 24-70/2.8, as good and expensive as it is, is not a D-FA* lens. The * appelation has always been reserved for original Pentax designs, although some will argue about the DA*16-50/2.8, which I understand was a joint effort with Tokina but who was responsible for what isn't clear.

Anyway, for information, I have both the DA*16-50 and the FA*28-70, so I can speak with some confidence on those lenses.

In my view, the DA*16-50 has an undeservedly poor reputation in some quarters, because it's always delivered images for me that are adequately sharp (I'm not a pixel-peeper or a sharpness fetishist, but I have used quite a variety of lenses over the years), pleasingly colourful without being over-saturated and generally produces images with good contrast. Its SDM implementation is rightfully panned, but I gave up trying to work with it and converted it to screw-drive AF ages ago and haven't looked back (my hearing isn't what it used to be, so the non-"silent" AF drive doesn't bother me).

The FA*28-70/2.8 loses out over the D-FA 24-70/2.8 (obviously) at the wide end, but as a value-for-money proposition holds up well against its newer rival, for much the same reasons as I've indicated for the DA*16-50. You just have to find a good copy at the right price.

[zjacreman]

Does the F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 maintain the same rendering or does the additional range ruin it?

A warning: the Takumar-F 28-80 looks exactly like the SMC F 28-80, and is much easier to come by, but it's very much worse than the 35-70 wide open. Very soft and lots of spherical aberration. The SMC has a different optical formula with more elements, which is unusual between Tak-F and SMC F, so hopefully the SMC is better corrected for SA. If you go down this road, make sure you don't get the Takumar by mistake.

If you really want to get to 28mm in a light package, the FA 28-70 F4 AL looks interesting. Plentiful, constant aperture, and super cheap. There aren't too many sample photos out there but what I do see looks like it has some depth and life.

I'm feeling you on the current zoom lineup. The flickr page for the D-FA 24-70 isn't exactly dire, but the portrait images lack pop and three-dimensionality. The DA 16-50 is... let's charitably say not being well-represented by its users.

To my eye, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 looks like it renders three-dimensional objects at portrait distances much more pleasantly than the Pentax-branded options. Not sure if it's on the same level as the Canon, but it's probably what I'd go for if I had to buy new, and it's the cheapest and lightest to boot. I kinda want to buy one now. I've certainly been impressed with my Tammy 70-200.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA*16-50 and DFA24-70 are both superb lenses.
Don't believe what you read on the internet

[aurele]

From the photos I've seen, the DFA* rendering looks quite similar to the Canon. They just aren't easy to find. There's one in the marketplace that I think the seller rated as "fair", but if I'm going to drop that much money on a "fair" used lens, I'll just drop more to get one new. Obviously it's not available new though.

Obviously you are thinking that the FA* and DFA* are the same lens. THEY ARE NOT.

The DFA is the newest and latest version, available new on any retailer. The FA is the 20yrs old version.

[robjmitchell]

The funny thing is the DA*16-50 and the DFA 24-70 show the exact opposite personalities to me.
The 24-70 is a modern lens highly regarded by scientific testing as being amongst the best performing of the 24-70s on the market, but I just don’t like its out of focus rendering.
The 16-50 on the other hand performs poorly compared to its competitors in terms of wide open corner performance, CA ect. But it just has the special pentax rendering of colours and out of focus transitions. No it doesn’t have super sharpness the gives you 3D rendering like the limiteds, but it never fails to deliver pleasing pictures. Pixel peepers nightmare but photographers dream.
A couple from the 16-50

[AyeYo]

A warning: the Takumar-F 28-80 looks exactly like the SMC F 28-80, and is much easier to come by, but it's very much worse than the 35-70 wide open. Very soft and lots of spherical aberration. The SMC has a different optical formula with more elements, which is unusual between Tak-F and SMC F, so hopefully the SMC is better corrected for SA. If you go down this road, make sure you don't get the Takumar by mistake.

If you really want to get to 28mm in a light package, the FA 28-70 F4 AL looks interesting. Plentiful, constant aperture, and super cheap. There aren't too many sample photos out there but what I do see looks like it has some depth and life.

I'm feeling you on the current zoom lineup. The flickr page for the D-FA 24-70 isn't exactly dire, but the portrait images lack pop and three-dimensionality. The DA 16-50 is... let's charitably say not being well-represented by its users.

To my eye, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 looks like it renders three-dimensional objects at portrait distances much more pleasantly than the Pentax-branded options. Not sure if it's on the same level as the Canon, but it's probably what I'd go for if I had to buy new, and it's the cheapest and lightest to boot. I kinda want to buy one now. I've certainly been impressed with my Tammy 70-200.

Glad someone else is on the same page.

I found the same thing about the Takumar vs SMC versions. The EBay listing specifically stated SMC and the lens says Pentax-F on it and not Takumar-F, but I'm also slightly concerned because the brand badging doesn't match the typical SMC-F lenses, nor does it actually say SMC on it. Maybe because it's the Japanese version?

What do you think?

Pentax SMC F Zoom 28-80mm f3.5-4.5 Lens for Pentax AF from Japan Z0798A | eBay



Everyone seems to be a sharpness disciple and I'm sure the DFA 24-70 is plenty sharp. But the rendering as far as color, contrast, and pop/pixie dust (whatever you want to call it) looks barely better than a kit lens, albeit a fast one. That stuff is far more important to me than razor sharpness.

And yes, I mis-typed FA* as DFA* in a few places. I do know they're different lenses. The FA* rendering looks excellent and I wish I could buy one new or that Pentax would bring it back minus the unnecessary power zoom.

---

Last edited by AyeYo; 01-30-2018 at 10:49 AM.

[jatrax]

The EBay listing specifically stated SMC and the lens says Pentax-F on it and not Takumar-F

There are three distinct versions of the F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5
1) Takumar-F this designation was for a very small set of cheap lenses made to play off the Takumar brand. 8 elements 8 groups. It is not SMC
2) Pentax-F 8 elements 8 groups It is not SMC
3) SMC Pentax-F 12 elements 9 groups. It is SMC

The clue is the classic 'F' orange lettering, it is only on the SMC version.

I have owned all three at one time or another. The SMC Pentax-F is a surprisingly good lens for it's age and price. The other two, not so much..............

A little hard to tell from the pictures but I think the one in your listing is a Pentax-F, not SMC.

[BigMackCam]

What do you think?

Pentax SMC F Zoom 28-80mm f3.5-4.5 Lens for Pentax AF from Japan Z0798A | eBay

I have three copies of the (non-SMC) Pentax-F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5. It was sold as a kit lens with several camera models. Most people consider it to be a fairly average lens. I rather like it, but you'll quickly notice its limitations. Don't shoot it wide open, for instance. Rendering is reasonably good, but nothing special. Colours and contrast are OK, but again, nothing to scream about. It's just a nice, solid, well made kit lens. You'll get some decent photos with it, for sure, but it was never a top end model, and it really shows its age now. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (which is only a little bigger, but if I recall, a bit lighter) runs rings around it

[AyeYo]

There are three distinct versions of the F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5
1) Takumar-F this designation was for a very small set of cheap lenses made to play off the Takumar brand. 8 elements 8 groups. It is not SMC
2) Pentax-F 8 elements 8 groups It is not SMC
3) SMC Pentax-F 12 elements 9 groups. It is SMC

The clue is the classic 'F' orange lettering, it is only on the SMC version.

I have owned all three at one time or another. The SMC Pentax-F is a surprisingly good lens for it's age and price. The other two, not so much..............

A little hard to tell from the pictures but I think the one in your listing is a Pentax-F, not SMC.

The lack of the orange lettering should have been the tip off, but I didn't realize there was a non-SMC Pentax version as well. Hopefully that'll be returnable for not being what it was advertised as.

[jatrax]

Everyone seems to be a sharpness disciple and I'm sure the DFA 24-70 is plenty sharp. But the rendering as far as color, contrast, and pop/pixel dust (whatever you want to call it) looks barely better than a kit lens, albeit a fast one. That stuff is far more important to me than razor sharpness.

I would suggest you rent or borrow a DFA*24-70 before making such bold statements. I generally care a lot more about how my images look than I do about how 'sharp' they are. And I find the DFA*24-70 to be very much to my liking with the exception of being heavier than I would prefer when hiking.

[AyeYo]

I would suggest you rent or borrow a DFA*24-70 before making such bold statements. I generally care a lot more about how my images look than I do about how 'sharp' they are. And I find the DFA*24-70 to be very much to my liking with the exception of being heavier than I would prefer when hiking.

The issue with renting is that I'm not going to pay $100 to have the thing for ONE day, to shoot ONE event or shoot under a single day's lighting conditions at a single or half-handful of places. Maybe I spend $200 to have it a couple days and double those numbers. $200 isn't a throw away amount of money. If I had browsed through Flickr and said to myself "I like this lens, I think I want it", I'd probably drop $100-200 to confirm that before spending $1300 on the lens itself. But after looking through a plethora of pictures that were taken under more conditions and in more places than I'll ever cover in a two day rental, this lens isn't even on my radar. There's no way I'm going to spend $200 to most likely reinforce that belief.



In cheap lens news, someone just listed an actual SMC (properly marked with the orange lettering) F 28-80 and I managed to get my $40 shipped offer accepted immediately. Hopefully that other one is returnable, although it's not much lost if it isn't.

[zjacreman]

But after looking through a plethora of pictures that were taken under more conditions and in more places than I'll ever cover in a two day rental

Yeah, I looked at hundreds of images on flickr and 500px to come to a judgement about the lens. My opinion isn't as harsh as AyeYo's - I think it looks pretty good color/contrast wise, or at least takes well to PP. But its rendering looks flat compared to other lenses in the class, like the Canon or even the old-model Tamron, again on the basis of looking at 100s of sample images. The Canon provides a better illusion of three-dimensional objects occupying volume in space. I wouldn't buy the Pentax, particularly for people-focused photography (looks like a somewhat better bet for scenics), and particularly for $1100.

If this opinion bothers anybody, feel free to write me off as a luddite crank if it helps. Out of a pretty substantial collection of lenses, I only own two that aren't old enough to vote, and they aren't "corrected for digital" either.

In cheap lens news, someone just listed an actual SMC (properly marked with the orange lettering) F 28-80 and I managed to get my $40 shipped offer accepted immediately.

I also have and quite like the 35-70, so I'll be interested in hearing what you think about the SMC 28-80 in comparison. I've only gotten hands on the Takumar model.

[CarlJF]

You're difficult to follow... Have you noticed that the Canon and Nikon lenses you gave as references in your first post cost $1800 and $2400 ? But you find that the equivalent $1100 Pentax lens is too costly and isn't even worth renting for 100$ ? And that you hope to find the same level of performance in a 40$ lens ? Are we to understand that your complain isn't that Pentax doesn't make 2.8 lenses but rather is that Pentax doesn't sell you for $200 what Canon and Nikon sell you for $2000 ?

Sorry to tell you that, but if Canon, Nikon and Sony sell their 24-70 2.8 for about 2000$, you should not expect top pay much less for the Pentax equivalent. In fact, you should be happy to have it for about half the price and not complaining that it still too much. And if it really is too much and all you can afford, please stop comparing with Canon and Nikon pro level gear you would never ever buy anyway. It just doesn't make sense. Rather, compare it to what you would with a 40$ Canon or Nikon zoom lens...

[aurele]

You're difficult to follow... Have you noticed that the Canon and Nikon lenses you gave as references in your first post cost $1800 and $2400 ? But you find that the equivalent $1100 Pentax lens is too costly and isn't even worth renting for 100$ ? And that you hope to find the same level of performance in a 40$ lens ? Are we to understand that your complain isn't that Pentax doesn't make 2.8 lenses but rather is that Pentax doesn't sell you for $200 what Canon and Nikon sell you for $2000 ?

Sorry to tell you that, but if Canon, Nikon and Sony sell their 24-70 2.8 for about 2000$, you should not expect top pay much less for the Pentax equivalent. In fact, you should be happy to have it for about half the price and not complaining that it still too much. And if it really is too much and all you can afford, please stop comparing with Canon and Nikon pro level gear you would never ever buy anyway. It just doesn't make sense. Rather, compare it to what you would with a 40$ Canon or Nikon zoom lens...

Perfect sum of the non-sens and deaf people conversation.