[awscreo]

Would be perfect if raw was taken with the K-1. I'm also looking at f8-16 range, on a tripod (if possible). Trying to figure out if this lens would be a good addition to my landscape kit, and see if it's competitive at those aperture values with Tamron 70-200 that is a bit too heavy to carry around on hikes. Thanks in advance!

[ChatMechant]

I can do this later today when I get home, but for now I will say that after comparing this lens with a 60-250 on k1 I sold the DA*. But then again I'm a sucker for built-in hoods so ymmv.

[awscreo]

I can do this later today when I get home, but for now I will say that after comparing this lens with a 60-250 on k1 I sold the DA*. But then again I'm a sucker for built-in hoods so ymmv.

Thank you! I don't own the DA*, but I hear it's very capable. If this lens is anywhere near that IQ I'm sold) I would strictly use it for landscapes, will keep tamron for portraits for now. Just tired of carrying that thing around with me lol

[ChatMechant]

Yeah, I often pair the 70-210 with the 31 for long hikes. But its like what, a 50 dollar lens? Just get one man! lol

[awscreo]

Yeah, I often pair the 70-210 with the 31 for long hikes. But its like what, a 50 dollar lens? Just get one man! lol

I'm trying to temper my GAS I stopped buying stuff that I don't use, no matter how cheap it is) But it is tempting, as it's so cheap

[RGlasel]

Trying to figure out if this lens would be a good addition to my landscape kit

The one that I have is soft, even on APS-C. I did a comparison at 70mm and f5.6 with all the lenses I had that covered that focal length, I'll post just the SMC A 70-210 and DA 55-300 here. The focus point is the chin of the clay turtle and both images are cropped to about 25% of the original.

First the A series 70-210



Now the DA 55-300



yes, the 70-210 is 40% lighter than your Tamron 70-200, but how much do you want to give up in image quality? Not to mention the benefits of auto-focus and f2.8 when you want or need it. The 70-210 won't get better with 36mp instead of 16mp, either.

[jpzk]

Sorry to barge in uninvited ...

Is this last shot taken with 55-300 PLM ? (I clicked on the link which takes me to Adorama and it does say "PLM" ... !! )
If so, I would assume that there is a BIG difference in rendering vs. the "old" 55-300, right?

[awscreo]

The one that I have is soft, even on APS-C. I did a comparison at 70mm and f5.6 with all the lenses I had that covered that focal length, I'll post just the SMC A 70-210 and DA 55-300 here. The focus point is the chin of the clay turtle and both images are cropped to about 25% of the original.

First the A series 70-210



Now the DA 55-300



yes, the 70-210 is 40% lighter than your Tamron 70-200, but how much do you want to give up in image quality? Not to mention the benefits of auto-focus and f2.8 when you want or need it. The 70-210 won't get better with 36mp instead of 16mp, either.

Thanks for crops. That what I'm trying to figure out, if there's a significant difference in quality. I don't need af or 2.8 for landscapes, I primarily shoot f8-16, but I probably won't be getting rid of the Tamron until dfa 70-200 4 comes out.

If 70-210 is significantly worse than Tamron I will just wait for dfa to come out i guess. Probably won't be doing much outdoor stuff in winter anyway.

[ChristianRock]

The one that I have is soft, even on APS-C. I did a comparison at 70mm and f5.6 with all the lenses I had that covered that focal length, I'll post just the SMC A 70-210 and DA 55-300 here. The focus point is the chin of the clay turtle and both images are cropped to about 25% of the original.

First the A series 70-210



Now the DA 55-300



yes, the 70-210 is 40% lighter than your Tamron 70-200, but how much do you want to give up in image quality? Not to mention the benefits of auto-focus and f2.8 when you want or need it. The 70-210 won't get better with 36mp instead of 16mp, either.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that you may have missed focus on the first shot.

[pepperberry farm]

while I do not have any shots for you in RAW, I do own the A70-210/4 and it's a spectacular lens:

SMC A 70-210mm f4 | Flickr

[RGlasel]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that you may have missed focus on the first shot.

I took three shots with this lens, all individually focused with focus peaking in Live View, on a tripod with a 2 second delay. The chin is as in focus as any other part of the scene, but low contrast plays tricks with our eyes. Compared to my modern lenses, the Takumar 28-80 zoom I have is even worse than the 70-210 in every aspect. Even though the hood was extended on the 70-210, the camera was pointed in the same general direction as the high midday sun, which hurts contrast, but I've noticed that the 70-210 just doesn't have the same punch as my modern lenses, whether it is a close-up of flowers or a stone building in the distance. It does have nicer bokeh and lets in a full stop more light than the 55-300, but for landscapes I find it lacking. When I was shooting slide film, I thought it was a great lens and maybe there are better copies out there.

[RGlasel]

If so, I would assume that there is a BIG difference in rendering vs. the "old" 55-300, right?

This forum's software inserted the link to Adorama, what I have is the HD DA 55-300 ED WR, so screw drive, but HD coatings. It does render slightly different than the DA 18-135 (which has SMC coatings) in the same test.

I'm not trying to bash the 70-210 lens that I have, it served me very well for a number of years.

[northcoastgreg]

Would be perfect if raw was taken with the K-1. I'm also looking at f8-16 range, on a tripod (if possible).

I don't have any raw files for you, but I do full resolution jpegs of landscapes photographed with the A 70-210 on the K-1 here. Pretty much every image is shot around f11. I bought the A 70-210 solely for landscape photography with the K-1. I was also looking at the FA 80-320 and the FA-J 75-300, and only bought the A 70-210 because an inexpensive copy showed up first. I also own a copy of the Tamron 70-200, but I haven't done any direct comparisons between the two lenses. That said, I'm fairly confident the Tamron is sharper, even in the F11 to F16 range.

I would describe the A 70-210 as a lens with no great strengths but also with no great weaknesses. It's not all that sharp, but it's not soft, either, especially with a full-frame sensor. The lens will capture about as much detail on the K-1 as a top-of-the-line APS-C telephoto lens would capture on the KP. The greatest strength of the A 70-210 is that, unlike many of the older telephoto zooms, it doesn't suffer from noticeable loss of resolution away from the center or at longer focal lengths. Edges and corners are not soft, but the center is never tack sharp, either. That said, I wouldn't pay more than $50 for it, and I may wind up replacing my A 70-210 with the FA-J 75-300 because I'm impressed with the contrast and color I'm seeing from images shot with FA-J lenses on the K-1.

[awscreo]

I don't have any raw files for you, but I do full resolution jpegs of landscapes photographed with the A 70-210 on the K-1 here. Pretty much every image is shot around f11. I bought the A 70-210 solely for landscape photography with the K-1. I was also looking at the FA 80-320 and the FA-J 75-300, and only bought the A 70-210 because an inexpensive copy showed up first. I also own a copy of the Tamron 70-200, but I haven't done any direct comparisons between the two lenses. That said, I'm fairly confident the Tamron is sharper, even in the F11 to F16 range.

I would describe the A 70-210 as a lens with no great strengths but also with no great weaknesses. It's not all that sharp, but it's not soft, either, especially with a full-frame sensor. The lens will capture about as much detail on the K-1 as a top-of-the-line APS-C telephoto lens would capture on the KP. The greatest strength of the A 70-210 is that, unlike many of the older telephoto zooms, it doesn't suffer from noticeable loss of resolution away from the center or at longer focal lengths. Edges and corners are not soft, but the center is never tack sharp, either. That said, I wouldn't pay more than $50 for it, and I may wind up replacing my A 70-210 with the FA-J 75-300 because I'm impressed with the contrast and color I'm seeing from images shot with FA-J lenses on the K-1.

Thanks for the link. I'll check the FA-J 75-300, it's an even better range for landscapes. The images in your album are very nice, and seem sharp and detailed (however I can't download them over 2048px wide, maybe it's the settings you used for your flickr images). Hard to judge how sharp it is with that resolution. But I appreciate your input, you seem to have a lot of experience with the lens, and you're using it for the same field as I intend to use it too.

[northcoastgreg]

however I can't download them over 2048px wide, maybe it's the settings you used for your flickr images

No, you can't download them, but I believe (I could be wrong) you can access the full resolution images in your web browser by clicking on "View all sizes" in the download pop-up.