[stevebrot]

If you decide on the Kiron or Vivitar equivalent, be sure the aperture is clean and in good working order. Sticky blades are common.


Steve

[aslyfox]

If you decide on the Kiron or Vivitar equivalent, be sure the aperture is clean and in good working order. Sticky blades are common.


Steve

is that true only for those lenses or is that something to be careful about with other vintage lenses ?

[ramseybuckeye]

I had a kiron “kino precision “ 28/2 and it was the sharpest lens I ever had. It’s the only lens I have sold that I regret doing so. I would love to find another but with the A setting. Whichever lens you end up getting hopefully you get a nice clean copy.

[JVi]

Wow, and sorry to be confronting, but those numbers are very misleading. First, 'average resolution' - what does that mean? Average result across all apertures? So, the result for the K28 f2 shot wide open has no compare with the K28 f3.5 yet its results is added to the average calculation? Not well standardised if this is the case. Also, the K28 f2 is BEST at f16 (yes, f16). Its optical design is all about close focusing and massive depth of field.

Be careful with these numbers is all I can say.

Yoshihiko Takinami's methodology is detailed here: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html .... and here : PDML Lens Testing Procedure . I take it his averages come from the process described in the first link where measurements are taken from many observations.
All I was looking for was a good landscape lens.
The K 28 f2, with its greater fall off would be ideal for central objectivity, as in a movies, with the surroundings "blurred" out. I read that the lens was designed with movie photography in mind, thus the "Hollywood 28" moniker often applied to it. Yes, the K 28 f2 is far more flexible in nature having great central sharpness and capabilites at all f stops superior to all others in the list. What I am intersted in is trying out is the M 28 f2, its successor.

[Gary H Perth]

A cheaper option (and also easier to find) would be the M 28/3.5. It's (reputedly) nearly as sharp as the K 28/3.5, with very nice contrast and color. While the M 28 lens can't quite match the K 28 in terms of overall image quality (rendering, color, contrast), it's reasonably close.

I found a M28/3.5 in very good condition for less than $40USD. I love it, sharpness and colour/contrast are very much to my taste as out-of-camera jpeg files, no need of any processing except occasionally a bit of tweaking the contrast and exposure, as you would expect to do with green-button manual. It is small, light and gives accurate exposure on my K-70. These lenses seem, as Greg said, easy to find at a good price. I have rarely found the k28/3.5 for sale in Australia.

Also, I do things with it that it was not designed for and get very sharp images - I bought a Canon close-up lens/diopter/filter, a simple 52mm thread - to make it a sharp macro, and that works really well. With a KAX tele-extender (from same seller $20) I can make it a 56mm macro lens, but heavier and very shallow DOF. Neither is quite as sharp as a dedicated macro, but the filter option does not have any size/weight issues for hiking trips or a day out walking around.

[Wild Mark]

Yoshihiko Takinami's methodology is detailed here: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html .... and here : PDML Lens Testing Procedure . I take it his averages come from the process described in the first link where measurements are taken from many observations.
All I was looking for was a good landscape lens.
The K 28 f2, with its greater fall off would be ideal for central objectivity, as in a movies, with the surroundings "blurred" out. I read that the lens was designed with movie photography in mind, thus the "Hollywood 28" moniker often applied to it. Yes, the K 28 f2 is far more flexible in nature having great central sharpness and capabilites at all f stops superior to all others in the list. What I am intersted in is trying out is the M 28 f2, its successor.

Thanks for the link to methodology - will check it out. Knowing the meaning behind the results through the method is paramount.

It is fair to say that every lens will be playing to a certain strength. The K 28 f2 does certain things extremely well (e.g. close focusing and 3D effect) and other things well (e.g. landscape). The light fall off is almost completely gone by f3.5 so this 'con' is limited to its f stop difference.

The K 28 f3.5 cannot do close focusing and 3D effect any where near as good as the K28 f2, but, it does do landscape very well (and is either on par or better than the K28 f2). All round the K28 f2 is a much better lens but is very expensive. If landscape is your thing then perhaps you would easily recommend the K28 f3.5 over the f2 sibling (price!).

Back to the OP, this discussion is probably a little superfluous (as price is an important factor). But on the other hand, knowing what your expectations are and what the lens is likely to deliver is exactly the point (i.e. why buy a lens because it is cheaper but it doesn't do what you want).

I recently obtained the M28/2 and am just starting to test it. Generally, the M lenses do not satisfy me and leave me wanting more. I do expect this lens to not be as good as the A28/2 and early results suggest this. I will take a few shots and add to this thread if that helps.

[Wild Mark]

Yes, as suspected, the 'average' is across all apertures. Screenshots of the K28 f2 and K28 f3.5 taken from the linked website

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_28-30.html

The K28 f3.5 is an excellent lens in its sweet spot - No doubt.

Attached Images

   

[monochrome]

Yoshihiko Takinami's methodology is detailed here: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html .... and here : PDML Lens Testing Procedure . I take it his averages come from the process described in the first link where measurements are taken from many observations.
All I was looking for was a good landscape lens.
The K 28 f2, with its greater fall off would be ideal for central objectivity, as in a movies, with the surroundings "blurred" out. I read that the lens was designed with movie photography in mind, thus the "Hollywood 28" moniker often applied to it. Yes, the K 28 f2 is far more flexible in nature having great central sharpness and capabilites at all f stops superior to all others in the list. What I am intersted in is trying out is the M 28 f2, its successor.

I had a M28/2 and was fortunate to stumble across a K28/2 Hollywood which I treasure, so I sold the M. I subjectively believe the reviews https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-28mm-F2-Lens.html are spot on, but I still prefer the K28/3.5 as a reasonable price 28mm manual lens. I paid $450 for the M28/2 at KEH and sold it here for $325 I think. Fairly pricey due to it’s rarity. I also have the M28/3.5 and while better than the M28/2.8 version 1 it really doesn’t excite me (I have a few standard M’s for use on my MX and LX).

Unfortunately I’ve never tagged my photo archive and I can’t do EXIF searches on manual lenses to post some images.

[JVi]

Thanks for the link to methodology - will check it out. Knowing the meaning behind the results through the method is paramount.

It is fair to say that every lens will be playing to a certain strength. The K 28 f2 does certain things extremely well (e.g. close focusing and 3D effect) and other things well (e.g. landscape). The light fall off is almost completely gone by f3.5 so this 'con' is limited to its f stop difference.

The K 28 f3.5 cannot do close focusing and 3D effect any where near as good as the K28 f2, but, it does do landscape very well (and is either on par or better than the K28 f2). All round the K28 f2 is a much better lens but is very expensive. If landscape is your thing then perhaps you would easily recommend the K28 f3.5 over the f2 sibling (price!).

Back to the OP, this discussion is probably a little superfluous (as price is an important factor). But on the other hand, knowing what your expectations are and what the lens is likely to deliver is exactly the point (i.e. why buy a lens because it is cheaper but it doesn't do what you want).

I recently obtained the M28/2 and am just starting to test it. Generally, the M lenses do not satisfy me and leave me wanting more. I do expect this lens to not be as good as the A28/2 and early results suggest this. I will take a few shots and add to this thread if that helps.

I'd love to see those shots of the M 28 f2 compared to those of the A 28 f2. Also, your review of the results would be much appreciated.

[KC0PET]

Yes, as suspected, the 'average' is across all apertures. Screenshots of the K28 f2 and K28 f3.5 taken from the linked website

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_28-30.html

The K28 f3.5 is an excellent lens in its sweet spot - No doubt.

That more detailed information is more informative to me than the averages. But "measured resolution" is only part of the story for any lens. There are so many other characteristics to lenses. I am not finding that being the sharpest lens is always what makes me like a lens. My standard answer is to buy both and try them (but that may be the LBA talking ).

I do not have the K 28 f/3.5, but I have the K 24 f/3.5 and the K 35 f/3.5 and a few other K lenses. I love all of them and I can see owning most of the K prime lenses over time. IMO the K 28 would be a good investment (assuming you get a copy that is in good condition). I do not have the Kiron lens, so nothing to offer there.

[monochrome]

That more detailed information is more informative to me than the averages. But "measured resolution" is only part of the story for any lens. There are so many other characteristics to lenses. I am not finding that being the sharpest lens is always what makes me like a lens. My standard answer is to buy both and try them (but that may be the LBA talking ).

I do not have the K 28 f/3.5, but I have the K 24 f/3.5 and the K 35 f/3.5 and a few other K lenses. I love all of them and I can see owning most of the K prime lenses over time. IMO the K 28 would be a good investment (assuming you get a copy that is in good condition). I do not have the Kiron lens, so nothing to offer there.

They probably aren’t good investments at all, just great lenses.

Most of the K primes have dropped to lunch money prices the last couple years. I hectored J. Colwell years ago to get my hands on his K35/3.5 but he wouldn’t let go of it. I won’t admit what I eventually paid for the copy I use, but I recently acquired a NOS copy still in the plastic, in the case, in the box, for $99.

It takes a certain breed of cat to appreciate K primes.

[twilhelm]

That more detailed information is more informative to me than the averages. But "measured resolution" is only part of the story for any lens. There are so many other characteristics to lenses. I am not finding that being the sharpest lens is always what makes me like a lens. My standard answer is to buy both and try them (but that may be the LBA talking ).

I do not have the K 28 f/3.5, but I have the K 24 f/3.5 and the K 35 f/3.5 and a few other K lenses. I love all of them and I can see owning most of the K prime lenses over time. IMO the K 28 would be a good investment (assuming you get a copy that is in good condition). I do not have the Kiron lens, so nothing to offer there.

I also have the K 24/3.5 which I consider a great lens. But in comparison to the K 28/3.5, I think the 28 renders a bit better, a bit more contrast and bolder colors. But that may just be me.

I should do a side by side one day.

[Wild Mark]

They probably aren’t good investments at all, just great lenses.

That probably depends on your entry price

Generally speaking I find the K series better than most compares from other series. Are they going to remain 'valued' I do not know, but for now they are still sought after. You got a good deal with that K35! I got a K35/2 for $30 the other day. So the bargains are still out there.

---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 04:44 PM ----------

I'd love to see those shots of the M 28 f2 compared to those of the A 28 f2. Also, your review of the results would be much appreciated.

I'll go for a quick shoot

[Wild Mark]

One shot at f3.5 and the other at f11





---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:18 PM ----------

Pentax K 28mm f2 shot at f2, f4 and f11







---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:25 PM ----------

Pentax M 28mm f2 shot at f2, f4 and f11







---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:27 PM ----------

Pentax A 28mm f2 shot at f2, f3.5 and f11

[JVi]

One shot at f3.5 and the other at f11





---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:18 PM ----------

Pentax K 28mm f2 shot at f2, f4 and f11







---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:25 PM ----------

Pentax M 28mm f2 shot at f2, f4 and f11







---------- Post added 02-02-19 at 09:27 PM ----------

Pentax A 28mm f2 shot at f2, f3.5 and f11

Thank you so much for the comparison images.
I took a look at these in some detail and my impressions are:
1. The K 28 2 has the best bokeh wide open. The out of focus areas are smooth and not 'pixelated' in appearance.
2. The central sharpness at f11 is ~ the same across the board without disceranable differences (I have one eye that is at 15/20 still).
3. All showed chromatic aberrations (fringing) when wide open at the high contrast areas where the sea spray meets the land, however, the K 28 2 and K 28 3.5 have much less than the A a M lenses (the A seems to have the most fringing).