[angerdan]

The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality.
I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match.

What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)?

Pentax was the first who introduced powered zoom lenses in 1991.
Optical quality was the same like the similar F-lenses.

There are a few FA-Zooms with good reputation:
FA 20-35
FA 24-90
FA 28-70
FA 28-105 PZ

[ffking]

Pentax was the first who introduced powered zoom lenses in 1991

Pretty much simultaneous with Minolta IIRC - did Pentax claim a first? I don't remember..

[angerdan]

Pretty much simultaneous with Minolta IIRC - did Pentax claim a first? I don't remember..

I don't know - when in 1991 did Minolta introduce them?
dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-35-80mm-F4-5.6-Power-Zoom_lens335.html

For Pentax 1991 is also the introduction year of PZ-Lenses:
Template:Pentax K-mount AF lenses timeline - Wikipedia

The Canon Power Zoom Adapter PZ-E1 was introduced late, in 2016.
Canon Power Zoom Adapter PZ-E1 is the World's First Detachable Lens Zoom Adapter

[ffking]

I don't know - when in 1991 did Minolta introduce them?

Not sure - the internet was a bit limited then - but they were reviewed in the same weekly mgazine in the UK- whatever the Minolta was and (P)Z-10

Wikipedia suggests a caveated claim for Pentax

"1991: Pentax was the first to introduce Power Zoom on bayonet mount lenses for SLR cameras"

---

Last edited by ffking; 10-16-2019 at 09:11 AM.

[angerdan]

Wikipedia suggests a caveated claim for Pentax
"1991: Pentax was the first to introduce Power Zoom on bayonet mount lenses for SLR cameras"

Well, i know - all the milestones i'd collect
But probably Canon was before Pentax and Minolta:
EF35-80mm f/4-5.6 PZ - Canon Camera Museum

[Just1MoreDave]

These lenses have a cheesy plastic exterior with dated style. Underneath, they are sometimes pretty solid. The F70-210, F35-135 and FA 28-105 PZ have 3-4 thick concentric aluminum barrels, as much metal as a Takumar prime, just concealed by plastic. Maybe look for the heavy ones.

[ffking]

But probably Canon was before Pentax and Minolta:

That's interesting - I have no memory of that at all - I don't even remember Canon doing power zoom - but then, as I say, information wasn't as easily available then

[Walkingwolf]

On a trip to Japan I came across a used (and in excellent shape) FA 100-300 which I gleefully bought for just $23.00 Cdn dollars. It works as it’s supposed to, and gives me pics sharper than I expected.

[StiffLegged]

I have an FA 80-320 which impressed me by autofocussing on a K100D borrowed from a friend many years ago. It hasn't amazed me too often since, but now and then it comes up with the goods. The A 35-105 (stack of primes...) is a different story and has consistently impressed me and I have an autumn image in mind for it when the trees colour up properly!

[TwoUptons]

I’m a fan of the FA28-105 pz.

On its contemporary bodies, it did some really cool things.

Even now, it’s still decent if you can find one with all of its switches and windows.

And I’ve played with the early Canon power zoom. It’s usability is terrible.

-Eric

[Ontarian50]

That's interesting - I have no memory of that at all - I don't even remember Canon doing power zoom - but then, as I say, information wasn't as easily available then

The only Canon power zoom I've come across was a cheap 35-80 kitted up with their EOS 700. Two buttons on the side worked the zoom. There was no manual focus.

However, I think trying to credit any manufacturer with coming up with the first power zoom for an SLR misses the point.

Power zoom was a dreadful idea. A solution for a problem no one was looking to solve. The fact that today we are all still content to zoom our lenses with fingertip pressure proves the idea was silly.

Power zoom can be added to the pile of useless features such as "expansion cards", bar code reader program modes, eye control, and a host of other techie features that were designed to look cool in the brochure, even if they didn't help with good photography one jot.

[boriscleto]

I’m a fan of the FA28-105 pz.

On its contemporary bodies, it did some really cool things.

Even now, it’s still decent if you can find one with all of its switches and windows.

And I’ve played with the early Canon power zoom. It’s usability is terrible.

-Eric

Mine has the window but not the switch. Better than the Z-1 I had that had a detached mirror.

[northcoastgreg]

The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality.

I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match.

There's another way to look at this. The "cheap" build quality (which seems to have been worse with some of the later zooms) is an asset in two senses: it keeps the price down and it makes the lenses very light. One of the problems we're experiencing with the current DFA line-up is the size and weight of the zooms. The one wide-angle zoom in the line-up weighs over two pounds (four times the weight of the FA 20-35) and the two telephoto zooms weigh in a bit under and a bit over four pounds and cost over $1,500. The FA 80-200 f4.7-5.6 weighs a bit over half a pound. The FA 100-300 f4.7-5.8 and FA-J 75-300 weigh under 14 ounces. As to how they perform — can we really be so certain they're as bad as some people claim. Most of the reviews are on APS-C cameras, which may have the merit of cropping out troublesome edges and corners, but also, through the crop factor, magnify issues from the center image circle. And most of the reviewers bought the telephoto zooms for the long end of the lens, where these zooms perform at their very worst. At the wider end stopped down a bit, some of these lenses may be quite good — sharp nearly edge to edge with good contrast and nice color. How many K-1 shooters would be interested in a DFA 100-200 f4.7-5.4 that weighed less than a pound and, even though it did have to be stopped down a bit to perform at its best and was sadly lacking in WR, nevertheless only cost $60.

[garywakeling]

That's because during film era someone typically had some prints made in 9x13cm or 10x15cm and that's it (unless you had a certain application in mind or you developted and magnified your negatives yourself a slightly missed focus or optical flaws of the lens where not that noticeable.)
Nowadays every PC monitor is bigger than those prints and we arn't even talking about pixel peeping

True, however there are a few positives, I dusted off a FA 80-200mm zoom and on the K1 it took me back to the film days, the autofocus was quick and not hunting, the zoom with the power zoom function worked well and when I turned off the camera it retracted to the smallest size automatically, I had forgotten about those features. Compared to the 60-260 DA lens I have been using lately, it would be nice to have the power zoom.......

---------- Post added 10-17-19 at 01:30 PM ----------

The only Canon power zoom I've come across was a cheap 35-80 kitted up with their EOS 700. Two buttons on the side worked the zoom. There was no manual focus.

However, I think trying to credit any manufacturer with coming up with the first power zoom for an SLR misses the point.

Power zoom was a dreadful idea. A solution for a problem no one was looking to solve. The fact that today we are all still content to zoom our lenses with fingertip pressure proves the idea was silly.

Power zoom can be added to the pile of useless features such as "expansion cards", bar code reader program modes, eye control, and a host of other techie features that were designed to look cool in the brochure, even if they didn't help with good photography one jot.

I still like the fact that the power zoom function makes it easy to do those slow shutter speed zooms without me twisting at a variable rate, limited use but effective

[ffking]

However, I think trying to credit any manufacturer with coming up with the first power zoom for an SLR misses the point.

Power zoom was a dreadful idea. A solution for a problem no one was looking to solve. The fact that today we are all still content to zoom our lenses with fingertip pressure proves the idea was silly.

No - I totally agree with that - I bought the (P)Z-1 and a couple of power zoom lrnses - I've still got the 28-105 - and soon found I zoomed manually rather than drain non-rechargeable bateries for no good reason. They did try to have presets - the example used was watching a tennis match from one end of the court here you could press a button tp get the correct zoom for the player each end - but I don't think I ever even tried to use it - the only semi-useful feature was the lens retracting hen you turned the camera off, but it wasn't that useful. What's amazing to me is that my K-1 still supports power zoom - above and beyond the call of duty, I'd say