[JPT]

I have two F35-70 lenses. I have one SMC one and one non-SMC Takumar-F one.



I can see why people think they look ugly, but I like them. They look like something from a Star Wars film set. Like a part they would plug in to fix a broken old droid.

The one I have is so small, cheap and unique that it's hard to dislike. It performs way better than it has any right to for the age and price.

[bdery]

They are plasticky and ugly

Ugly?

I find them among the most beautiful, retro-futurist lenses ever made! They make me think of Star Wars for some reason.

I only have the 35-70mm nowadays. I did own several 50 F1.5, but that's all.

[aaacb]

beautiful, retro-futurist lenses

+1 This is my F kit, recently new to me, and yeah it has a style unmatched in other eras of camera gear
Only the 50 macro in my F collection so far

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I had this lens too. Super sharp! I gave it up for the DA*300 which in turned made way for the DA*60-250.
I had to constantly touch up the exterior with grey paint.

---------- Post added 07-22-21 at 17:13 ----------



Not to you but to many in the forum they are. And it is tacky like h*** which is why I have fond memories of them. They have characters never seen before and might never be seen again in other Pentax series. Like the A lenses, they are colourful. Pentax used all the basic colours. There are white, blue, yellow, green, reddish orange and on * lenses, gold.

The latest series is so boring.

There are white, blue, yellow, green, reddish orange and on * lenses, gold.

Not in the F-series lenses, they are just grey...

[jatrax]

Here is my collection. I've since replaced a couple with ones that are in better shape. Probably need to do another picture. The 300mm is still on my list to get some day. And, no, I don't think they are ugly. I greatly prefer the styling over the FA series.

[5ks]

I've got SMC-F 1,7/50 and 2,8/135 primes. Both are excellent lenses and perform very nicely with K-1 (quite ok with crop bodies also). Some CA and/or fringing appear sometimes, but that's not an issue for me in most cases. However, 135 needed some AF fine tuning.

I might buy also F 2,8/28, if it were buyable at a reasonable price and "easily enough".

[normhead]

Now that is an F collection. Should we say you're all F'd up?

All I have is the F 1.7x AF adapter and the F-70-210.

[jatrax]

Should we say you're all F'd up?

Not quite. Yet, anyway. Though people who know me do keep saying that..............

[normhead]

Not quite. Yet, anyway. Though people who know me do keep saying that..............

Ya, but what do they know? Ignore those people.

I'm curious, did you buy these new or has this been a second hand experience?

[jatrax]

The only issue they have is the rubber grips often start peeling off and need to be reglued.

I replaced my 35-135 and my 24-50 because the rubber grip was not exactly in great shape. The 35-135 seems to be the worst for this, it was difficult to locate one that did not show signs of the grip discoloring or warping.

[sbc]

Here is my collection. I've since replaced a couple with ones that are in better shape. Probably need to do another picture. The 300mm is still on my list to get some day. And, no, I don't think they are ugly. I greatly prefer the styling over the FA series.

What a beautiful family portrait! Hope you have the full collection someday.

Pentax really has odd and confusing naming scheme. There are a few lenses in the FA series that are labeled as F lenses (like the 3rd from the left lower). But the exterior design clearly conforms to the FA series.

[jddwoods]

I purchased two F series lenses the kit 35 -70 and the 28mm f2.8 with a SF 10 body back sometime around 1988. I noticed a big difference in build quality between the two. The 35 - 70 zoom felt plasticky and wobbly but the 28mm f2.8 felt solid with a metal inner barrel unlike the plastic inner barrel on the zoom. The SF10 and 35-70 are long gone but I still have and use the 28. It actually fits in well with my DA Limiteds. A few years ago I bought an FA 50mm f1.7. The build of this lens feels much more plasticky than the F series 28mm prime. It seems there is a lot of variation in build within the F and FA series primes that are not Limited or star versions.

[stevebrot]

They are plasticky and ugly but I absolutely adore them.

The build of many F-series lenses are one reason why some question the historic quality of Pentax products, no?


Steve

[jatrax]

There are a few lenses in the FA series that are labeled as F lenses (like the 3rd from the left lower).

Third from the left is the 17-28mm fish eye. I don't think it is at all an FA lens. The styling is however, transitional. In particular the oval shaped divots in the zoom ring were used for lenses introduced between 1991-1996. That includes some late era 'F' lenses and some early 'FA' lenses. The F 35-80, F 100-300 and F 17-28 fish eye as well as the FA 28-80 f/3.5-4.7, FA 28-105 f4-5.6, FA*28-70 and FA*80-200. Production for those would have been concurrent even though they are labeled as different series.

---------- Post added 07-22-21 at 08:58 AM ----------

The build of many F-series lenses are one reason why some question the historic quality of Pentax products, no?

Some yes. But I think it is the cheap feel of many of the later FA zooms that created that impression. Most of the F zooms are actually well built and do not at all feel flimsy like later FA ones. Many of the F zooms were only produced for a few years and I suspect Pentax realized they were too expensive to build and moved on to the less expensive to build FA series fairly quickly.

I have a good collection of F lenses and have had many of the FA zooms as well. I have sold off all of the FA zooms and the only FA lens I've retained is the FA*85. Optically many of the FA lenses are quite good for the time, but the build quality is definitely poorer than the F series.

[normhead]

Third from the left is the 17-28mm fish eye. I don't think it is at all an FA lens. The styling is however, transitional. In particular the oval shaped divots in the zoom ring were used for lenses introduced between 1991-1996. That includes some late era 'F' lenses and some early 'FA' lenses. The F 35-80, F 100-300 and F 17-28 fish eye as well as the FA 28-80 f/3.5-4.7, FA 28-105 f4-5.6, FA*28-70 and FA*80-200. Production for those would have been concurrent even though they are labeled as different series.

---------- Post added 07-22-21 at 08:58 AM ----------


Some yes. But I think it is the cheap feel of many of the later FA zooms that created that impression. Most of the F zooms are actually well built and do not at all feel flimsy like later FA ones. Many of the F zooms were only produced for a few years and I suspect Pentax realized they were too expensive to build and moved on to the less expensive to build FA series fairly quickly.

I have a good collection of F lenses and have had many of the FA zooms as well. I have sold off all of the FA zooms and the only FA lens I've retained is the FA*85. Optically many of the FA lenses are quite good for the time, but the build quality is definitely poorer than the F series.

Camparing my F 70-210 to my FA 35-80 the F series wins in build quality but not in optics. While my FA 50 macro is solid. Let's not compare the equivalents of the DA 18-55 with the DA*s. Pentax still makes both types of lenses, or at least did until recently. Anything sold as kit used to be distinctly entry level quality, like the DA 18-55.