Did I buy the wrong lens? Should I have waited? Pentax F 35-70mm 3.5-4.5

Stefan Carey · 04-06-2009, 03:53 AM

On it way from the U.S.A. is a Pentax F 35-70mm 3.4. - 4.5 zoom macro in supposedly mint condition (eBay US $70).

I was thinking this is very good lens by all reports. In the samples I have seen, there is is something rather magical this lens does with the light: it is hard to explain, but they look like the photos I would like to take. I thought this is the answer to a good macro solution.

Well perhaps it is not the macro I thought it was?

Until I can do some hands on tests next week, I wonder if the macro ability or quality will not be that different from my kits lens Pentax 18-55 DA L, Pentax M 50 1.7, or the Ricoh Rikenon 70-210 macro zoom.?

I enjoy macros of just about anything, and use the K-m. Will I get close enough? H'mmmm.

Thoughts anyone?

I have a set of the magnifying screw on lens, but these look a little scratched.

I'd really like to see some sample photos taken by this of this lens on the web, but they seem few and far between.

thanks

Stefan Carey

( have to go to now : its 9pm here and I really should practice bass)

Last edited by Stefan Carey; 04-06-2009 at 04:02 AM.

ivoire · 04-06-2009, 06:17 AM

I shoot mostly long and wanted an inexpensive lens in this range, so I too bought a F35-70 from another forum member. I like this lens a lot an find it to be sharper than the kit lens that i sold, after replacing it with the 12-24mm. I haven't tried it as a macro yet, but heres a couple of recent pics:

maxwell1295 · 04-06-2009, 06:26 AM

I've owned both the 'A' version and the 'F' version of this lens. It's not a true macro but it focuses very closely at 70mm.....close enough to do great flower shots. It really is a fabulous lens.....versatile enough to do flowers and portraits and sharp throughout the range. I swapped out my 'F' copy for the Sigma 24-60mm and that was only because I needed a faster lens for events.

Stefan Carey · 04-06-2009, 01:13 PM

Hi the Ivoire: Thanks for going to the trouble of posting the samples: this looks like a lovely lens. Feeling a lots less bothered now (especially as I'm on the other side of fence and that dinosaur!)

Maxwell 1285: I do a lot aof flower shots, so again, this makes me less concerned.

thank you both

ivoire · 04-06-2009, 02:24 PM

I'm surprised it is not more popular. I guess the craving for the latest and greatest is a good thing as it makes this beauty is very inexpensive. I think you will be very pleased with it.

Nick Siebers · 04-06-2009, 05:17 PM

I love mine. It is a nice complement to the 18-55, gets you closer to people's faces, and definitely a step up in image quality. Although the "macro" is only like 1:4, that is very nice for flowers. The lens really shines in these close-ups. Here are some samples:

Stefan Carey · 04-06-2009, 05:53 PM

Thanks Nick: in my opinion it does something very special with the light, especially in the first shot. There is something natural and every so slightly mysterious about the effect, seems very contrasty but this might low light. Shooting in RAW and overexpsoing will be what I try early on. Resolution is impressive!

maxwell1295 · 04-06-2009, 06:17 PM

I found a few old sample images from the F35-70/3.5-4.5

Stefan Carey · 04-06-2009, 07:36 PM

much obliged to you

Looks like it offers very resonable sharpness at his distance. Thanks!

Stollface · 07-07-2009, 05:03 PM

wow! I just bought this lens without even knowing what people have said about it. Man cant wait to see what I will get out of it for portraits and semi macro shots. yay!

maxwell1295 · 07-08-2009, 11:29 AM

My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera.

**NaClH2O** · 07-08-2009, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by maxwell1295

My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera.

Alan, your 50-135 sent to me in a plain brown wrapper and she'll never know. Otherwise......

NaCl(LBA is a vile and pernicious disease)H2O

ivoire · 07-08-2009, 12:39 PM

I picked up a reversing ring and a raynox 125 to use with this lens. Haven't had the chance to try either yet. should be interesting

maxwell1295 · 07-08-2009, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

Alan, your 50-135 sent to me in a plain brown wrapper and she'll never know. Otherwise......

NaCl(LBA is a vile and pernicious disease)H2O

LOL!

Pentaxor · 07-08-2009, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by maxwell1295

My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera.

you're so dead !!!

04-06-2009, 03:53 AM	#1
Stefan Carey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 190	Did I buy the wrong lens? Should I have waited? Pentax F 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 On it way from the U.S.A. is a Pentax F 35-70mm 3.4. - 4.5 zoom macro in supposedly mint condition (eBay US $70). I was thinking this is very good lens by all reports. In the samples I have seen, there is is something rather magical this lens does with the light: it is hard to explain, but they look like the photos I would like to take. I thought this is the answer to a good macro solution. Well perhaps it is not the macro I thought it was? Until I can do some hands on tests next week, I wonder if the macro ability or quality will not be that different from my kits lens Pentax 18-55 DA L, Pentax M 50 1.7, or the Ricoh Rikenon 70-210 macro zoom.? I enjoy macros of just about anything, and use the K-m. Will I get close enough? H'mmmm. Thoughts anyone? I have a set of the magnifying screw on lens, but these look a little scratched. I'd really like to see some sample photos taken by this of this lens on the web, but they seem few and far between. thanks Stefan Carey ( have to go to now : its 9pm here and I really should practice bass) Last edited by Stefan Carey; 04-06-2009 at 04:02 AM.

04-06-2009, 06:17 AM	#2
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	I shoot mostly long and wanted an inexpensive lens in this range, so I too bought a F35-70 from another forum member. I like this lens a lot an find it to be sharper than the kit lens that i sold, after replacing it with the 12-24mm. I haven't tried it as a macro yet, but heres a couple of recent pics: Last edited by ivoire; 10-04-2010 at 03:58 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I buy this laptop to speed up my workflow or buy a new lens?	crossover37	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	09-24-2010 09:41 AM
Downsizing; which 17-70mm to buy...	starbase218	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	07-25-2010 03:38 PM
SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM Lens for PENTAX:To buy or not to buy?	thelittlecar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	12-31-2009 06:01 AM
New to Pentax. 3 lens to buy?	usrbrv8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	09-04-2009 05:07 AM
would you buy a FA* 28-70mm today?	arthur pappas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	03-10-2009 02:44 PM

04-06-2009, 06:26 AM	#3
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	I've owned both the 'A' version and the 'F' version of this lens. It's not a true macro but it focuses very closely at 70mm.....close enough to do great flower shots. It really is a fabulous lens.....versatile enough to do flowers and portraits and sharp throughout the range. I swapped out my 'F' copy for the Sigma 24-60mm and that was only because I needed a faster lens for events.

04-06-2009, 01:13 PM	#4
Stefan Carey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 190 Original Poster	Hi the Ivoire: Thanks for going to the trouble of posting the samples: this looks like a lovely lens. Feeling a lots less bothered now (especially as I'm on the other side of fence and that dinosaur!) Maxwell 1285: I do a lot aof flower shots, so again, this makes me less concerned. thank you both

04-06-2009, 02:24 PM	#5
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	I'm surprised it is not more popular. I guess the craving for the latest and greatest is a good thing as it makes this beauty is very inexpensive. I think you will be very pleased with it.

04-06-2009, 05:17 PM	#6
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	I love mine. It is a nice complement to the 18-55, gets you closer to people's faces, and definitely a step up in image quality. Although the "macro" is only like 1:4, that is very nice for flowers. The lens really shines in these close-ups. Here are some samples:

04-06-2009, 05:53 PM	#7
Stefan Carey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 190 Original Poster	Thanks Nick: in my opinion it does something very special with the light, especially in the first shot. There is something natural and every so slightly mysterious about the effect, seems very contrasty but this might low light. Shooting in RAW and overexpsoing will be what I try early on. Resolution is impressive!

04-06-2009, 06:17 PM	#8
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	I found a few old sample images from the F35-70/3.5-4.5

04-06-2009, 07:36 PM	#9
Stefan Carey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 190 Original Poster	much obliged to you Looks like it offers very resonable sharpness at his distance. Thanks!

07-07-2009, 05:03 PM	#10
Stollface Inactive Account Join Date: May 2009 Location: Hampton, VA Posts: 3	wow! I just bought this lens without even knowing what people have said about it. Man cant wait to see what I will get out of it for portraits and semi macro shots. yay!

07-08-2009, 11:29 AM	#11
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera.

07-08-2009, 12:05 PM	#12
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by maxwell1295 My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera. Alan, your 50-135 sent to me in a plain brown wrapper and she'll never know. Otherwise...... NaCl(LBA is a vile and pernicious disease)H2O

07-08-2009, 12:39 PM	#13
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	I picked up a reversing ring and a raynox 125 to use with this lens. Haven't had the chance to try either yet. should be interesting

07-08-2009, 12:48 PM	#14
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Originally posted by NaClH2O Alan, your 50-135 sent to me in a plain brown wrapper and she'll never know. Otherwise...... NaCl(LBA is a vile and pernicious disease)H2O LOL!

07-08-2009, 10:24 PM	#15
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by maxwell1295 My wife is going to kill me for this, but here's a portrait I snapped last year. I forget the settings used, but there was almost no editing done to this one. This is pretty much straight out of the camera. you're so dead !!!