[MarkJerling]

It's one of the best bargains around, IMHO. Even on APS-C where the field of view and versatility are more restricted, it's a great lens. I don't know why it doesn't sell for more... Perhaps it's just that so many were manufactured?

I suspect so Mike. At one time, if your Pentax camera was not bought with the 50mm F1.7, then it came with the 35-70mm.
I recently sold a few. (I only need so many 35-70's)

[Des]

Which image here do you feel is showing definitive evidence of decentering?

It was the second one (the 209 house), 5th one (silos), the 6th one (city hall) and the last one. A number of the others didn't load. Now I look at the set I'm not so sure. A quick test using the method in the PF article would tell.

[GUB]

It was the second one (the 209 house), 5th one (silos), the 6th one (city hall) and the last one. A number of the others didn't load. Now I look at the set I'm not so sure. A quick test using the method in the PF article would tell.

The exif says a 200mm so there is going to be a lot of dof variation in the edge trees - And there is none where the trees on each side are clearly equidistant from the camera.

[BigMackCam]

Yep, the 35-70 is great. I love mine. Ugly though! Maybe that helps keep the price down too.

LOL Actually I rather like the look of F lenses... They're definitely of an era, but I think they look quite utilitarian and cool, and they mostly feel pretty solid. I don't care much for the focus rings on them - neither the size nor action - but they're useable. My only real gripe with the F lenses is the focus gearing is pretty brutal when used on modern bodies, especially with the lenses' hard infinity stop. Fast, though I'd love a full set of the SMC F lenses... I think a couple of our members have complete (or fairly complete) collections...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-14-2022 at 07:34 AM.

[Rondec]

It's a supply and demand issue. Older lenses that there are bunches of copies out there (50 f1.7s, consumer zooms) tend to be pretty cheap on the used market. They can still be quite decent lenses, particularly stopped down.

I will say that biggest issue I have with older, non-Pentax lenses is lack of contrast. Pentax has always had decent coatings (although they have gotten better), but contrast is one of those things that really helps a lens seem sharp. You can add some in post, but it is a lot tougher than having a lens that is "contrasty" out of the box.

[MESuperian]

I’d like to point out a carton of good cigarettes is worth about two cheap Pentax lenses.

For my ME Super away at Rich Henderson being rebuilt, I own a Pentax 50mm M f1.7 and Pentax M 80-200, together worth $50.

For my $100 K-x with 18-55 kit lens I own a $25 Focus f2.8 24mm, a $25 Sears f1.7 50mm, a $25 Sears 135mm, a free old 70-210 Vivitar, my $25 Tamron 70-219 Auto, a $25 70-300 Vivitar (in the mail), the $25 Pentax FA 100-300 in the mail, and a $25 generic long focus f6.3 400mm.

My f2.8 Focal 28mm needs repaired, and my Tamron 79-210 and Vivitar 70-210 Auto need cleaned. I have a lens service kit in the mail, and I’m going to learn how to fix those old lenses. It should be fun.

To my great surprise, the worst lens I have, the $25 long focal 400mm, isn’t too bad.

I’m learning that Ricoh and Pentax made lenses were better.

Also, that autofocus is wonderful for closer subjects.

And, that a used Pentax DSLR, the newer the better, is a deluxe toy that’s a barrel of fun.

What I want is a thousand dollar used K-1. Until then I’ll have a ball playing with my K-x.

I know there are professionals that shoot Pentax, but I do this just for the joy of it.

Those crows were about 400 yards away past that shack along a tree line.

[Roam Redway]

In case the OP hasn’t found it yet, the F35-70 has a “cult” thread for those of us who particularly enjoy the pictures we take with it.
SMC Pentax-F 35-70 F3.5-4.5 Cult Club - PentaxForums.com

[MESuperian]

It was the second one (the 209 house), 5th one (silos), the 6th one (city hall) and the last one. A number of the others didn't load. Now I look at the set I'm not so sure. A quick test using the method in the PF article would tell.

I’m going to be taking my $25 Tamron 70-210 Auto apart to clean off some haze and spots of dirt inside.

I’m surprised it works as well as it does.

You’ve heard of lens creep, this one has lens PLOP back and forth.

When I have this apart, is there any way to realign it at home?

What I like about it is, the Auto feature still works. I can shoot Program, Tv, Av, and even Scene modes with it.

Plus on my K-x it seems to focus to infinity at full stop. I shoot lots of MFT with adapted lenses and there, if you get infinity focus at all it’s never at full stop. This is an overwhelming advantage an old Pentax DSLR has shooting legacy glass over using adapters for MFT.

[MESuperian]

Outside my home there was a chicken hawk in a tree (no doubt checking out our chickens).

He might not quite have been far enough away for infinity focus.

But I had my K-x set to High drive, and on Program using my Tamron I got about twenty shots of him as he flew in a big circle and landed on another tree 60 yards away.

These cheap lenses are a whole lot of fun. Notice how the white balance changes. All I did was point and shoot. I’m learning all this as I go along.

[que es tu]

Outside my home there was a chicken hawk in a tree (no doubt checking out our chickens).

He might not quite have been far enough away for infinity focus.

But I had my K-x set to High drive, and on Program using my Tamron I got about twenty shots of him as he flew in a big circle and landed on another tree 60 yards away.

These cheap lenses are a whole lot of fun. Notice how the white balance changes. All I did was point and shoot. I’m learning all this as I go along.

Yes I like the old lenses too. I recently got an FA 28- 80 & an FA 100-300 f 4.7-5.8,both silver, for my KS2. I love the handling of the lenses. The IQ is great on both, but I had to dial in a +8 on the 100-300 due to back focusing. After that it was great! Have fun!

[MESuperian]

Yes I like the old lenses too. I recently got an FA 28- 80 & an FA 100-300 f 4.7-5.8,both silver, for my KS2. I love the handling of the lenses. The IQ is great on both, but I had to dial in a +8 on the 100-300 due to back focusing. After that it was great! Have fun!

I looked at my Tamron and I had it on A but not locked over full to the left in A.

Whether that makes any difference I don’t know.

I went back outside and the chicken hawk flew away, and this time I backed off a little from infinity.

Honestly, I cannot even begin to do this with contrast detect autofocus MFT lenses.

I noticed the Program mode lowered the shutter to 1/250 and closed the aperture to f6.3 and f5.6 at the last.

Was that because I had it locked over full left, locked in Program?

[que es tu]

I looked at my Tamron and I had it on A but not locked over full to the left in A.

Whether that makes any difference I don’t know.

I went back outside and the chicken hawk flew away, and this time I backed off a little from infinity.

Honestly, I cannot even begin to do this with contrast detect autofocus MFT lenses.

I noticed the Program mode lowered the shutter to 1/250 and closed the aperture to f6.3 and f5.6 at the last.

Was that because I had it locked over full left, locked in Program?

Not sure. If you weren’t locked in A then would that cause the aperture to stop down to the smallest opening i.e. f22 or 32?? That would cause under exposure if there was a discrepancy between what the lens was set at and what the camera wanted to be set at.

[MESuperian]

Not sure. If you weren’t locked in A then would that cause the aperture to stop down to the smallest opening i.e. f22 or 32?? That would cause under exposure if there was a discrepancy between what the lens was set at and what the camera wanted to be set at.

The first set were opened all the way up to f3.5 with the A set to A, but not locked.

At 210mm the max aperture is supposed to be f5.6.

It seeks to get full program you must lock the A over to the left all the way, which is past a lock pin.

I noticed some spots on the background, which might be a dirty sensor or spots inside the lens.

I checked the dust using my kit lens and Dust Check, and there were little spots all over. I cleaned it twenty times using Dust Removal and then there’s just a trace in the top left, that was stubborn to further shaking.

But it seems to take decent photos with the kit lens.

The K-x was an advanced camera for 2009, with Shake Reduction, Sensor Cleaning, Lens Correction, all kinds of toys to explore.

[wadge22]

I own a $25 Focus f2.8 24mm, a $25 Sears f1.7 50mm, a $25 Sears 135mm, a free old 70-210 Vivitar, my $25 Tamron 70-219 Auto, a $25 70-300 Vivitar (in the mail), the $25 Pentax FA 100-300 in the mail, and a $25 generic long focus f6.3 400mm

Now this is the sort of situation where I think you might be doing yourself a disservice. After all of that, you've spent $175, and still haven't gotten (no offense here) any gems.

If you had saved up all that cash, your next $25 could get you a $200 lens. On an average-to-lucky day in ebayland, that might get you a DA limited, a Pentax/Tamron/Sigma AF macro lens ~100mm (even to this day, top performers all of them), a super characterful Takumar with m42 adapter, a hidden gem Tokina ATX pro AF zoom lens, or any of a dozen other 'terrific' lenses as I called them in my first post.

Yes... there are plenty of cheap lenses. But they are, make no mistake, cheap lenses. It's great if you enjoy the thrill of the deal, or having a lot of options, or if you are very prone to dropping or dunking or misplacing your gear (or getting mugged).
However, someday, I do think it's worth saving up for at least one lens that is really special.

[Jonathan Mac]

By the time Pentax were making the FA series lenses they had moved quite far down the price vs quality equation and many of the consumer-level stuff was made very cheaply. Just look at the MZ series cameras, which are flimsy and fragile. There are a lot of F series kit zooms of low quality too, many of which have to be virtually given away to shift them. Yes, they're technically compatible with modern DSLRs, but most can't compete in image quality even with modern kit lenses.

Of course there was good stuff too, FA* and FA Limited lenses which were built to a much higher standard, but in the early nineties there were a lot of companies competing primarily on price and everyone wanted a cheap & light SLR camera and a couple of crappy zooms to stick on it. Many, if not all, camera companies did the same of course. Pentax is in no way unique in that way.