| Author: | | New Member Registered: July, 2014 Posts: 6 | | Review Date: November 20, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: k-x
| |
I bougt takuma F 28-80 non smc but i abrupt it take to me. it's verry Sharpness but too heavy  | | | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2017 Posts: 5
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 19, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Price. The F series is made of glass and iron.Very fast autofocus. macro mode-good Boke | | Cons: | not the large aperture | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: К-10D,K-7,*istDs
| |
Price. The F series is made of glass and iron.It is generally the "family album", the working horse for a competent beginner, some reports also can do.Great lens for every day.Very fast autofocus in macro mode-good Boke ,not the large aperture,
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: November, 2010 Location: San Rafael, CA Posts: 806 | | Review Date: December 8, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, Sharp at F8, Solid Construction | | Cons: | AF hunts a bit, very soft wide open | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
Good inexpensive lens. Picked this up used at a camera show. My LBA was needing to be feed and I figured I couldn't go that wrong for $30. And I have to say, it's a lot better than I expected it to be. It's a very odd lens, very quirky. It's very soft wide open, very sharp at F8 and pretty good at F16. The macro function is okay too, though not it's strong point.
My copy is very clean, and in very good shape. Appears almost new, very little wear and tear on it. Glass is perfect.
I haven't spent a lot of time with this lens, and I don't expect I will ultimately but I am impressed that it is as sharp as it is. Definitely better than the 18-55 kit lens.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: November, 2009 Location: Key Largo, Florida Posts: 1 | | Review Date: November 27, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $89.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | 28-80 mm focal length covers a lot of ground | | Cons: | Vignetting, though that may just be me | |
This lens came bundled with a Pentax SF10, that included a normal Pentax lens (50mm 1.7), for a total of $389.00, in 1990, at Kearny Discount Camera in San Francisco. I estimate the lens was about $89 of the $389 price. I have used the camera and lenses for 19 years in a variety of situations, and can't say anything bad about this lens.
I am experiencing a fair amount of vignetting, that I can more-or-less remove in Photoshop CS4, but I would prefer to eliminate it at shooting time. I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject that others may have. I do have a 58 mm UV filter on the lens, and do not use a lens hood.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2013 Location: Naples Posts: 10 | | Review Date: November 1, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | cheap and light | | Cons: | optical performance, construciotn | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 6
Value: 7
| |
cheap bad quality and low performance...
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2008 Location: New York, NY Posts: 17 | | Review Date: December 6, 2010 | Not Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Cheap, well-built, sharp wide open | | Cons: | AF hunts a lot, minimal distance makes macro useless, colors in artificial light is eh, coating will not compensate for digital sensors | |
I’ve had the opportunity to use the Takumar-F as an alternative to my fast zooms since I figured the extra reach would help, as my other two zooms don’t go any longer than 60mm. The f-stop difference is not that significant for me and you can get these for a song. It’s macro too, but the macro feature is strange: you twist the zoom ring past the 80mm mark and it will focus in a specific range for macro that is too far in minimal distance to offer you a really good image.
Now, the one thing I should add is that I don’t use this lens for the outdoors. It’s not because I can’t, but because I don’t normally do outdoor photography and when I do, I’m usually using a faster lens or something with more reach. I am mentioning this because I am unsure about the quality of the coatings here. I can say that from my overall experiences that the colors seem to come off as flat under artificial lighting. I’m sure that stopped down the colors would have a more appealing appearance. That said, I also don’t use the lens for colors either.
So why do I bother using it? The truth is that I use it because it’s sharp when shot wide and undercoated compared to most modern lenses. Since I use it for infrared photography, I need something that can focus well. Now, granted, the autofocus isn’t very remarkable in low-light (I’ve had it miss its mark on a K20 several times because there was not enough available light coming in). It also does not bring much light to the viewfinder and the focus ring is small, but when you find your mark with the lens, it can really shine.
I might stop using this lens if I ever acquire an older manual zoom, but for now it does its job. No, I would not recommend people to use this unless they are looking for a challenge, but if they need something on the cheap for B&W shots, I would probably push this lens their way.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: September, 2017 Location: Bogota Posts: 120 | | Review Date: October 8, 2018 | Not Recommended | Price: $13.00
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | price, construction, useful range, nice rendering when it's stopped down a bit | | Cons: | focus distance, weird macro mode, performance wide open | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 3
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 4
Value: 5
Camera Used: K-1
Focusing: 4
| |
This is probably the worst lens I own.
My copy is in nice shape; I got it for peanuts on eBay because I like the Takumar-F 70-210 and 35-70 a lot.
Wide open, it's pretty miserable. Soft everywhere with a lot of glowy spherical aberration in the highlights.
It gets a lot better stopped down a half stop, and a full stop gets rid of the glow and sharpens up the center nicely. The edges never get super sharp, but that's not particularly unusual for late 80s zooms.
The rendering is actually pretty nice. It has the traditionally Pentax-y colors that I tend to prefer to my real go-to lens in this range, the Tamron 28-75. When it's stopped down, it does have some of that Takumar look.
But it's such a pain to use. In addition to the variable aperture, the close focus distance is variable too, and always too far away. The macro mode is awkward and only works at the long end. Not being usable wide-open means that the aperture range is even more punishing than it would have been if it worked well at its printed max. It flares like crazy.
It's possible to wring good work out of this ancient, cheap-o lens. It's not very pleasant, though. It was worth $13 for the novelty value, but I can't recommend actually using it.
| | |
