| Author: | | New Member Registered: July, 2013 Posts: 2 | | Review Date: December 27, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $49.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Well built, aperture ring | | Cons: | Heavy, 5.6 on the long end | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K200D
Focusing: 8
| |
For less than $50, a bargain. Very decent sharpness and color rendering. Smooth zoom operation, autofocus is noisy but accurate. My solenoid crippled K-50 is useless with my DA series 50-200, but this lens puts it back in the game. The lack of SMC coating may be why my 70-210 SMC-A produces images with a little more contrast, but that old lens lacks autofocus.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: September, 2008 Location: Québec Posts: 40
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 23, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, lightweight | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5IIs
Focusing: 9
| |
Wonderful lens, it does the job properly . Surely not the sharpest or the one with the best bokeh, but it delivers satisfactorily . I leave the images to speak for themselves 
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: July, 2022 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 115
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 14, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Image Quality, Build Quality, Price, Durability | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: KS2
Focusing: 7
| |
I bought this lens on the advice of reviewers here and I wasn't disappointed, it's an excellent quality lens, ruggedly built, the image quality is excellent - it's a 9 if not a 10, especially when considering its a zoom lens.
One thing I have to disagree with people about is the weight, I have other 70-200's for other platforms and while low weight 70-200's exist, this lens is by no means "heavy" - much heavier ones exist. I find the weight to be normal, especially when you consider this isn't a cheap plastic budget lens, it was innovative in it's time and it's built to last and last. The AF is accurate.
One thing worth mentioning I believe is that, while not a close focusing lens, it has a reasonably short focus distance. I'm impressed by it.
I highly recommend this lens.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 678
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 15, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, solid build, accurate focus, accurate color rendition, especially reds | | Cons: | almost nonexistent manual focus ring | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Samsung GX20
Focusing: 9
| |
I've had this lens for a couple of weeks and have only taken a few test shots with it on my Samsung GX20 (K20D clone) but I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. I've always felt that the Takumar F series lenses are sort of the unsung heroes of Pentax glass and this lens proves it yet again. For an inexpensive, film era lens, it's tack sharp with nice bokeh and despite its length when fully zoomed to 200mm, offers fairly good balance and handling. It also does not oversaturate reds the way some of my other lenses do. It may lack the SMC coatings but the coatings it does have do their job quite admirably. For what I paid, I feel like I got a steal of a deal.
Update: In going through my camera bags recently, I discovered I had two copies of this lens. I have no idea where the second one came from and I have no idea which of the two I reviewed above. Since it's a sunny afternoon and I had a little time on my hands, I decided to do a shoot-off between the two. The first thing I noticed was one was tight and smooth and the other was loose and rattled a bit. Optically, they were almost indistinguishable, as one might expect. When photographing small blossoms on a tree branch, both lenses had to hunt a bit and the rattler made some very unpleasant noises as it focused in and out. Ironically, the rattler is the newer of the two, based its higher serial number. I'll stand by my previous review and my assertion that Takumar lenses represent an exceptional value for their performance.
| | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2014 Posts: 272
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 27, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, common, solid feel. | | Cons: | NOISY autofocus can hunt around a bit on K-3. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-3
| |
This is a lens that I toss in my camera case and forget about for a few months. Then once in a while I decide to take it out for a spin and I am always pleased with the results. This lens is surprisingly sharp for the very low cost you can obtain them at. It has a solid and high quality feel to it that I really miss in modern lenses.
The Takumar-F 70-200 can capture colors fairly well. I have no qualms about using it for bird and wildlife photography. It seems to give the photos a bit of a classic film 'feel' and that's exactly the look I'm going after when I take this lens out of the box. I would not hesitate recommending this lens to others. They are extremely common and will often go for $25-$50. I got a good deal on mine but I would still pay more for this lens if I had to replace mine.
The only downside is the noisy autofocus. I usually don't mind noisy lenses but this one would probably get you nasty stares in a quiet place. For those situations switch to manual focus and the problem is solved. | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2010 Posts: 23
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 14, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, quick autofocus | | Cons: | A bit loud autofocus, tiny focal ring, does not retract all the way like SMC version | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
If you get a good copy and stay away 200mm a bit, the lens could really render sharp and pleasant pictures. Shooting with a hood is a good practice in using a (mid-range) telescope lens like this.
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,030
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 17, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | Good Color, Fast AF, Great Colors + Contrast | | Cons: | Heavy, Very Long @ 200mm, MF Ring | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
First, off, this is an AF lens, but there's no rating available for Auto-focus; I'd give it an 8.0. It zips right to well-defined subjects but tends to hunt on poorly-lit or soft-edged objects.
Which brings me to a "Con". The MF ring is about 1/4" wide and impossible to find with your eye at the viewfinder. It also has a stiff and rough "sandy" feel; Perhaps this is a case of getting used to the focusing action. I hope so.
But considering the price, the images are very sharp (much sharper than the DA 50-200mm) the AF is good on contrasty subjects and the color rendition is superb. Exposure is spot-on with my K10-D, the zoom action is fast and sure and it produces results comparable to lenses costing 2-3X the price.
This lens is no lightweight and the length when zoomed to 200mm is extreme. But the balance with a large DSLR body is good and it's easily hand-held.
There's a fair amount of PF at full zoom/wide open, clearly seen at 100% crop, which can be corrected but is annoying nevertheless.
The Bokeh at wide apertures is good, perhaps not in the "10" range (at least by my standards!) but smooth and subtle.
A fine budget zoom in a very handy focal range, with a few pesky flaws. The PF fringing, M/F ring and overall weight/size. If you can live with the negatives, the upside is a good, sharp lens with beautiful, well-rendered colors.
For less than $100.00, this lens is a bargain!
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2010 Location: California Posts: 248 | | Review Date: May 19, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Low distortion, good color balance, construction | | Cons: | Long body and bad positioned manual focus ring | |
I'd like to give it 8.5 not 9. I first got this lens with a skylight filter. At beginning, the color always a bit strange and the pictures are less sharp then I'd expect. One day I took the filter off and then I noticed changes. Everything is about to be right, the resolution, color are all quite pleasant to me. Don't forget the quality of Takumar construction. This is a heavy lens for a vary aperture lens.
The shortcoming which I don't like is the long body and the manual focus ring near the front lens. This makes the manual focus very unpleasant for me.
Overall, take off any low quality glass from the front lens then you'll get good result out of it. And you'll feel confident because of its weight.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 3,757
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 19, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | very sharp (even wide open), microcontrast, AF, build, no CA | | Cons: | no SMC, rotating front element | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
I am rating this lens relative to the price I paid for it.
This is one of the most underrated AF Pentax tele-zooms, IMO. I don't know why the non-SMC Pentax-F 70-200mm gets much more favorable reviews than this one, since they are the same lens named differently. In any case, I was pleasantly surprised by its performance.
I've found this lens to be clearly better than the DA 50-200mm and perhaps even better than the DA 55-300mm. In terms of sharpness it surpasses the 50-200mm by a comfortable margin, and competes well against the 55-300mm. The AF is faster and much more responsive than the 55-300's AF. I successfully used it in a barely lightened room (with a flash). Also, I prefer the kind of finer-grained micro-contrast that this one produces to the more accentuated contrast of the 55-300mm, which I believe "swallows" some detail. It is true that the lack of SMC makes it that the Takumar 70-200mm gives less contrasty images, but personally I am not affected by this, since I shoot raw and I can fix the contrast in PP. I haven't noticed other effects of the lack of SMC. (I think the lens is coated, although not super-multi-coated.) I use it with a rubber hood.
The lens is heavier than the 55-300mm, but it balances well on my K-x. Made of plastic, but very sturdy.
Here is a series of pics taken with it:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/144374-people-grown-up-kid.html#post1508381
And here's a second set:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/157041-people-men-black-...ml#post1630176 | | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2009 Posts: 43 | | Review Date: April 2, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $62.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharp when stopped down, inexpensive on used market | | Cons: | washed out colors, size/weight , noisy & slow AF | |
My first dslr was an ist DL (cheapest kit at the time) and I was looking for a zoom option that balanced low cost, but not low image quality to expand my reach to 200mm. With some research, few options at the time, I settled on a copy of this lens, used (BGN condition) from KEH.
I find stopped down images are quite sharp (compared to my DA 50-200mm), but every image requires adjustments of vibrance/saturation in ACR (maybe due to the lack of SMC?).
I have since stopped using my copy, but I recommend those new to dlsrs & the Pentax system to definitely look at this 70-200mm zoom option if you are strapped for cash but wanted to expand your experience towards the telephoto range.
Sample Images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwfchu/2522900448/in/set-72157605251481180/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwfchu/437343825/in/set-72157600031488884/
(Non working link removed)
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: November, 2009 Location: Key Largo, Florida Posts: 1 | | Review Date: November 27, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $230.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Good, modest telephoto lens | | Cons: | small aperture | |
I bought this lens with my Pentax SF10 in 1990, along with a Takumar-F Zoom 28-80mm lens. The 28-80 has become my workhorse lens over the years. I am still pleased with the camera-lens(es) combination (including the Pentax 50mm f 1.7 normal lens), but am experiencing vignetting problems that I'm sure can be avoided (if I can figure out what is causing the problem).
| | | | | | | | Review Date: May 25, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Well constructed, compact, 9 blade aperture, sharp images | | Cons: | Noisy AF, hunts a little on AF, Contrast not quite up to SMC levels but as good as most 3rd party zooms | |
I have gotten good results from this lens, with the APS sized digital sensor it loses the corner softness that it sometimes is accused of. I would recommend it as a decent low cost zoom. This lens has a different optical formula from the SMC Pentax F 70-210mm so do not confuse the two, the SMC would probably rate a 9 on my scale (too slow to rate a 10) while this Takumar stretches to reach a 7. It is a sharper lens than the 70-210mm Sigma consumer lens I owned before (and better built), but does not have a close focus capability of any significance. If you want a cheap but capable lens in this focal range, and macro is not your thing, this lens will preform well for you.
BTW the 49mm filter ring keeps filter prices down but the rotating front element makes polarizers or split filters hard to use (a common problem with all of my older Pentax zooms)
| | |
