| Author: | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2023 Location: Murcia, Spain Posts: 116 | | Review Date: December 29, 2023 | Not Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Cheap? | | Cons: | Low resolution, very soft, yellow color cast, slow and inacurate autofocus | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 2
Handling: 3
Value: 3
Camera Used: istDS, K10D
| |
The worst lens I have ever owned from any manufacturer.
Unusable at full opening and almost unusable at others.
Poor build, low resolution, very soft, yellow color cast, slow and inacurate autofocus.
Uncomfortable to focus manually because of the ridiculous ring.
Sold after using it a couple of times.
I can't recommend this zoom to anybody.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2020 Location: Evansville, IN Posts: 17 | | Review Date: February 6, 2023 | Not Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | inexpensive, fairly fast, handles well | | Cons: | colors meh, MFD | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-1
| |
Used for a road trip to Grand Canyon, hiking etc its weight was manageable, and overall it did serve generally well with the K-1, OK on landscapes, but some focus trouble and problems with MFD when with family/people shots -I found myself often stepping backwards to achieve focus. With impatient subjects, I did not take the trouble go into close focus/macro mode. In addition, photos often required enhancing of contrast later. Maybe that has something to do with the lens having so many elements? Usually did not have to sharpen, however. So while I liked this zoom better than the FA 28-105 (less sharp lens, but with nicer, more vibrant colors, no strange cast), I ended up selling both and bought a used D-FA 28-105, which is, as many have found, is a happy ending to the all-purpose zoom lens story.
Below are boring JPEG landscape sample at 35mm, f8. Other at 135mm but f11 for some reason.
  | | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2022 Posts: 12 | | Review Date: November 18, 2022 | Not Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | cheap, macro is nice, useful range | | Cons: | annoying yellow cast, useless wide open, there are better options in the Pentax range | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 7
Camera Used: Pentax Z-1p
| |
Not a bad lens. Not a gem either.
I got it because I wanted a bit more reach than my well loved F35-70, but it's honestly a step back in quality. Its nowhere near as sharp wide open, or anywhere really. Maybe I just got a broken one, but anything within a stop of wide open is a mess. F8 and on is a bit better.
Colour doesn't even save it either: It's got this yellow cast on it that just flat out annoys me. Maybe im spoiled by my FA43 Ltd though.
I just picked up a F70-210, so we'll see if that one renders any better. Based on reviews from here, it should be a much better fit.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2010 Location: Lyon area, France Posts: 718 | | Review Date: June 5, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | excellent range for daily family activities, relatively fast aperture, limited weight | | Cons: | oof rendering, not recommandable at 35mm | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 2
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 4
Value: 7
| |
I bought used for €25, in correct condition (some dust)
I was originally attracted to the lens because of excellent range for daily family activities, relatively fast aperture, limited weight
This old and ugly F lens has character but hold its own. It has a disctinct old-style yellow cast (similar to M lenses) which is not unpleasing; it seems also slightly more sharp on the focus plan; however, its big issue is with oof rendering. The bokeh is quite harsh, with too much irregularity and too many highlights. It is especially not recommandable at 35mm, better in the 50-70mm range.
Note that I have not tested the long end specifically.
I compared it with the FA 28-70 f/4 in their common range:
In summary, I prefer the FA at 35mm and at wider apertures (at least up to 5.6), and tend to prefer the F at 70mm and at smaller apertures (11-16), but even in the ranges where both are "equivalent" the images produced will be well different!
You can read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/426239-che...#ixzz6wuDPqxww | | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2020 Posts: 131 | | Review Date: September 4, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp optics; useful range; Macro zoom feature | | Cons: | not a pretty lens to behold; plastics; low-quality focusing ring; lack of a dedicated or built-in lens hood | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: PZ-1, K10D, K-3 II
| |
My recollection is that I bought this as a kit with my PZ-1 (new) in the 1990s, because I doubt that I'd have bought this lens on its own due to its looks and slower speed. But the range 35-135mm is very practical, and the wide-open apertures f/3.5-4.5 mean that the lens is relatively compact, even if a tad heavy in its ugly plastic encasing. There is a narrow extending tube that goes out rather far by 135mm and for Macro use -- adding to its ugliness, but at the price and for what you get, it's no big deal. I can understand how Pentax developed this as a "kit" lens for sale in department stores (where I bought mine).
I haven't used this lens a lot with my digital cameras, and I didn't even use it that much on my PZ-1 -- though now looking at it closely again, I'm not sure why (perhaps the cheap, unattractive appearance had something to do with it, making me feel that the optics were cheap also -- combined with the length of the barrel). But it really is an excellent zoom lens. There really is minimal optical aberration (distortion) at 35mm. There is some chromatic aberration in my photos of the moon, but not overly bad; I have used this with my Pentax Rear Converter-A 2X-S to make the lens act as a 70-270mm zoom -- but mainly at the long (135/270-mm) end, and works fine. What I really like about this lens is the Macro feature: it is easy to use and operates as a zoom macro lens when moved past the 135mm mark on the tube. None of my other macro lenses have this extremely useful zoom function, so that you don't have to move when photographing a bunch of flowers within, say, 20 feet of you. This alone makes this lens worth it to keep in my arsenal (not that I've ever sold or gotten rid of any of my lenses). Flowers show good sharpness and color and nice background bokeh. I've also used this for astrophotography, and the stars appear sharp. Autofocus is also very decent.
The aperture ring sits close to the camera and has a plastic-y feel to it, but it works fine. The zoom ring has good width and is easy to use; it is tight-turning (in a good way), meaning zero zoom creep (it stays where you put it, even if pointing straight up or down). The wide zoom band lies just forward of the aperture ring, and when behind the camera, the zoom rotates to the right (clockwise) about 70 degrees from 35mm to 135mm (with numbers at 35, 50, 85, and 135 without markers, and with the distance between 85m and 135mm quite small), and then an additional 20 degrees or so after clicking over into Macro mode. The focus ring at the front of the lens, on the other hand, feels really cheap and makes manual focusing less than ideal; it only turns left (counter-clockwise) about 80 degrees from infinity to closest focus (meaning not very easy to fine-tune the focus) -- by far the worst thing about this lens. It does need a lens hood, and I elected to buy a metal Sensei Pro 58-mm screw-in hood cheaply from B&H. After trying this lens on my K-3 II camera for the first time, I think that I'll be using this more than in the past.
photos of lens on my camera, showing it at longest and shortest extensions:
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: May, 2017 Location: Vallès Occidental Posts: 139 | | Review Date: May 24, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very good overall performance | | Cons: | Minimum focus distance | |
It is an ugly and noisy plastic lens that, however, will fill you with satisfactions for very little price.
Highly recommended for FF sensors, my K-1 with good light behaves wonderfully.
Sharp to be a zoom lens
Gorgeous colors
Very usable range
It weighs nothing
You find it very cheap
Worst:
Minimum focus distance 1.5 meters. Although then you have a macro correction, it is a nuisance 
Rotates the focus when focusing.
Plastic and more plastic
I recommend it, a good "all terrain"
Ricoh IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Pentax K-1
smc PENTAX-F 35-135mm F3.5-4.5
ƒ/10.0 | 35.0 mm | 1/200 | ISO125
Ricoh IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Pentax K-1
smc PENTAX-F 35-135mm F3.5-4.5 (MACRO MODE)
ƒ/10.0 | 135.0 mm | 1/400 | ISO125
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 12
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 8, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | close-focus ability, range, sharpness stopped down, AF | | Cons: | heavy, minimum focus distance, unacceptable wideopen | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-5
| |
It has its purposes, but I just can't justify keeping this lens for my set. I found myself frustrated with its abilities wide-open - it pretty much can't shoot wide open, very soft and glowy edges.. and also the minimum focus distance not being on 'macro' FEELS like 6 feet and not 3 as listed.
It's tough to get used to, but is a great walkaround OUTDOOR DAYLIGHT lens. I'd say go for it absolutely for the value, but I don't need it personally.
 View from Window by JZackery, on Flickr
 Rusty Metal by JZackery, on Flickr
 IMGP16181 by JZackery, on Flickr
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: February, 2014 Location: Warsaw Posts: 76
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 22, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Decent sharp, Fast Focus, resonably fast as for zoom, macro mode | | Cons: | biuld quality, aberrations, min focus 1.5m | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-500
| |
I have compared this lens with previously used by me FA 28-200 both comparable cheap walk around lenses.
Wide open both lenses are useful only when lack of sharpness is going to be better then using high ISO in other words both are very soft.
F 35-135 beats FA in sharpness at faster apertures but, F suffers from CA. After stepping FA down to f/7-f/8 sharpness is comparable but CA are almost non existent in FA.
In general I have chose to keep F 35-135, I managed to take good photos with FA but was always forced to go or with slow shutter speed or with high ISO...or to go with soft images 
With F 35-135 you can expect it to be sharp at 35mm from f/4, at 65 from f/4.5, at 135 from f/5.6-f6,.3.
As long as you are mainly interested in the centre of the picture it will be ok if not You will have to step it down to f/8. In other words this lens is faster then FA and offers good image quality.
For the price of 90$ it is good lens.
left F 35-135 right FA 28-200
65mm
135mm
 | | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2013 Posts: 4 | | Review Date: February 24, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $390.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp at 5.6 at its widest and Acceptable at 6 at its zoom end | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-r
| |
Quickly becomes my all around lens since I purchased it. Only taken off my camera twice.
Color rendition was good. Only downside with this lens is the minimum focus distance at around 3 feet when not on macro mode.
Used this in an event and was pleased that almost 80% of my shots are sharp
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2011 Location: Genoa Posts: 5
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 16, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | colour rendition, focal range | | Cons: | little aberrations wide open, noisy | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K20, K-7, K-5
| |
My first review
The F 35-135 is a forgotten and quite rare Pentax lens, I love it.
Marvellous colours and tonal rendition
Used several times for model shooting and also walkaround
perfect focal range fot portrait
Cons: Devastating noise of the AF mechanism (similar to that of F 70-210)
a bit of coma and halo wide open
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: Winchester Posts: 2,523
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 31, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Well built, reasonably fast, good AF | | Cons: | Soft/halo wide open, close focus too long for some uses | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
I bought this lens for a particular reason - to take pictures of trains - for this use, the 35mm wide end is wide enough on APS-C and the extra 30mm compared to the 28-105 (Tamron) I had been using is a plus.
Well built lens, pretty good optically once I had applied a bit of AF correction to my K20D. Reasonably fast (1/2 a stop up on the Tamron, which my son has nicked anyway) although this lens is a little lacking in contrast and is a bit soft full open, with halo/comma effects. Stop down 2/3 -1 stop and things are much better. Also use a hood, this helps too.
The long close focussing distance is not a problem for the type of shots I am using it for.
I like this lens a lot, probably a 8.5 for me, but given it an 8 to reflect the slight negatives for others.
Great value for me at £55
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 1,407 | | Review Date: June 12, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp, range, color | | Cons: | slow (f-stop) | |
I sold this lens some time ago, and I still miss it. It's a great outdoor zoom. Some time ago, I went through older images of my daughter and most of the keepers were shot with this lens, even over the DA* 16-50 that I had. Excellent choice if you can live with the f-stop and range.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2010 Location: Gold Coast, QLD Posts: 32 | | Review Date: May 29, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | Nice zoom range (35-135mm), compact even when fully extended and sharp at various apertures | | Cons: | not as good for macro photography as as true macro lens would be | |
Got this with a MZ-6 for $15 secondhand.
Have only used it on Pentax film SLR cameras.
Very good construction-plastic but light and easy to handle. It's quite compact-even extended to 135mm, it's not too long and very easy to focus manually.
Focus ring is a bit different from say, my smc-Pentax A 35-105mm being made of plastic instead of metal with a ribbed non-rubber design.
Quite sharp at apertures like f5.6 or f8, and at maximum aperture of f3.5 is very nice.
It'd not as good for macro photography as as true macro lens would be-quite tricky to get a nice macro shot with it.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2011 Posts: 2
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 15, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Excellent quality, low price, useful range. | | Cons: | Fairly soft at full aperture. | |
This lens does not seem to be very common here in the UK, being very rarely available from dealers. My copy cost £49 in 2010 but without the original caps. I bought it out of curiosity as I already owned an excellent A35-105.
I must say that this little zoom has exceeded all my expectations and is now probably my 2nd most used lens.
As other reviewers have pointed out it is somewhat soft when fully open, but by f5.6 is sharp at all focal lengths producing vibrant, well saturated colours, unlike many older lenses. AF is quick and accurate, the only real disappointment is that the minimum focus distance in normal mode is 5 feet. The "macro" function is usable at 135mm and results are acceptable providing the lens is stopped down.
If you can find one of these at a reasonable price buy it, you will not regret it!
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2010 Location: New York Posts: 1,008
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 12, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | cheap, good build, relative fast focus, good IQ at slow aperture | | Cons: | very poor IQ wide open(soft, halo, PF), long min focus dis | |
This is my third lens. I want longer reach. I find 35-135 is good for outdoor use. Of course it would always be nice if it goes wider. But price would be a matter.
Build is good. Feel solid. Zoom ring and focus ring feel ok.
One reason to choose this lens is the relative fast aperture. But it turns out the photo taking at max aperture is pretty useless. Very soft. Loss contrast. Has pronounced halo and PF. Photo become good at f5.6. By f7.1 it is kind sharp. But nothing spectaculars compare to kit lens. This really tells me how good Pentax kit lens is. Halo also gone stopped a bit. PF do reduced a lot but still present. Overall definitely avoid max aperture. Sign…..
The focus is faster compare to kit lens. I tested on my kx, 0.9s run from min to infinite. Need 1.1s for kit lens. This is good.
Another major annoying is the very long minimal focus distance (about 1.6 m/5 feet). Switch from kit lens to this one, I really can not get used to it, especially indoor where space is limited. Marco at 135mm is just a bit closer focus.
I paid 80 bucks for it. Well, good for beginner like me. Actually it is quite a good out door lens if you stick to aperture slow than f5.6. But if you have money buy better one. | | |
