| Review of: SMC Pentax 55mm F1.8 by MysteryOnion on Tue November 27, 2012 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 312835
Reviews: 77
|
This was a lens that came with a KX body and needed some fungus rescue.
I didn't read anything about this lens and instead, just put it to use and let result speak.
WOW! "Just a 1.8"... No... great at 1.8!
It does all the things the M50/1.4 and seems a bit more stable wide open.
For my taste in Bokeh quality, it is nice.
On the digital, very nice.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C/Super Takumar 28mm F3.5 by MysteryOnion on Fri July 20, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 424980
Reviews: 58
|
I have both the 58mm and 49mm Super-Tak
I've not been able to separate the differences of the two... not actually been looking hard.
Off and on I've used either and find so far that both do a great job. The sharpness and color on both Ektar and some old Kodak Gold 100 look great. The bigger version had one oddness in a sunset and I figure it was more the angle. A slight noticeable ghost did show... forget image, but will add to this review when I dig it up.
The smaller version was very well behaved. In some of the dSLR tests I for testing the condition of the lens when I first got it, I was very surprised the color was very good and compared to a M28/2.8 set to f4 was hard to pick out which lens was which. My simple poor lighting and reading a product label test from 20 feet away and both lenses were about equal with only the color of the M28 being more nicer. So with the slightly differing glass it does well against the more modern version.
I would sum it up as both being very good lenses and that either does well on film. For the digital users, I'm sure the SMC version may be better.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C/Super Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Wed June 27, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 104291
Reviews: 12
|
I did think I would enjoy a fish-eye, but I did.
They are hard to use in any sort of planned sense. I originally want to do a little bit of the get more in side of things, but instead I found myself doing those extreme angle and points of view. Plenty of shot with my shoes or arm inside the shot while I dangle the cameras here and there. The result are that I get more ways to look at a shot and it is quite a joy to have a few that are from left field in composition.
The lens itself was very easy to control for its age. The focus is a little rough near infinity, but overall the focus was easy enough to work and the built in filters were not ignored. I was able to designate one body for the F-E work and so was able to rubberband the cap on to keep track of that vulnerable front glass. This also freed me from having to swap lenses as it was either mounted on a M42 to K or otherwise needed to spin between some of its fellow M42 lenses. I would figure that the 58mm standard lens cap was not the correct issue cap as it was not tightly perched on the front. If one where to acquire this lens, it would be very much worth make sure the felt in the cap is in good shape or the cap will simply fall off with ever bump.
So far the image quality is very nice.
| |
| Review of: PENTAX-110 20-40mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Wed June 27, 2012 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 36358
Reviews: 3
|
I will point out that this was used with Film
It is not a bad lens, but the other more smaller lenses makes this lens not always on the camera. It has good sharpness, but I must say that the cam inside is not always accurate and the very shallow rim for the front make this lens very prone to glare and loss of sharpness. So compared to the smaller prime lenses, the contrast is a little loose and it is at best a quick snap shot lens.
It still is a nice lens when you want more flexible and now a days you can cook in some contrast via post-processing. Consider getting an appropriate hood for it and be sure while zooming that you check your focus carefully.
| |
| Review of: PENTAX-110 18mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Wed June 27, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 58322
Reviews: 10
|
On film I will point out.
Kodak or Fuji. The lens has delivered very good images. Recently I've purchased the Lomography 110 b&w film and it is very good. So far is that this lens does will to put image to emulsion and the flare and contrast quality is very big lens in performance. No surprises in any way and I'll let you know if I cut Ektar down to 16mm how it all works out.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 35mm F2 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 16, 2011 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 170154
Reviews: 21
|
Received this as a gift and quickly, off I went to putting it to good use.
On the dSLR it is an easy favorite as it is much like a normal lens angle of view. The f2 makes it a more fast lens for indoors.
The film camera shot all look super!
Colors are no surprise and contrary to some reports out there, nope...lower contrast issues are not noticeable... or that I could tell. I suppose if I could compare with the S-M-C (K) or M42 SMCTakumar version 35mm/f2 that I can see that this is a bit lower in contrast? I think that the overall color is plenty contrasty and the sharpness is solid as you would want from f4 and up... however, wide open has been surprisingly good as well. It could be that some reports of low contrast might be from the need of a hood.
UPDATE: Had a quick chance to compare the M35mm/f2 with a M42-35mm/f2... thanks Mike. The sharpness is a tad better on the M42 version when wide open, but is so close to the M35/2 otherwise. I would agree that the M35/2 is slightly edged out by the M42 35/2 overall, but the bayonet equipped lens is too handy on a digits to quibble about the slight differences.
| |
| Review of: Pentax Adapter K for 6x7 Lens (6x7 to K Mount) by MysteryOnion on Wed December 7, 2011 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 33325
Reviews: 5
|
I originally wanted to mount my 300mm on a K body, but I soon realized that I was also gaining the sharpness towards the center in the processes for any 6x7 lens. This works out even better when I need to photograph indoors with dSLR in poor lighting and prefer low ISO for maximum resolution or just the option to have max aperture and still have edge to edge or corner to corner goodness to work with. I've had people say a good digital lens will do the job, but to have a sweet spot that is 3/5 or 1/3 of the frame is usually achieved at f5.6 or smaller. My 105mm will give mostly the entire frame area on a APS-C a maximum resolution and at f2.4 or a modest cost of f2.8 to push it. Yes, this has been an amazing tool to reach for in quite a few assignments. I suppose some of those third-party version will be as good and with a tripod socket, but I will say that I'm comfortable just bean-bagging for now and knowing this is factory perfect fit to my collection of gear.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 45mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Wed December 7, 2011 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 117205
Reviews: 19
|
I like this lens a lot from only the first roll processed. My copy of the lens is indeed in good shape... mostly. I have a question about the sharpness in only a little area of about the last third of the field and it may be user error. The issue is at full open-f4 to f5.6 in medium shadow conditions on 100 iso film from a distance of around 18 feet. Now at f8 there is not a question of excellent sharpness. So, only the wider was a little concern as I've noticed the outer third was ever so slightly less impressive. I didn't recall any mention from others that the slight curvature or distortion would cause this, so I might have to do a careful inspect of the lens for a loose element... as quite a few of my lenses seem to suffer this... but truth be told, tiny knit-pick here since the bulk of the images are superb.
Overall, this lens performed very well indoors and outdoors. Flare control, I agree, very well behaved. The sharpness is mostly outstanding with so much right in front that you will have almost not complaints. This is at times these days a pricey lens for the budget shooters and the two version 55mm f4 might be a better choice as they are nice and wide much as a 28mm in 135 format, but the little extra wide was handy for the group shots although some indoor lighting conditions made it a slow lens to dial in.
Update: No physical issues found. I'll go with sticking to 5.6 and greater.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 85mm F2 by MysteryOnion on Mon August 29, 2011 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 254512
Reviews: 47
|
This is a great lens and has shown to be very sharp so far... no I'm not sentimental about M-series lenses... This lens works. I've not given it a try in low light, wide-open yet, but can see from others that it is going to be great.
The sharpness and contrast at F4 was superb... no surprise.
Great lens, but make sure you get a hood for it since the front element is so close to the outside world and the excellent SMC is not glare proof.
UPDATE: Wide Open test in progress. Four lighting conditions: Day front/back light and Indoors front/back light.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C/Super/Auto Takumar 35mm F3.5 by MysteryOnion on Tue February 1, 2011 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 395351
Reviews: 75
|
I got it cheap.
On a film camera the lens is crisp and contrasty. The edge sharpness in my version seems a little soft when wide open, but hard to notice really. When shot with Ektar or Portra it is wonderful.
On my K20D it seems to be a sharp lens and for a Super-Takumar, it is a very well behaved lens in bright light. Some expected contrast loss was evident in a bright side lights and thanks to its good contrast, it is hard to see right away. The issue with glare was easy to control enough by using a hand to shield and then the slight loss cleared up. So a side to side test against my DA 16-45mm set at 35mm@f4 and the images looked sharper and cleaner with the Sup-Tak 35mm@f4. At 5.6, things start to get even better. I am very happy with this lens so far.
The film test also yielded super results![/FONT]
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 28mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Sun January 2, 2011 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 498746
Reviews: 93
|
I thought I wrote a review prior, but it seem to be gone... so here goes again.
This lens has been in my collection for a long time and has been used seldom, it was because it had a odd sharpness problem. Sometimes the image was great and sometime the very next frame it was not. Only recently about five years ago did I figure out what it could be. The inner barrel has considerable play and when the auto-diaphragm is pushed, the entire lens group jumps just a bit. I've since dampened it with my finger and suddenly (insert angels song here), the lens is always sharp! Sure it is still a little mushy around the edges wide-open, but I get predictable results with this lens now. I figure for the record that I may have the first version.
On a digital APS-C it is easy and sharp. Much like a 43mm lens the edge issues are gone and I've found the lens very nice even wide.
Update: I took the lens completely apart and seated the front group properly. Problems with the wiggle seems to be solved. As well as newer issues with aperture blades being slow.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 75mm F4.5 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 31, 2010 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 95863
Reviews: 12
|
I found and purchased the fluted older version, a good condition specimen very few scratches on the body and the glass looked as though the previous owner took super good care of the glass. I think this added to the excitement as you could tell by the price I snagged it from the start. A twist and I was looking at the lens I was trying to get for about a year!
First impressions: Yep, thats a f4.5... slightly dim. First test was through the P6x7 to K adapter with a K20D and I will say first off that the lens is sharper than the camera. Where lines turn to interpolation and that is at about 65-70 lpmm. So when I get around to doing the film, I'll add the info... looking forward to seeing how super on TMax100
Quick look from an APS-C point of view of a skyline and foreground.
So far this is a well worth it lens and wish I snagged one a year ago.
Normal Frame
Update: Aug-12-2011
Very sharp film performance so far, but since the original writing, the lens received an abrasion to the front due to a faulty lens cap and no filter at the time. This left a small 1.2mm dot almost center on the element and of course, this will not show up on the final image... I know because I looked using a fine dot pattern looking for signs of degrading of the image at center. OCD of me... yes, but then I thought it would be fun to try and find any fault. The target was a laserjet printed checker pattern at 11x17 about 15 feet away.
Update: 2012 and multiple use... Very wonderful lens! Colors are excellent and the sharpness is there. It is the second favorite lens after 105mm. On Ektar and Portra 160 it is superb. A group shot was so good that I could make out eye lashes with no problems.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-A 28-80mm F3.5-4.5 by MysteryOnion on Mon December 13, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 137068
Reviews: 7
|
This is not a bad lens thanks to the fact it is a SMC version... compared to the non-SMC I also own.
Right off to say I've gotten about 48-55 lpmm neighbourhood of average sharpness at f6.3 to f11 and with the addition of a hood seemed to be the biggest improvement, add another 7 to 12 lpmm is my guess at the chart. Real world is that the center sharpness is acceptable, but the edges do drop off a little. I've used it for walking around and it was great for that, but I was still swapping it for primes. It has been on two different vacations now and has been a decent lens. The wide angle hood accommodates the 28mm side some, but the 80mm end of things still needing my hand position over the front to block the glare? To bad the the front spins when focused or I could have fitted it with a petal hood instead and this again is the SMC version.
Update: Some more vacation picture processed and since I didn't mark the shots, I can't distinguish prime from zoom shots. Given that I was using in daylight or bright and with an average of f8, only under the microscope can I see the difference on the negatives... scanned images are not informative... chemical prints would be better. So I would say that generally... not a bad lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6x7 135mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Mon December 13, 2010 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 96626
Reviews: 11
|
I've only used it a few time now and was pleased with the results. It was nice to use a few time and the colors were very good. I experimented with the extension tubes, but didn't have the rules down for the compensating so... ok results. Pity they could not have engineered a dual helicoid to really give some reach to this thing.
| |
| Review of: S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 6x7 200mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Mon November 22, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 46470
Reviews: 8
|
This is a sharp lens and I've had very good results from it. The common complaint is the close focus being not all that close. That is more a minor point for me and I am more out to 8-15 feet for many shots so far, so I've not had the frustration as some do. I found this focal length to still allow me to get away with handheld shots and though the f4 is not fast, it is still sharp enough (bright indoors). This is a very good lens so far and I hope I don't find too many negatives along the way.
Update: Well found a point where I'll agree. Small nephew... couldn't quite manage the right framing for a portrait... yes, not close enough. Lucky thing I had my extension tubes to play with and he was willing to stand there.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-6x7 55mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Sun November 21, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 40458
Reviews: 5
|
I'm sure the latest version '67' is even more sharper, but that would be about... what... around 11 to 14 lpmm more out of 87-91 lpmm or a max of only 16"x 20" instead of 20"x24"? You can't go too wrong with this version and I might someday borrow a 67 to do a head to head test, but I'm happy enough with this version. Other shots I've made with this lens all had good sharpness, edge performance always very good and flare control was always excellent good when a hood was added. So if you are needing a steady performer on the wide side of things... this is a great one to start with or stay with.
Personal cheer for this lens...
I made a full color cover shot with it in my church's special holiday edition bulletin.
The image was very sharp and clear. People thinking digital had thought it was some pro digital camera with lots of megapix and was well cooked in photoshop or something... nope! I've explained that it was straight film and scanned straight with best resolution. The original shot had all the color contrast and the edge sharpness right there and no need to cook it in anything.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Sun November 21, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 101559
Reviews: 16
|
I like this lens. It pulls up shots I thought wouldn't have worked out. I tend to shoot in low light, hand-held, wide-open and sometimes back-lit. Out of a dozen or so times I put this lens on for color shots, I had two images with a degree of loss in contrast due to side lights getting in, but still I got a usable image. In dozens of black & white images it was easy to use with no signs of problems. Kodak Ektar looked good as well as a few rolls of Portra 160NC looked equally good. I think that this is a little more prone to flare issues and the built-in hood is only half adequate. Otherwise... "I like this lens"!
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar / Super Takumar 6x7 300mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Sun November 21, 2010 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 68727
Reviews: 11
|
First of all... Ghees...This is a big-heavy lens... to hand hold!!!
So, secondly, got this lens cheap. Although it gives a little closer reach than my 200 f/4 as well as the effect of the narrow DOF looking nice, you'll have to put this lens on two tripods or beanbag or something to get it to hold still for slow shutter speeds as sort of mention above. When I have extension tubes I can get crazy close, but without it is going to be about 16ish feet as the closest.
So far, I'm not getting the wow yet for this lens. Other lenses will do the same and better. As an example, I found that for closer or portrait range subjects I was better off with a 200mm or 165mm. Running extension is a concern as well due to the greater length and need to steady everything causing concerns for the strength of the pod socket as well as the lens mount strength and vibration concerns when compensations are needed in the exposure for the increase in distance of the glass to film.
[S]So why did I get this? ...Unfortunately...The price. Dirt cheap and the description was that it "...was mounted to a helicopter..." I figured a bargain, [/S]however, that kind of use would explained the discovery of infinity being way off. Post adjustments and cleaning, this lens looked to be capable of delivering images again and it did... for a little while. Not ultra sharp as others lenses in my collection and maybe I was expecting too much. The lens was more manageable when braced in a makeshift 'Y' bracket for the long distance tests and while set to f8 and f11 delivered reasonable sharpness. However, to achieve the few shots did require some dancing around and thus the question is... is this all worth it? Honestly, I might lean to the side of NO. I personally would reach for a lighter and shorter lens like my 200mm or if I had the 300mm ED version or go up to 400mm if available or take a walk closer. It is true I've really not explored this lens fully, but the lack of a pod foot and the need to stopdown for optimum sharpness... in the neighborhood of f8 or f11, the heaviness... it all puts the brakes on "fun" potentials for me. Don't let me spoil your fun... this lens is still well regarded in astronomy circles. If you pump iron then all my whining about the heft is just me needing to go to the gym. If you have a helicopter you are even further from my complaints. Just don't over pay for this lens... some out there ask for over 600 or even 899... really! Hey, if I put mine up for sale, I think 250 is more better since it is CLA'd.... actually I'm going to definitely keep it.
UPDATE: Oh, a corrected to the score from 6 to 7 due to the review of the tests images again...corrected score again...8 I may go higher if the test come back good (see below)
12-03-2010 Update: I just discovered that some of the images that were lower in sharpness could be due to a loose lens retainer in the front group. It will vary the focus by 3 to 100 feet depending on distance to subject and depending on how much shaking goes on. So maybe the lens is sharper than it currently seems. I'm going to need a huge spanner to open the front group.
12-23-2010 Update: I have finally pried the lens group open,without damage, and confirmed the loose retainer. The second element was indeed loose and tilted as well as it took two and a half turns on the retainer to secure it. The infinity was way off (Infinity was at about shy of 300 feet). Now the sharpness seems to have improved. I've started retested and will see where this lens is now.
12-24-2010 Update: Not done with film, but the test on the digital does show more even sharpness at the center now, post repair. The CA is noticeable still, but the sharpness is far to good to ignore... wide open. The film will verify how the edges or the remaining 75% of the focus area has improved post repair.
07-18-2011 Update: Stunning image from the Ektar 100.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 105mm F2.4 by MysteryOnion on Sun December 13, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 174532
Reviews: 26
|
This is a great lens! I have a habit of shooting wide open with many of my lenses and in 6x7 the 105 is most often used. There is some vignetting at the corners as to be expected, but the center stays very usably sharp. I also find that the mood from this effect complements the overall image... see this all the time with square format and hear little complaints. When I actually go past f4 towards f8, this lens is just plain super sharp.
Working with the lens as a everyday street shooter lens has been great even when my photographic skill isn't as sharp. I'm more a normal lens user so the FOV is just about right. The 105 has delivered amazing sharpness for me so far and no flare or harsh CA problems noted yet. On vacation and with a combo of the matching hood and a focus grip with the hood handle, I had a very comfortable time of lugging the camera around and with the one lens on all the time. I've since acquired a more proper bag (Tamrac Velocity 8X) and started to carry additional lenses, but he 105 is always the main lens.
I've heard that some prefer the 90mm over the 105 due to the smaller size and weight. I find the length of this lens seems just right to give my hand-held shots, just a little more stability.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4 by MysteryOnion on Sat March 28, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 462265
Reviews: 120
|
My few months of use and two first real photographing assignments has increased my confidence that this is a very good lens. I've been shooting mainly in very bad lighting conditions, lens wide-open and tricky angles with most shots still being very usable. At 16mm it would obviously be a little soft, but at a glance most folks didn't notice right away. From about 20mm was fairly consistent and above that I've not had too much to complain about. So optically, it is quite the performer.
On another note... the front barrel that extends out to allow focusing... it is a little bit of a concern and on occasion when the barrel is fast twisted from 45mm to 16mm then soon after I press the shutter, it will sometimes dip down a bit due to the play that it has. This is only while the shot is in progress at 40th or slower. Out of 160 shots this might occur 4 or 5 times. I've not heard that this is a problem from other examples, so I think I might have a quirky copy. When I remember to brace it with a finger, I can avoid this on a critical shots (slow speed and with SR - on).
Just a good lens to have as my kit lens.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 Limited by MysteryOnion on Sat March 28, 2009 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 383661
Reviews: 96
|
It has been handy to have and I like the results so far. The side by side comparing against my DA 16-45mm set to 21mm was given almost identical levels of performance, but at times I detect a slight edge from the 21mm. The place where the lens shine is in the daily use area. It gives a nice shoot from the hip FOV and the 3.2 is a little more wiggle room and as well as easy pouch carry. Focus is a little better in low light. Stopped down to around 5.6 it is very solidly sharp, but very nice wide too. Wish I could have found it a little cheaper, but don't regret getting it.
| |
| Review of: Takumar-A 28-80mm F3.5-4.5 by MysteryOnion on Fri January 4, 2008 | Rating: 2 | View more reviews | |
Views: 90678
Reviews: 21
|
I've used it and based on my findings, I will admit that light does pass through the glass inside it's housing, so I can't be too harsh. The aperture seems to act funny in my example when changing from 28 to higher it would slowly move the aperture. As noted by the previous review the front most element is easily damaged if not careful. My used example has scratches the produce a nice flare effect so yet another reason not to give a 1 rating. Its coating is almost as simple as a lens from the 50s and the chromatic-abrasion is very noticeable under bright conditions greater than dawn or dusk. If you like auras and mood rings then this is the lens for you...macro...more like an extended short focus. The short throw of the focus might be that they reserved the last bit of the turn for the macro mode. All seriousness aside, the lens will provide pictures and if you are a good photographer you can get super results with this lens if you keep it in your forgotten photo gear bin at home.
Update: The addition of an adjustable hood helps, but the non-smc glass is at time still unforgiving... at least in my version.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.4 by MysteryOnion on Fri January 4, 2008 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 659839
Reviews: 113
|
I like it and use it a lot. Sharp for mostly all of my pictures and it delivers nice enough details wide open too. You can't go wrong with this lens and ignore the talk of poor performance unless you stop-down to f5.6. This lens is my Swiss army lens and normally I set it to f2.8, but when the light is low and I want the image, that 1.4 is handy. When I first tried to test the lens, I was getting numbers from 36lpmm all the way to 74lpmm at f2.8. I've tried to test it with Ultracolor 100. Tech-Pan and T-Max and tried different light and indoor and outdoors. Well, I gave up then... just didn't know which was the right method at the time. I am just happy that the lens always produces great shots.
Note: Please take the lpmm numbers with a grain of salt. I've been consulting sources and it looks like my test target scale is throwing off my figures... might be higher around 42 to 79 lpmm.
| |
| Review of: SMC/S-M-C/Super Takumar 50mm F1.4 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 14, 2007 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 935990
Reviews: 111
|
Super-Takumar:
An auction house special and later, a project to remove fungus and a yellow hue too... Thorium yellow. Ultraviolet bath and full disassembled CLA later, it is now a tremendous lens!
[S]I've not had a chance to run a lens test yet, but who needs to. [/S] It seems it is a few notches better than my smc-M 50mm 1.4. Must get at least one for your collection.
-Update: I've had quite a super bunch of super sharp prints. I'm now running it on a K20D and the first few tests were amazing! Bokeh-o-matic!
On the net will be comparison of 7 element vs. 8 element and SMC vs Super-Takumar, but I'll just keep it to what I have... a great lens that does not disappoint.
The performance has been mostly excellent and only some low marks in the bright lighting conditions when used without a hood.
As a film lens, a wonderful contrasty and color rich lens and for a Super-Tak version it is quite good indeed.
As a digital lens, it has been wonderful as well in its short tele/portrait mode. Matched with a proper hood, it has not misbehaved in bright daylight situations.
UPDATE: Over five years since the fungus removal and no signs of the return.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 80-200mm F4.5 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 14, 2007 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 221184
Reviews: 35
|
I should say that it seems I have the version 1 as told by the knurled grip at the 200mm line.
Generally performance, sharpness and colors is not too mushy when lens is wide open and much better when the lens is at 5.6 and higher f-stops. When I first purchase this lens 20ish years ago, I never seriously taken the time to test the lens or use it and mainly it was a utility lens for sports or events. Sadly, after only three years of use the lens jammed and leaving it zoom action stiff in the middle. Also as a minor note, the white plastic bump had fallen off which was a bummer too. The lens spent fifteen years in "the bin of forgotten camera gear".
New Digital Life: After getting the K20D a little while back. I decided to dust off old lenses and try them out with the K20D. I always loved my prime lenses, but I pulled out all the flavors I had. After digging up the 80-200 from the bin and cleaning up the cams and pull and odd piece of metal out, I was quite pleased with the results it delivered with the digital. At 80mm it does very well as a long portrait lens and it looks fine at the corners thanks to the APS-C format.
A quirky something: At 80mm getting there from middle, the lens gives a fine rubbing sound and a loss of sharpness... might be the issues with the cam... and the middle about 140-150 the cam does its job keeping things focused and drifting a little around a few inches or so at 15-20 feet if pulling the zoom towards 200.
Peeping: I looked closely at the fine details that it could pick up at 10 feet with printed letters as targets and scenes at about 100 feet of windows and brick and tried some other lenses at about the same focal lengths. It held up well against them and in a few head to head comparisons, it was hard tell the difference. So not bad, not bad at all... it just doesn't look like an M lens without the white plastic pimple though. I'll have to counterfeit one up some how.
A quick lpmm: My very-less than lab perfect method and using the digital I got at f5.6 a 56-ish lpmm score in the 100mm area. Seems a little better at f8 at 61 lpmm? Really hard to tell with those pixels in the way.
Note: Please take the lpmm numbers with a grain of salt. I've been consulting sources and it looks like my test target's scale is throwing off my figures. I'll have to retested the this one at some later date.
The final word really is... I think indoors that the lens is comfortable to use in good light. In poor light is a bit of a challenge to use, but it holds up well wide open. Outdoors, is easy to use as F5.6 to F11 I've not found issues with color or sharpness nor noticed CA issues much.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 100mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 14, 2007 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 273321
Reviews: 58
|
Its a good lens and the weight is comfortable as M series tend to be light, but feels well built.
A little test I ran back in 2002ish, but my choice of film made things less than clear so with a grain...
My little test rated the lens at about 74lpmm average @f4 and 81lpmm @f5.6 and 84lpmm @f8, is that good? My test is less than scientific lab perfect and the test lighting was not great, but the lens to my eyes is superb. Had the lens since 1999 with matching hood and case. Not found my test results for wide open, but regular use shots seem very good.
Also worth noting... GET A HOOD FOR YOUR LENS! I found a 8 to 14 lpmm jump in some tests due to glare being controlled. SMC is great, but not absolutely perfect.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 14, 2007 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 218239
Reviews: 42
| LpMM nit-pick... nonsense: The test I ran long ago scored about 46lpmm at average in f4. The corners only 37lpmm and the high of 48lpmm... What does that mean? Nothing in real life.... the lens seems to do well enough and sure, not a stellar lens, it still get the job done.
Rear element Issues:
The original test was on my pre-repaired lens. Soon after the lens test it developed a de-lamination problem and grew from the sides in on the rear lens group.
Post repair:
I started to use it again and with newer emulsions as well a the digital (K20D) and found that the pictures were much better than I recalled. The cement was a recommended type for lenses and claimed not to change the dynamics of the lens to any degree that could be noticed. On the plus sides I'll disagree!
Originally a so-so score, I've found it seemingly a bit more higher.
The center was about 55-56 and the corner on a full-frame is 39-45lpmm, this is from the Ektar and TMax film in the test... sorry, no Tech-Pan.
On a APS-C format, the test is a little tricky to compute for results, but the numbers are similar at center... 52-55 lpmm and the corners 49-52. Using film style test on a digital is difficult to do and I don't have the standard digital targets so take this with a grain of salt.
(compared to: M50/1.4 @ f2.8 and a top score of 61-64lmpp @center / 52-54 @ corner)
And now, what does these numbers mean? ...nothing... It still is a nice lens for its size.
Wide open the lens is good for most applications and still is a bit mushy, at f4.0 the lens is as good as many lenses, at f8 it is harder to tell one from another lens in sharpness. I tested at up to f8 and it seems to hugged near the acceptable results and it seems that f11 to f22 your getting less contrast.
What is really important in all?
Post repair, a better utility lens than one would think.
Original form with no de-lamination problems, it is a good value due to the size. A slip into the rain coat or any medium large pocket or narrow bag.
Colors are very good and the glare resistance is very good in more general situations, but you should shade in high brightness situations.
The one big gripe is the weak rubber grip. One thin strip of rubber prone to damage and near impossible to replace with the same. A nice suggestion of using an equivalent size rubber O-ring.
The DA 40mm is a sort of successor, but only in the APS-C format... not had the chance to test it.
Summing it up:
Reality is that most versions out there will not have a major optical repair applied to it. So the thing to remember is that this lens is mostly a small handy lens and it is a super match to any of the M-Series film bodies when small is what you need. Remembering that it functions much like a "Snap-Shot" lens, I'll forgive the short comings because its the compact size that I am happy about. Similar or smallish might be a M28 or M30, but the M40 fits in my pocket... jacket pocket.
| |
| Review of: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 by MysteryOnion on Fri December 14, 2007 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 372837
Reviews: 71
|
Lens Story:
Got it for a song 20+ years ago used. ;)The shop claimed it was not a great a lens as the then more familiar Takumar Super-Multi-Coated 135mm/2.5... yes, I know they were the same lenses. It sat in the camera shop ignored because it had its front element replaced, but I liked the weight and got it for $97 and fella even threw in a junky lens case for it and shutter cable if I would buy it. After a few shots of distant scenics that didn't come out so well, it was banished to my "Bin Of Forgotten Gear" for almost ten years. One day while sorting the stuff from my BOFG, I found the 135mm was not zeroed correctly post replacement. I thought about this lens coming back to use and so I opening it up to fix it. After successfully resetting the infinity and cleaning and tightening the inner optics, it was suddenly a much better lens than I ever remembered. In fact a super lens in deed!
Review:
The first thing to notice is the excellent colors that come out of this lens, even wide open. Much of the center is very usable in the wide open state and sure, it sharpens up more in the f4 and beyond. There is some chromatic aberrations in some lighting conditions and at f2.5 and f4, but the overall performance of the lens will usually make it hard to see.
From f2.5 / wide open, a tiny bit soft, but sharp enough and with some obvious chromatic aberrations.
From f4.0 it is very good. You'll still see some fine C/A effects in high contrast conditions.
From f5.6 it gets even better... less to no C/A.
Pentax MX - Kodak Ultracolor 100 125th @ f5.6 overcast day. Hand over lens to shield some glare.
So fixing the focus has turned it back to a real performer! If you pick one up and it is not sharp, check to see if the focus is off or a loose inner element from the front group (give it a gentle shake), because this lens should deliver!
Also, get a hood for it! I've done some tests and that front glass is just out in the open... a opted for the old Takumar all metal hood and a matching metal cap. It fits real nice together in the stored position and is always handy.
| |
