Site Supporter Registered: December, 2011 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 61
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 5, 2018 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Very light, reasonably sharp center, bokeh not bad | | Cons: | Minimum focusing distance, slow aperture, zoom creep | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 7
Camera Used: K-1
| |
Bought this new from Black’s Photo in 1996. It is actually f/4-5.6. Online consensus, from limited posts, is that this is Black’s house brand and is a rebadged Tokina. It is made in Japan. Used on Pentax SF1n on trek in Nepal, back in the day, and was happy with the results. I did use it a little on my K-5, but got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for my African trips. So, I am comparing this to a pretty darn good lens. Quite frankly, I don’t recall what I paid for this lens.
There’s more plastic on the Magnicon, and it has some zoom creep. It’s slower than the Sigma (and other modern 70-200’s), but, it is a LOT lighter. It’s also much more compact. The variable aperture also helps with weight. I tried some indoor shots handheld down to 1/30, and got decent results. No way I could do that with the heavier Sigma. It does not have a hood, and I didn’t take shots to check for flare.
Focus is screw drive, and pretty quick on my K-1. Minimum focusing distance is about 5 ft., even in “macro”. It is, of course, a bit noisy. Focus seemed accurate, and the camera locked on fast with this lens.
Tried to judge sharpness with a few indoor shots, all wide open, and I thought it was pretty good, for what the lens is. Take that with a grain of salt, I’m probably a very sub-average lens-grader. Should be a bit sharper at higher apertures, but no way would that work in normal indoor lighting.
Bottom line, this is light and handles well. Seems typical of consumer lens construction from the 90’s. Reasonably sharp, and with screw-drive autofocus.
Bokeh can be fairly smooth, but tree branches against a bright sky are busy in some of my old K-5 shots. Obviously, the depth of field is not as shallow as the Sigma wide-open.
I rated this a 7, based on value. There’s one on an auction site now (not mine) priced 19.99. Probably a reasonable price. Might be worth a try, given that the Sigma 70-200 (a vastly superior lens) is $8-900 on the same site. It’s probably 70% (warning: number pulled out of the air) of that lens, at 2.5% of the price. I wouldn’t use it for an important event, but I’m keeping mine for more casual walk around photography, especially as it probably isn’t worth much.
That's a pretty in-depth review, I guess, for a cheap old lens.
| |
