| Author: | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: January, 2008 Location: Paris, TN Posts: 3,350
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 1, 2010 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | small, light, great value | | Cons: | mid-1980s plastic build | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| |
This lens is a direct replacement for the Model 22A . As much as I appreciate the build quality of the older lenses, this newer version has it beat in every way. Physically, it’s smaller, lighter and uses smaller filters. Optically it’s been reported to have better contrast and sharpness at all f-stops and focal lengths.
One operational difference, where the 22A was continuous focus into the 1:4 macro range at 135mm, this one does 1:4 macro at 35mm with the same minimum distance of 31.5” (0.8 M) using a macro switch on the lens. Focusing and zoom are buttery smooth.
This is another of the economy zooms produced in the mid 1980s to compete in the market against the new auto focus consumer bodies and lenses. The compromises were in the use of more economical mechanical assemblies and the use of molded rather than machined parts. In my experience, the optical qualities of this lens could well be considered SP-quality. Compared to an FA 28-105/4.0-5.6 (Tamron design) or the Tamron SP AF 24-135 (190A) I prefer this lens for crisp, saturated color and general sharpness in normal outdoor use.
In a choice between the two, I ultimately kept this lens over the convenience of the much larger, auto focus 190A. In many respects, I feel it gives results similar to the Pentax 105/2.8, 135/3.5 and 200/4 at the long end.
If you already have a PK/A adapter, or want to invest $20 in a PK version, the $20-30 you’ll pay for this on eBay is a real bargain and if you can forgo auto focus for a day this one will delight you in the field as a poor man’s DA* 55-135. I compare mine with the acclaimed SP 35-80 (01A) and find little practical difference at one fourth the going price.
I'm giving this a 9-rating to reflect it's excellent value at the going eBay prices as well as it's image quality potential.
It pairs very well with the AD-2 28-70 (40A) and with a 25mm extension ring these two lenses make a very versatile outdoor/nature kit that can be put together for less than $60 today.
H2
 | | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Posts: 18,076
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 6, 2012 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp-ish, lighter, smaller size & filter diameter, value | | Cons: | Rotating front element, quasi-plastic feel | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
Bonjour,
Based upon pacerr's review (above), this lens went to the short-list for a future acquisition ... and lucky me, I found one last weekend at the Montamisé photo expo/swap meet event. I paid only 10 € ( approx. $ 14.00 ) for this lens ... with the original front cap and an OL mount & rear cap! Given this price is extremely low, I have not put it into the database info.
My copy is in good condition except for a very minor scratch on the front element and some dings on the exterior of the filter ring area ... this lens has is some duty. I have attached photos of it with its predecessor version, the 22A which I had first and reviewed here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-adaptall-2-35-135mm-f-3-5-4-2-22a.html
As for the performance of this lens, pacerr said about everything and I cannot add too much. The 40A is lighter and smaller in many ways, and the IQ seems to be slightly better given my impressions of the first test shots. The 22A is better if you want a "macro" (only 1:4) or close focus capacity that gives you a greater working distance from your subject (about 0.8m). If you want to capture photos of butterflies, bugs and bees, then I would not suggest the 40A ... IMHO, you'll be too close (0.28m) given the "macro" is at 35mm.
Here's the link for the 40A on the "adaptall-2.org" site - http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/40A.html
Hope that this helps ... both are good lens. your choice may depend upon your needs, etc.
Allez & bon courage, John le Frog
A22 (left) & A40 (right)
A22 (left) & A40 (right)
Maximum extension - A22 (left) & A40 (right)
Maximum "macro" extension - A22 (left) & A40 (right)
Sample 40A "macro"
A40 "macro" test shot
A22 - "macro" test shot ...
 | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 17
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 29, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good images, good handling, across full zoom range | | Cons: | If you can find a use for the macro mode, let me know ... | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Samsung GX20, Pentax K-x
| |
I own two copies of this. One cost 12.50 euros with no caps and a Tamron Adaptall C-mount (useless to me), the other £17, including a PK mount, caps, case, instructions and the retail box. The price shown above is the average of the two.
This second one (actually, the first I acquired) had a modicum of fungus on the second element from the front. The front element comes out easily, and I cleaned the fungus off, but after a year or so it's growing back  .
But apart from this minor issue, both copies look like new, and both are spectacular performers. Nice, rich colours (though not as rich as the Pentax PowerZoom 28-105mm f4-5.6) quite sharp wide open, very sharp stopped down to f.8, good sharpness and contrast across the whole frame, across the entire zoom range, near and far. Whilst not as good as the prime CZJ 135mm f3.5 at 135mm, the comparison doesn't embarrass the 40A.
Good unobtrusive bokeh, and I don't notice fringing or aberrations generally.
The 40A takes wallet-friendly 58mm filters.
It balances nicely on my cameras.
I use a screw-in petal hood, and find the 40A to be much less affected by flare than my 01A.
For walking around town, the zoom range isn't that convenient; I often want to go wider than 35mm, whilst I seldom want to go as long as 135mm. But for a walk in the country or a day at the beach it is excellent. Even my old eyes can focus it accurately when it is bright and sunny!
Any drawbacks?
Well, the macro mode engages at the 35mm rather than the 135mm end, so you're almost touching the target, and the macro image quality doesn't stand comparison with what the lens ordinarily achieves.
And obviously there's no autofocus or automatic image stabilisation communication to the camera body, which certainly at the beach is a drawback.
But I would be very upset if the beach killed my PowerZoom 28-105; at the prices these go for, there's no reason not to have a spare!
A worthy 9, I think.
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2018 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 15, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, compact, inexpensive, built | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Nikon D600
| |
Not sure If this lens has a particular feeling with Nikon D600, but after buying a copy in near mint state, still with user manual, and attached it to my camera, i am astonished by how good this lens perform!, Has nothing short of the tamron SP 90mm 2.5, or the excellent adaptall 35-80mm for sharpness, across all zoom range and at any aperture!
The colors are superb, very rich but not faky, the IQ ia very appealing, with a well balanced distribution of the light. Zoom and focussing is a breeze, and even switching to macro mode is not a problem.
I must say i really love it so far (just took a few sample shots), the lens also feel weel balanced on my camera, completing it with its weight and size.
Got a feeling that its gonna stay on it for long time
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2016 Location: West coast Posts: 25
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 11, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very sharp with a usefull range | | Cons: | Outdoor CA / Purple fringing | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: k-50
| |
I own three copies of this lens and one came wit a PKA adapter. The only downside of it is the amount of CA I was getting outdoors even with a big metal hood. It delivers much nicer pictures than its 28-135 SP 28A counterpart that must derive its SP label from the added range only and which is softer at all focal lengths. So, I would still be using it if it weren't for 35-210 26A that delivers a yet more useful range and superb picture quality.
Works real great indoors !
 | | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2013 Posts: 14 | | Review Date: September 14, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | very sharp lens | | Cons: | some few CAs in the corners wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: pentax k-5 k-x k200 k-s1 Fuji x-t100 x-e1
| |
Very fine lens
The 40A lens is a nice vintage lens of TAMRON predestinated to adapter use.
I've got enough vintage private lenses for school. Therefore I've given it to my son, today - sad owner of a SONY a 7 III - excellent camera with a big disadvantage / problem: the lenses. Even the very expensive lenses suffer of many strong CAs in the corners - and the high prices. (plastic or press glass elements therein? Most original and 3rd party lenses have the same CA problem in RAW) Because of the high prices a growing number of photographers use PENTAX vintage lenses with converter, too. It's estonishing.
++ excellent sharpness (75 LP/mm = 150 lines)
++ fine color rendition
+ stopped down to f 8 corner CAs scarecely visible 
++/+ good contrast
8.5 points from me  | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2022 Posts: 2 | | Review Date: February 16, 2023 | Not Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharp, ok focuse-peaking, x5 zoom, good contrast | | Cons: | Boring bokeh, no CF to macro, | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 4
Value: 7
Camera Used: Fujifilm XT30
| |
I had 3 lenses on my disposal, 17a 35-70, 01a 35-80 and this one 40a 35-135
I really think this lens is a bit overrated here.
Yeah it creates good picture throughout the focal range in terms of sharpness and contrast, not much of a CA too, so can be perfectly fine as a travel zoom or whatever.
Here SOOC images wide open
35mm
80mm
135mm
The downside it is not an art lens by any means, bokeh is okay, not distractive but kinda dull zoom bokeh.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/photo-40a-bokeh-135mm-61921/
Macro function is really a downgrade from the CF lenses like 17a or 01a, you can`t just turn the focal ring to get that macro shot.
Macro itself looks softer than from a17, about the same with 01a`s performance, so not a good introduction to a macro world either.
Also, it is a push-pull one so creeps out of position sometimes. Handling is not so great at all compare to 17a of 01a, sure they are x2 zooms, so less optical compromises to get that focal range, smaller and lighter than this one.
Overall i found this lens closer to modern zooms that do it ok, but it haven't inspired me at all as did 01a with its bokeh or 17a that i actually kept as an awesome compromise.
The cost is also overrated, ti costs x2 the 17a, you can get yourself a 17a for macro and everyday usage and say Jupiter 37a or Zeiss 135 3.5 for a cool bokeh and brighter. It will also keep the same weight of the kit. I bought this lens mostly for the try looking at the reviews here, and i can definitely say it is overrated to my taste. Having 01a or 17a in hand i just wanted to go and make more pictures while this one was boring and uninspiring from a first shots, as my personal opinion. Sold this one eventually together with 01a, leaving a 17a with me.
Better get the 17a if you want an OK macro or 01a if you want a cooler bokeh, this one is not the best introduction to the Adaptall zooms at all
| | |
;)
;)
;)
