| Author: | | New Member Registered: May, 2023 Posts: 6 | | Review Date: May 18, 2023 | Not Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | Sharpness | | Cons: | Balsam decomposition in read group | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 5
Value: 2
Camera Used: Sony A7M2
Focusing: 5
| |
Just for the record (May 2023): I have just dismantled this lens after noticing that it was very hazy (had been stored for many years). I have found that the rear group displays balsam decomposition leading to a foggy image.
This is most probably the reason why earlier reviewers complain of low contrast. The rear group appears to be cemented into the barrel and this makes the lens unserviceable.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2013 Posts: 5 | | Review Date: October 12, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | build quality, lightweight, wide enough for film, cheap | | Cons: | lack of contrast, fringes | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Pentax K-5
| |
     I got this lens in mint condition for an old Pentax ME, since I had no wide enough glass for it (only 50 & 135mm primes). Build quality is great, even if the zoom ring is pretty narrow and the focus ring travel is rather short (about 90 degrees). I've only tested it on my digital body, as I didn't want to waste a film roll for scientific purposes. The lens is sharp at 25mm f/4 and doesn't get better by stopping down. At 50mm f/4 it's softer and stopping down to f/6.3 (or whatever is between 5.6 and 8) improves sharpness. Stopping down further at 50mm to f/11 brings no extra sharpness. I shot RAW for the test pictures and converted to jpeg using DxO Optics Pro 9.1
I had to turn off Smart Lighting and boost contrast to 100 (max) and microcontrast to 20.
I guess it's going to be better on film, and I see no other reason to buy this lens.
Ratings submitted for digital performance. Value rating considering film use.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: June, 2012 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 36 | | Review Date: October 2, 2013 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, useful range on FF, constant aperture, good build quality, good IQ on the wide end, compact | | Cons: | Flare, easily losts contrast, soft at the long end, not that fast | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
Quite a usable lens, but NOT on digital. For film, it's a nice compact wide-to-normal zoom. At 25mm it is sharp from wide open (aperture is actually stopped down a bit when wide open), at 50mm you have to stop down quite a lot, unless you like the soft effect. Due to old coatings it losts contrast easily. If you can get it really cheap (and that is usually the case) and you shoot film with a manual focus K-mount body, go for it.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241 | | Review Date: June 2, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Rare focal range for film | | Cons: | No A lens, and on APS-C not better than the kit lens | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
I bought this lens new in 1983 or 1984.
I thought I would urgently need something wider than 50mm.
Because of my small budget at that time, I had tried several used cheap 24 and 28mm lenses, as well as some zooms covering 28mm. I sold them all after just one roll, because I found the IQ horrible.
Then I saw this lens in a shop where everyone knew me, and when I asked I managed to get it much cheaper (because it was K-mount, and Pentax had just introduced the KA). I forgot how much I payed, but think it was something like DM 180 (maybe $75 at that time).
It came with the dedicated metal lens hood, which I saw is missing with all the eBay offers.
I ended not using it very often, as it is a bit soft fully open, but, more important, lacking contrast. The lack of contrast had been the same with all the wide primes I had already sold.
I suspect the very short and wide lens hood (after all it's 25mm on FF!) not to be much of a protection from stray light, and the Tokina "RMC" multi-coating of the early eighties to be the problem.
With my K200D, I tried it only once (my 18-55 WR kit covers the same range +), and had a better impression than 25 years back.
The reason probably is, that with digital reduced contrast is not really a problem.
But I recently bought an unused looking Tokina 2.8/24 with KA mount (it's not in our lens data base), and obviously a better MC coating than the old RMC. This is really contrasty, and at 2.8 sharper than the zoom at F4.
Built and feel of the 25-50 is on par with Pentax M lenses, and it is quite small and not heavy. Considering the price, I still would have recommended it in 1984, but today only if you get it very very cheap.
| | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Posts: 18,076 | | Review Date: March 11, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Build, nice zoom range on APS-C ... 37-75 | | Cons: | Soft wide open, short throw ... | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 7
| |
Bonjour,
I just bought a copy of this Tokina at my local B&M photo shop ... couldn't resist when LBA rears its ugly head. I am kind of disappointed with this one, and was hoping for better performance overall. I like the "37 to 75mm" zoom range on a cropped sensor of my K-5. My copy looks like new.
I have only tested inside, since the outdoor environment is not too hospitable at the moment, cold & rainy. From what I can see, this lens merits a weak "7" rating for the moment and I would not recommend it at this time. Let me get outside with it, and I will try to post some captures later on ...
Salut, John le Frog | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2009 Location: Stockholm Posts: 10 | | Review Date: March 2, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | All metal and glass | | Cons: | Short zoom range | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
A friend loaned me this lens.
The first impression is positive, it is completely made of metal and glass, without being too heavy (345g).
This lens was sold probably at a high price when it was new.
I tested the lens on my Pentax k7, which provides a focal length of 37-75 mm, which is a bit too small to be practical.
A nice feature is the constant aperture of 4, which makes it easier when shooting with manual settings.
The lens is quite sharp, with nice bokeh.
Personally I think that the lens fits better in a collection than used, old zooms are so much worse than the old fixed lens.
The lens itself:
50mm aperture 8
25mm aperture 4
 | | |
;)
;)
;)
