| Author: | | Otis Memorial Pentaxian Registered: March, 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Posts: 42,007
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 25, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $185.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Great value, optical performance, build quality (overall), size/weight | | Cons: | Build quality (some elements), manufacturing issues, weird lens cap | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
My Serial Number (for reference): 070354
I purchased my Zenitar 16 as a low-priced wide-angle solution for use on my K10D. I was also intrigued with the idea of shooting a fisheye on my 35mm film camera. The decision to buy was not an easy one due to reports of poor quality control, defective coatings, and poor flare resistance (see above review). What pushed me in the direction of purchase was viewing the extensive gallery of great images posted on Flickr taken with this lens. Now that I have had the lens for almost a month, I think I know it well enough to do a review.
What Comes In the Box
While not everyone will be purchasing this lens new, it might be helpful to know just what shipped with a MC Zenitar 16/2.8 in 2008.- Lens
- Instruction book (In Russian)
- Proprietary lens cap
- Zenit-brand back cap
- Nylon fabric padded bag/case with strap
- Four (4) rear-mount filters -- red, green, yellow, and clear (attached to lens)
Note: The rear-mounted filters are part of the optical system. One should be mounted at all times. Take care that lenses purchased used include at least the clear filter.
Build Quality
Much has been made of build quality and manufacturing issues with this lens. The Web is full of accounts of mis-aligned parts and lenses that failed infinity focus. My general impression is that the Zenitar 16/2.8 is built as well and maybe even a little better than most "off-brand" Japanese lenses from the 70's and 80's. In fact, the general feel and smoothness of the controls is much better than my Pentax-A 50/1.7. (Granted, many of the Pentax-A lenses suffer from legendary poor construction, but that belongs in a separate review...) So here are the summary points:
Pros- Solid feel
- Painted surfaces are well-finished
- Relatively smooth focus and aperture operation
- Lens coatings appear to be evenly applied
Cons- Poor manufacturing QA. The first copy I took delivery of had inoperative focus ring, aperture coupling and mount and was returned as defective. The replacement unit could not attain infinity focus and required adjusting the focus ring
- The aperture coupling mechanism makes a strange noise when focusing in/out...go figure... (Note: noise went away over time)
- Metal mount surfaces are rough and poorly finished
- Aperture ring sounds/feels clunky when rotated
- M-42 versions lack the auto/manual switch that allows full use of manual aperture. The M-42 version is NOT RECOMMENDED for use on a K-mount body!
Usability/Handling
The Zenitar 16 handles nicely and is well-balanced on both my K10D and on my film body. Like most non-A lenses, exposure metering is variable in stop-down manual mode on the K10D. This is, however, a problem with the camera and not of the lens. My experience with this lens is that metering on the K10D is fairly accurate from f/5.6 to f/22 with a tendency to overexpose about 2 stops at f/2.8.
While managing exposure is fairly easy, attaining accurate focus was an entirely different matter. Most of my initial test shots were soft, soft, soft due to focus issues. The lens has a very short focus throw with the full range of 0.3m to infinity managed in only about 60 degrees of arc. The short throw along with the appearance of objects in the view finder (everything look so tiny...) made it very easy to be off on the focus of subjects in the range of about 1-2 meters. With time, I learned to make it work, though things would be so much easier if I had a split-image focus aid on the K10D. Note: Since the date of this review, I did purchase a Katz Eye screen with split image. It made a world of difference.
Note: The great DOF at this focal length (1m to infinity at f/5.6) helps somewhat with the focus, but as most of us know, being within the hyperfocal range is not the same as being in focus.
Pros- Relatively compact (not a whole lot larger than many 50mm lenses)
- Relatively light
- Smooth focus
- Aperture ring has definite detents at 1/2 stop intervals
- Fast f2/8 aperture provides bright viewfinder image
- Well-balanced when mounted on the camera (both K10D and 35mm)
Cons- Short focus throw makes fine focusing difficult. This is less of a problem with the split-image screen on my film camera.
- Front element surface is not well-protected
- No provision for front-mounted filters (typical for lenses of this focal length)
- Dark green DOF scale difficult to read
- Proprietary lens cap seats poorly and is prone to fall off.
Optical Performance
I was pleasantly surprised by the optical performance of the Zenitar 16/2.8 on my K10D. My perception is that it is a little sharper than my Pentax 18-55 kit lens wide open and much better at smaller apertures. Performance falls short of my Pentax FA 35/2 in both sharpness and contrast, but that is not surprising given the excellence of the FA 35.
Despite reports on other reviews, I have had little problem with flare and have even shot directly into the sun with reasonably good results. It may be that the coatings used in current manufacture have been improved over earlier versions. The only flare issue has been the rare little "cone" from strong oblique light.
Chromatic aberrations are common in ultra-wide angle lenses, though to its credit, with the Zenitar 16, these are generally pretty well-controlled. The exception being a tendency to exhibit purple fringing (PF) under certain circumstances on the K10D. I was pretty disturbed by this until I compared my results to examples posted by other forum members on the "Fisheye Fever Club" thread. Compared to other lenses of higher pedigree/price, the Zenitar holds up pretty well in regards to PF and overall performance. (Out of respect for the owners and the high prices they paid I will refrain from mentioning the lenses!).
Edit: I recently purchased a K-3 and used it in the field with the Zenitar this last weekend. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Zen is up to the "K-3 Challenge" and is a very usable optic on that camera.
So in summary:
Pros:- Good sharpness, particular from f/8-f/16 Note: After adding a split-image focus screen to my camera, I found that perfectly acceptable results could be had at f/5.6 as well
- Good resistance to flare for this focal length
- Relatively low CA and PF for this focal length
Cons:- Contrast is somewhat lower than more expensive alternatives
In summary, I would not hesitate to recommend this lens as a less expensive alternative to the main stream wide-angle options on a digital APS-C body. On the 35mm format, the Zenitar is just plain fisheye fun.
Better than average performance, adequate build, low price. What more could you want?!
Edit: I came recently came across this lens of very similar design and much more respectable pedigree. So that you can compare and contrast: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1628.htm | | | | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2016 Location: The Hague Posts: 2
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 27, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Built like a tank, tack sharp, easy handling | | Cons: | Too glassy cold image | | Sharpness: 10
Bokeh: 1
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Fuji X-T1 + Zhongyi Turbo II
| |
(EDITED Mrt 2019: new pic)
First of all, yes, this is a manual lens, just like all lenses from the analog era. So the new digital generation that may balk at manual operation, reverting to AUTO settings better stay with their modern stuff.
I am from the analog rollfilm era and so I keep on doing everything manual and nothing with computer.
This Zenitar with Pentax mount is for me a very easy and nice fun lens for short range landscapes especially in the woods. It is very easy to focus, just by rotating the focus ring, and we all have eyes, no? it is not an extreme fisheye, so the distortions are moderate at FF and even less at APS-C.
I use this lens on a mirrorless APS-C with a Zhongyi Turbo II to emulate FF capability. So I do enjoy the full fisheye range of this lens. SOmetimes I use this lens on a Fotodiox Shift Adapter on APS-C (without focal reducer turbo), which is a lovely and extremely cheap surrogate for the more expensive 24mm shit lenses!
Usually I shoot from ground or hip level, so it is easy to get the horizon straight with this lens while the distortions are really not so fishy so to speak.
I mainly have the aperture at the notch between f/8 and f/11 and for me bokeh is not important for the kind of subject I use to shoot. The image comes out tack sharp, for me a bit too "cold" like glass. It lacks a certain warmth or softness, so I do need optical filters and some in-camera WB/k-temp tweaking and in-camera picture styling.
The image character is to me more like a scientific type rather than an artistic type. Color rendition is a bit bland, lacking saturation. So yeah, I do use rear and front filters plus camera adjustments in order to get some more warmth, or special color effects. I don't shoot RAW, just JPG for lack of time to edit/pp, so that's why I use optical means.
Sharpness is amazing even when using crappy filters up front. It is almost impossible to screw up a shot with this lens. Even wide open it's sharp in and around the center, and slightly blurry at the edges FF. On APS-C (without focal reducer turbo) sharp wide open.
There is no bokeh! Perhaps a slight unsharpness wide open, but that is not bokeh.
Well, I did not perform any nitty gritty scientific tests on this lens, just summarizing my own experience in short range landscape shooting.
I would definitely recommend this lens to anyone who loves friendly fisheyes.
MINUS: The focuser breaks down after a couple of years frequent usage. Then again time to buy another one. This now is my third sweet baby, I just bought for 95 Euro from a German ebay seller.
Here a screenshot from my NatGeo gallery. I am sorry I don't have the original anymore for upload. My disk ended functioning.
This photo I shot JPEG (no pp/edit) with a Zenitar Pentax lens adapted onto a Fujifilm X-T1 APS-C, hence the FOV 1.5x of that of a FF. I used the rear Yellow filter and adjusted the WB color temp, the blues and reds to compensate in order to get warmer highlights.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2014 Location: Paris Posts: 1,939
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 7, 2016 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build, size, price | | Cons: | MF (not really a problem), IQ at wide open | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
This lens is small for the focal length, build like a tank (as expected from a Russian lens  ) and easy to handle, the angle of view is great : 180°
Wide open is not this lens' biggest advantage but improve a lot at f5.6 and f8 (understandable as portraiture is not the main target of this kinda lens anyway).
MF is considered an inconvenience but for this kind of focal length, it's not really a deal breaker either. Put the lens at hyperfocal and close the aperture to f8 and everything is in focus 
Great great great value compare to other modern lens ! Another good news is Zenit is producing this lens new so their QA is better now (no more stuck at infinity focus issue or lens hood problem ). And did I say it's in native K mount ? there, I said it, no more adapter
I'll add picture later and maybe more details review (pros/cons)
Here is a 100% of my test shot at f5.6 (focus at the eye)
Update : after testing for a while, I think the Zenitar 16mm is tack sharp at f5.6-f11 and can compete with the DA 15mm f4 limited (without the AF) in this sweet aperture range ! Again, super wide angle is mostly used for landscape and usually shot at f5.6-f11 so this is a great value lens, IQ/price = huge The fisheye effect is easy to fix with Photoshop or Lightroom and if you like the fisheye effect, even better, another reason to choose this little gem | | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2014 Posts: 9
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 13, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Huge field of view, Nice bokeh, Simple to use | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-r, Pentax MZ-7
| |
The main reason I bought this lens is its focal length and that it can be used both on my digital and film camera.
The focus feedback works perfectly on my K-r camera.
I have uploaded some test shots for comparison with the stock lens and a Raynox teleconverter.
I have noticed that the F3.5 setting on this lens produces brighter images than the stock lens with the same settings. Notice the shutter speed differences and the photo brightness.
Sorry for the slanted pictures ;-) https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/68003-thunderflash/albums/9528-field-view-test/ | | | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2014 Location: Europe Posts: 4
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 26, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp,sturdy,angle | | Cons: | a bit weird construction | | Sharpness: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax *Ist DS,Lumix GF2
| |
I love this lens ... sharp , perfect for video shooting , very comfortable to use ... although it has its quirks , i definitely don't mind it , it is very good quality lens overall,Nice not too fishy on my *Ist DS and perfect ultra wide on my Lumix gf 2(2x crop).Bought it mainly for video recording , so far handles perfect | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2014 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 8, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | simple a utilisé | | Cons: | un peu lourd | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Un bon grand angulaire et simple a pratiqué en plus il est solide | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2010 Location: NV/CA Posts: 370
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 13, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $199.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Build quality (excellent functinality in all aspects). Sharp, good contrast and price. | | Cons: | None that can't be worked around, like modifity a short hood or cap. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Excellent lens overall, superbly build like most if not all Soviet/Russian lenses. Excellent optical performance and very easy to use. Would use this lens over any other 16mm.
This is modification of lens cap/hood. Very easy and inexpensive.
Few defished JPG's
Can be a great lens for RE purpose.
 | | | | | Junior Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Berlin, DE Posts: 30
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 13, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | SHARP; contrasty, great colors, very low cost | | Cons: | Iffy construction, sample variation, build quality | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 6
Value: 10
| |
I have two samples of this lens, and found their quality control sub-standard. The first sample (M42 mount, made in 2005) was new-in-box; it was unsharp on the right. I had to unscrew the rear mount and add two 0.3mm washers between the mount and lens body to make it even. The second sample (native K mount and made in 2002) was used, and it was perfect from the beginning. That said, after I fixed the first lens, it became just as sharp as the second sample. However, I've heard multiple reports on users having to adjust one thing or another (most mention the built-in hood shading one of the corners, and mis-adjustment of infinity mark), which makes me conclude the problematic QC.
This lens (when problem-free) delivers great sharpness even in far corners. I think it's simply easier to make a sharp fisheye lens than a sharp rectilinear ultra-wide. CA are not a problem; they are not particularly low, but don't exceed the level of the 12-24 lens. I didn't notice any purple fringing.
Contrast is pretty high in this lens, with good color saturation. I didn't get the flare problem mentioned by other reviewers even when including the sun in the picture. Yes, the flare is there, but nothing more than you would naturally expect from a quality multi-coated wide.
On crop cameras, this lens makes limited sense, being a fun, distorted wide. On film (and full-frame bodies) it truly shines, but then it's already too wide to my taste. For this reason I prefer it on my crop digital bodies, as effective 24mm produce a very comfortable angle of view (at least for me).
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: January, 2011 Posts: 440
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 18, 2011 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | compact, sharp and cheap | | Cons: | flare could be better controlled, build quality needs improvement | |
This is really an awesome lens, esp. for aps-c. It's reasonably sharp, even wide open, very compact and easy to use. You get a view similar to a 24mm on FF, but with some distortion on aps-c, which is easy to slightly de-fish in PP.
On FF with film, it's a sharp full-frame fish-eye,with excellent contrast and color.
It takes a special front cap, which is easy to loose (I was VERY lucky to find a replacement recently). Also make sure you get the rear filters, or at least the "clear" one installed in the back of it.. it's part of the optical path!
Downside is the build quality means it's got some "give" to it, and the focus is a bit too "easy" for my taste, still, although none of this seems to affect the IQ, so quite reliable! A great travel wide-angle, I just got through using it for 4 months!
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: Tallinn Posts: 162
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 4, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp from 2,8 to 22 good color, ideal for video | | Cons: | quality is not first class, special lens cap, CA at f22 | |
Actually it is a happy lens. Very useful. Medium fisheye distortion. But most of all it is pixel sharp at f2,8. It get bit too sharp on higher apertures and produces color aberration on high contrast edges. This is easily corrected in RAW editor though.
I got it for video shooting with my K-5. Since it is manual lens with deep focus range it works great using *sweet spot*. No need to worry about your subject being in focus. At f11 you have everything from 80cm to infinity in focus. Distortion is not too extreme.
I rate it 8 because of the quality of the lens body. It is shaky here and there, but looks like made for military use. However the glass is really good.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2009 Posts: 1,235
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 9, 2011 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Cost-effective wide angle fisheye | | Cons: | Flare and artifacts in bright light | |
What I like about the lens:
- The lens is nicely constructed, especially for the price I paid years ago. Now, it looks like the lens goes around $220, which is still a pretty good bargain.
- As I mentioned before, the manual focus ring is smooth and effective.
- Rendering can be pleasing to the eye with vibrant colors. This isn’t always the case though.
- The colored filters are a fun little addition to the lens.
What I’m not too fond of:
- Prone to flare and visual artifacts in bright light. Although it’s easy to clone out any small artifacts, so I don’t consider that a big issue.
- Completely manual focus and aperture with no data connection to the camera body, so EXIF data saved is limited.
- Easy to get a finger into the frame on accident, especially with gloves on.
- Lens cap is cheap and broke on me.
- The aperture ring action is a bit cheap feeling as well as loud.
Overall I think it's a good purchase for the price. It's relatively sharp, but prone to flare. So It's up to you if you can lives with the flaws to get a cheap fisheye lens to play around with.
More information and pictures on my blog entry about this lens. | | | | | Forum Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Courbevoie Posts: 72
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 24, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light, price, overall quality | | Cons: | low contrast, poor coating, proprietary lens cap | |
Bought it used from Ebay, this was my cheap wide angle solution until I could move to the DA15Ltd.
I had a second-hand K-mount version, with only 1 filter. I did not experience any of the QC issues mentioned above.
I agree with most comments above.
- For the price you pay, you get a good wide angle lens with a slight fish-eye effect that you can either correct or play with.
- It's quite good when stopped down at f5.6, better at f8, and usable at f4. I would really avoid using it at f2.8
- The coating is mostly useless: the lens is very much prone to flare, and you can easily leave prints on the coating... Avoid shooting with any light source in front of you
- Don't lose the lens cap: it's unique... and tends to fall off easily
- I don't think the contrast is that good (if unfairly compared to my Ltd), but you can push it in post-prod
- Solid build
- All manual + green button, but exposure was ok on both my k200d and then my k-7
Obviously it does not replace a real fish-eye (DA10-17 or a samyang 8mm) or a linear WA (DA15 or 14)... but for the price, I believe there isn't anything better. Well worth trying - I have just sold mine, I hope I won't regret it in a few months  | | | | | Senior Member Registered: April, 2010 Location: California Posts: 125
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 11, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, compact, sharp centers, fisheye effect, a little wider than 16mm | | Cons: | Huge exposed front element, inconsistent build quality | |
Overview - Overall, a great inexpensive wide angle prime lens, I'd especially recommend it for people looking for a wide angle on a budget or interested in playing around with the fisheye effect before committing on a high dollar lens.
Build quality - If you get a good sample, the lens is pretty well built, with a metal lens barrel, nice heft (without being heavy) and smooth focusing. It is suprisingly compact, shorter than my FA 35/2 with hood. If you have soft images at infinity, the infinity stop can be adjusted in one way or another by peeling back the focus ring, loosening (but not removing!) the screws and resetting the focusing ring a little left or right. I adjusted mine to give about 1 mm more towards infinity focus, and I got marginally sharper images. I doubt every lens needs this adjustment.
Sometimes the lens hood will also need adjusting if it is crooked or bumping up against the focusing ring at infinity.
Image quality - Properly focused, the images are impressively sharp for such an inexpensive lens. Reports vary online as to what the sharpest apertures are, but I usually use mine around f5.6 and get very nice results. The extreme corners can get a little soft, but I never put anything important in the corners anyways. The fish-eye effect is a little more subtle on APS-C, and you can manipulate it in camera with subject and angle placement, or you can clean it up in post-processing with lens correction. Effective focal length seems to be a little wider than the 16mm spec, which is nice. There is a bit of a warm cast, which is fixable in post-processing.
Usage tips - Focusing can be hard with this lens, both because of the wide angle of view and the short focus throw. I will usually either start and/or end focusing by checking the distance scale on the lens to make sure I'm in the right ballpark. Also, there is virtually no shading of the front element, which can lead to flare and poor contrast in sunlight. I'll often try to shade it with my hand to get more contrast out of the lens. One of these days I will try to rig a homemade hood for this guy.
Value - They aren't quite the value they were a few years ago, now it seems like they are floating around $200, however that's still a couple-few hundred dollars less than brand name primes, with comparable image quality.
Fisheye effect sample:
De-fished sample:
 | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: November, 2017 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,982 | | Review Date: July 29, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, cheap, ultrawide, fisheye | | Cons: | soft wide open, fisheye | |
So this is a lens that I recently acquired used as it was something interesting in K-mount that I didn't have that my local camera shop got in, so a rare occastion. I did look here to see if this would at least be something interesting ot get or a waste of my time and it looke dlike it would at least be interesting so at $150 I figured why not. I didn't have my camera so my ability to actually test before buying was limited but the shop has a very good return policy so I have no problem buying if interested and then trying.
So here is my review and first impressions but I have not tried it for astro yet. Some quick and dirty test shots show that it does fairly well wide open but has some softness and if one pixel peeps there is some slight color fringing. In high contrast situations there is a good amount of purple fringing and wide open the corners are always soft. In going through and using the clicks on the lens it seems to get to it's best in the center at f/4 but the click before it gets really good. The corners don't clean up until f/5.6 and there they are great. If you noticed I said click instead of 1/2 stop because it really seems that going the click between 2 f-stops it doesn't go 1/2 a stop but instead 1/3 of a stop and the other 2/3rds is going from the click between to the next f-stop. I had the camera on my big (Manfrotto 3058) but not gigantic tripod so it wasn't moving and used green button to set the exposure and the click between each f-stop was consistently +1/3 stop instead of +1/2 stop. So this may mean something is a bit off with my lens but if that is the case I am still happy with it.
Wide open it purple fringes in high contrast situations and there are some slight color fringing but that clean up fast. It is also generally soft and low contrast at f/2.8 but that cleans up quickly with one click and at f/4 you are just left with soft corners. By f/5.6 the lens is golden to the corners.
From what I can tell from others my copy was from 1993 so was made during the time of very inconsistent quality control so my copy really seems to be one of the good ones.
I listed fishey as both a pro and a con as a fisheye means lots of distortion which can be fun once one masters and understands it or can be a pain.
Like always, I want to try this lens for astro shooting so expect an addition but I would guess that this will do fairly well but likely worse than my Laowa 12/2.8 Zero-D. I suspect it will be really good at f/5.6, pretty worthless at f/2.8 but in between depends on how it handles point light sources and how quickly it improves so that is a total crap shoot. However at this point that is all just speculation.
EDIT:
So I have gone and run this for astro shooting. I was pleasently surprised that it was not bad at f/2.8. It isn't as good as my copy of the Laowa 12mm F/2.8 Zero-D wide open but it is not bad. I wouldn't run it at f/2.8 but by f/4 it cleaned up very nicely like the Laowa does and apart from the fisheye distortion I would have a hard time telling them apart when they both are run at f/4.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 141 | | Review Date: March 12, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp at F5.6, Fisheye on FF, Solid build Quality | | Cons: | Custom lens hood | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 3
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Pentax K3, ME film
| |
Love my little Zenitar. Fun imaging at a good price.
A bit washed out at F2.8 but greatly improves at F5.6-F8
Colours are OK, image distortions are to be expected at this focal length
but can be compensated by careful composition (angle, height etc)
Fully manual so it takes a short time to get the settings on my K3.
DOF is nice at F8 to F22 and focusing is easy for landscape and
architectural applications. Close up, its great for distortion effects
but generally I haven't used it much that way.
A very solid build, smooth focusing, AP ring a little noisy
No quality issues with my specimen
Recommended for those who want to try an UWA at a
very decent price range
| | |
