Normal Prime Lenses (SMC K-Mount)
Long Prime Lenses (SMC K-Mount)
Zoom Lenses (SMC K-Mount)
Non-SMC Lenses (K-Mount)
Antti-Pekka Virtanen - . . . I seem to use it more and more . . .for landscapes, halo and aurora phenomena . . .
David A. Mann - . . . Sharpness and light falloff are terrible wide open but improve greatly when stopped down by any amount. The lens has a ton of contrast . . .
tv - . . . more flare-prone then other lenses . . .a little difficult to focus. . .On shots when I can avoid flare and get it focused properly, it seems to be sharp and have good color and contrast.
michael.hubbard - . . . The build quality is absolutely top-notch... definitely a professional-quality lens. . . this lens has three internal filters that you can flip between (red, yellow, sky) and a rear gel-holder
Yoshihiko Takinami - very sharp, good color saturation, well flare controlled, few light-fall-off even at wide open.
Pål - . . . Its a lens thats capable of sharp images. Avoid wide apertures and F:22 . . .
Barry Brevik -. . . This is a superb ultra-wide. Flare is extremely low and the lens is very sharp. . .
Joe Cali - The 18mmf3.5 is a very sharp contrasty lens even at fairly wide apertures . . .
Ken Kuo - The SMC-A 24mm/2.8 is a gem . . . . . . it's my standard lens. Razor sharpness, no noticeable distortions, excellent contrast, compact, and has no "polycarbonate" parts.
Douglas J Stemke - . . . Very sharp. I can't yet . . . see any significant distortion on it, . . .
Rob Studdert - . . . it is of exceptional build quality and as a consequence is a joy to use. . .
Fred - Its flare performance is good and its contrast is quite high. . . . its hood is sort of a screw-in "big round pie plate with a hole in the middle", . . . (I don't use the hood too often on the lens, but I am able to get 75 satellite channels on it when hooked up to the TV.)
jostein.oksne - I use mine often, and think of it as a very convenient lens. Manual focussing is ok (I've got an MX), and it can take Cokin filters without vignetting. . .
Daphne - . . . razor sharp excellent contrast no distortion . . .
Roberto Burgos S. - . . . a great lens, but its also very pricey . . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . A20/2.8 and FA20/2.8 are optically identical except the number of aperture blades. . .
Gerjan - [. . . has] a double form of distorsion (barrel and pincushion). . .
Barry Brevik - . . . for me this is a great lens. It is, in fact, one of my all time favorites in terms of image quality, and the coatings are superb.
Texdance -. . . It is extremely small, and certainly fast and sharp enough for my purposes.
Darren Sutherland - a dandy of a lens. It's my 2nd most used lens (Behind my FA*80-200 f2.8). It appears to be the sharpest of its kind around, not to mention having the fastest aperature at f2!
ZX5Lx -. . . When I compared the FA 24 to all previous 24mm by Pentax including the screw mount SMCT, it is the best 24 optically they have made. . . but let me qualify this. . . . . . all the 24's were excellent, especially by f5.6. . . ..its just that the FA 24 reaches this level of sharpness a stop earlier and by f8/11 had a edge
Arne Lie - . . . I do recommend it. . . . The FA* has a VERY good mech. build. Optics are about the best 24mm for SLR you can get . . .
Paul G. Dileanis - . . . a very good lens, retaining good edge to edge sharpness even wide open . . .
Cameron R. Hood - . . . FABULOUS!!! . . . The detail on close subjects is phenomenal,. . . and the distant subjects remain sharp, clear, and highly detailed.
Carlos Royo - . . . an excellent lens. . . It is optically excellent. . . and also very usable in manual focus . .
Roberto Burgos S. - It is big, it is heavy, it is silver colored, comes with nice hood, it is optically a very good performer, super sharp from 2.8 to 16 and very expensive.
Yoshihiko Takinami - very sharp, good color saturation/rendition, scarce distortion
Paul.Stregevsky - . . . The lens makes me look like a better photographer than I am. What color! And it feels oh so nice in the hand. . .
Bruce Rubenstein. . . A little soft wide open, but sharp by f4. . . . seems to have great contrast and saturation.
Pål Jensen - The A 24/2.8 is not one of Pentax best lenses. It is fuzzy wide open and never really great. . . . It is recommended, but not enthusiastically.
William Cornett - . . . I would put the resolution and overall performance up against any other 24mm 2.8 on the market. I love it. As an added bonus, it focuses quite close.
Bruce Rubenstein - . . . I don't think that you can get better than this in a Pentax mount. The color and saturation are better than any other Pentax lens I have. . . it is very resistant to flare and ghosting
Pål - This is an OK wide angle thats not very sharp wide open.
Joe Blumberg - One of the great ones... sharp, contrasty, distortion-free and built like a tank!
General Discussion of 28 mm lenses . . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - My personal ranking for Pentax 28m lenses are follows;K28/3.5, K28/2 >= M28/3.5 >= FA28/2.8AL >>> M28/2.8 (old) >M28/2.8 (later), A28/2.8, F28/2.8
Go for a used K28/3.5 (SMC PENTAX 28mm f/3.5), a cheap but optically excellent lens, IMO. It is the sharpest 28mm lens that Pentax ever made. Or go for a used M28/3.5 (smc PENTAX-M 28mm f/3.5), a cheap but good lens, IMHO.
Bibi Kwa - . . . Very sharp, some distortion. Beautiful colors and bokeh.
JCO - . . . the faster lens allows more accurate focus and composition every time
G.T.Addison - . . .like most SMC pentax primes, very good in every way.
SUBHASIS - . . . excellent in every respect.
tv - softer and less contrasty than my other Pentax lenses.
David Collett - . . .a good all rounder . . .
Collin Brendemuehl - An underrated value. Excellent resolving power. Best at f8 and f11 . . . [but] good wide open . . .
Sterling Rorden - . . . slightly better optically than the FA series lens.
Roberto Burgos - . . . is one of the best 28's ever made. Front element does not rotate and it is optically superb.
ZX5Lx(David) - I would definitely concur with Roberto's experiences. . . in optical performance [ the FA 28] was excellent and left little desire for better performance. . . .
Rubenstein, Bruce M - The plastic outer skin looks tacky and the focus ring is narrow. . . Manual focusing is OK: not much feel, but silky smooth. AF is reasonably fast. . . Optical . . . a little soft wide open, but super sharp a couple of stops down
Ralf Engelmann - . . .Wide open it is even better than the FA* 2.0/24mm AL (IF), . . . Stopped down at f=8 or so, both lenses should be excellent performers.
Pascal De Pauw - Very sharp lens and almoust no distortion
Bruce Rubenstein - . . .I find the build quality very high with very good AF and MF. Like most Pentax lenses, it's not great wide open. . .
Bruce Dayton - . . . really need to stop it down to about f:8 . . . It is not one of my favorite lenses.
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . noticable light fall-off wide open, . . . I think K28/3.5 is best 28mm lens Pentax ever made because of its resolution, aberrations, color rendition, contrast, etc.
David Collett - . . . I have an A28/2.8, FA28/2.8 AL and a 28/3.5. The f3.5 is probably the best of the three at f8 or f11 with nice crisp contrast. . .
PAUL STENQUIST -. . . I love it. Very sharp for that wide a lens and great color and saturation . . .
J Vanderaalst - absolutely the sharpest lens that I ever owned
Joe McAllister - . . . have enjoyed excercising it on the water tank across the street.. . . It works. . .It's sharp. . . It rotates as well as shifts . . . far enough to get a . . . 65' tall water tank corrected and in a vertical frame from less than 60' away. It can shift enough to vignette the opposite end of the frame, if you let it. Built in filters. (3)
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . .excellent optically; well corrected aberrations, very few distortion, very high actual/visual resolution, good color rendition. . . I like K30/2.8 better than any 28mm lens Pentax ever made.
Alexander Krohe - . . . It's optical performance . . .is . . . a bit special: I like the color reproduction . . .and its angle of view . . .
Mike Wilson - Seems to be an excellent performer. . . astonishing flare resistance . . .
ZX5Lx(David) - . . . the 35mm f2.0 is soft at f2.0 but other than that is an excellent performing lens.
Ron Bhanukitsiri - . . . a pleasure to use, easy to focus, a very fine lens indeed. . . The lens is sharp and very contrasty.
Bibi Kwa - My favourite lens. Very sharp, virtually no distortion and nice bokeh. Beautiful color rendition.
rharris2 - . . ., and I still will carry the 35 when I want to go with only one fast lens, . . . I love it.
Bill Robb - . . .have been very happy. Even have one. . .shot directly into the sun, and no flare is evident.
Doug Brewer - it's pretty good for an AF lens. . . [WRT manual focusing] . . . the contrast and details just jump out at me when I focus. It gives an incredible dimensionality to the subject I've not seen in many lenses in this price range.
Yoshihiko Takinami - FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame.
Gerhard Fischer - . . . it is a superb lens. . .
Ralf - . . . The lens is great in any respect. Even though it's the typical FA plastic construction, the precision of fit and design of the lens is better than the older 28 and 50mm FA lenses. It's simply more intelligent made. The focussing ring is broader, a hood mount is included, the lens comes with matching bag and hood, automatic focussing and manual focus feel is very good. . .
Stephan Schwartz - . . . The FA 2/35mm AL is a mechanically a good and optically a phantastic lens.
Len Paris - I don't think there's another K-Mount lens in this focal length that performs nearly as well. It's a wonderful lens.
G.T.Addison - . . .like most SMC pentax primes, very good in every way.
Jostein Øksne - Sharp, neat, and I like it. . .
Pål - I'm not very happy with this lens. . . [it] is soft wide open.
John Vanderaalst - The K3.5/35 is probably one of the cheapest in the K-series, and also one of the best...sharp, contrasty, insensitive to back-light.
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . one of the best Pentax lenses. . . Its color rendition and 3-dimensionality are really great.
David Collett - If you get a chance buy a 35/3.5, IMO it is the best "cheap" 35mm second hand lens you can buy. It has good contrast and is very sharp between f5.6 and f11. . .
Timo Hartikainen - a really great lens! . . . I'm very pleased. The image quality is really good, even at f3.5. .
Christophe Birkeland - very handy since it's so small,. . . does not qualify as superb or even very good optically. . . flare is a problem. . . the focus ring is so tiny that it's hard to get used to. . . .
Samuel Tam - light weight, sharp, great for travel
Barry Brevik - It is a superb lens, but . . . I don't feel it quite lives up to it's reputation.
Fred -. . . the 40/2.8 is indeed not spectacular (despite some glowing claims I have read previously), but is certainly quite decent. . .
Peter Spiro - . . . it is in fact quite a decent lens by most standards, although not quite as sharp as the standard 50mm lens. . . All in all, it's quite a good lens . . .
Fred - . . . superb at mid-apertures . . . extremely well built and finished. Its flare control seems superb, as does its contrast. . .
tv - I use mine *in place of* a 50mm
Roger Stockton - . . . I would not hesitate to use it in place of any other "normal" prime . . .
Pål - This is a terrific lens. Its razor sharp at F:8. . . The lens has some different qualities . . . hard to describe. Pictures have a more three dimesional feel than usual. . .
Ed Mathews - Top Ten Reasons (TM) to buy the 43 ...
Houston, Jerry - You'd have to really need the additional low-light capability to justify owning one. . . the step up to 1.2 does mean lower optical quality, much higher cost (partly due to rarity), and much greater size and weight.
John Mustarde - At f1.2, it is "not very good" in terms of the sharpness we like to see at f8. ..at f8 with the SMCP 50/1.2 it's a "very good" lens. . . would never actually buy the SMCP-50/f1.2. . . too expensive. . . the 50/1.2 is not a very good choice, and the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 are equally good choices. . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - I agree with this opinion. But IMHO, I prefer Ricoh's Rikenon 55mm/F1.2 . . .
William Robb - . . . truly vile wide open, but down less than a half stop [it] is already tightening up, and at f 2.8 is very good indeed.
Pål - not particularly good unless stopped down to about f:8. It's particularly bad wide open. . . However, the lens is absolutely beautifully built and gives an extremely bright viewfinder and is a joy to focus with. . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . A50/1.2 is an excellent performaer at f/8-11 with very high resolution and very good visual sharpness. . .
Lu San-Hwan (from the Web) - nice, but half stop difference to f/1.4 is not that much
Mark Roberts - . . . it's a beauty. Great optically of course. . .
Aaron - . . .I love it. It performs fabulously in flare-y conditions. It is very very very solid. . .
smhalpin - . . . go buy either this lens or the 50 mm f/1.4 A. Or both. . .
Collin Brendemuehl - An excellent, general-purpose lens. . . .
Frantisek - . . . optically superb
email@example.com - both the 50 1.7 and 1.4 are great lenses from Pentax,. . .
Houston, Jerry - It's an amazing lens, truly legendary. . . .
PETERSON - . . . a very good lense. . . . I use one on my PZ-1p fairly often.
William Ashbless - . . . As for quality, I find [the 1.4 and 1.7] about the same and sometimes contrasty wide open.
Roberto Burgos - the FA50/1.4 is superb. SHARP SHARP SHARP lens. Front element does not rotate (uses 49mm filters). Fast focusing. . . .
ZX5Lx(David) - I would definitely concur with Roberto's experiences. . .
Arne Lie - Excellent performer, compact, good built. I can recommend.
David M Anthony - the focus ring was snug, yet smooth, and nicely, slightly lightly, damped. I liked it better in feel than my SMC-A 50/1.4, in fact. The main difference was that the FA had a thinner, smooth rubber focus ringÉ.
Joachim Hein - . . . I use the lens with a MZ-5n. It gives a pretty tiny unit, almost a compact camera. The small and discrete size of the camera together with its large lens aperture opens new opportunities in ambient light shots . . .
John Papandreou - M-1.7 50mm is one of the sharpest lenses Pentax made, É
Christophe Birkeland - I agree that the 50/1.7 is a nice lens, and most 50mm are since it is the simplest lens design !. . .
Stanley Sun - I have read the Practical Photography Test of Pentax SMC F 50mm/f1.7. And its performance is quite good.
Dario Bonazza - According to MTF tests the F (and I bet the FA) 1.4/50mm is better than the 1.7/50mm at all diaphragms, not much better but better.
Ling-N. Zou - A FA 50mm/1.4 costs between US$60-100 more than a FA 50mm/1.7 and almost twice as heavy. I don't think the incremental image improvement and extra 1/2 stop is worth it. É
Houston, Jerry - Other things being roughly equal, faster IS better. . . sharpness, ease/speed of focusing, shallow depth-of-field, light gathering ability. . . all enhanced in the f/1.4 lens over the f/1.7.
George Stanley - find that it gives excellent performance at all apertures. I have made enlargements to 16X20. . . Sharpness is totally OK!
Martin Puranen - Sharpness, balance, usefulness - it´s all there!
Bill Cassleblad - . . . it is a very good lens as far as I can tell. . .
Ralf Engelmann - Excellent lens optically, good mechanical construction too, but the small focus ring is a pain.
Ralf Engelmann - . . . has a good build quality. Optical performance is as good as the faster 50mm lenses.
Roger Stockton - the best bang-for-the-buck K-mount normal lens . . . sharp, contrasty, and *dirt* cheap!
Dan Johnson (from the Web auto-response form) - . . . It's tack sharp, well-made, and contrasty. It is very cheap, new, and a great buy as a used lens. . .
Fred - . . . I've found that the A 50/2.8 is quite sharp and rugged . . .
Roberto Burgos S. - . . . Autofocus is simply not up to macro work, especially with moving subjects (insects, wind blown flowers, etc.) I also use it as a normal lens, always with autofocus.
Fred - . . . I do think that there's a definite, useful niche for the 50mm macro lens.
Arnold Stark - Optically it is the best Pentax lens I own...
Barry M. Wilson - good, sharp lens. . . one drawback is that you are very close to an object at 1:1. . . . I also highly recommend Pentax 100mm macro lens. . .
George Stanley - Optically, this lens is a real gem! . . . The optics are . . . very, very sharp.
annsan - It is a great lens - sharp as a tack, easier to hold steady than the 100mm macro. . .
William Robb - . . .I have found this lens to be most excellent at close distances, at any aperture.
Stephen J. Krogh - This is a fine flat field macro for close up work.
annsan - I have it - I love it. Sharp as a tack.
Fred - . . . very soft from maximum aperture until about f/8 . . .
Todd Stanley - . . . One really nice thing about the lens is that it has a long throw on the focus, which makes very precise focusing a breeze. . .
[Note - only a small sample of the discussion reproduced here. See Detailed Comments. smh]
CommentsPim Rietbroek - My all-time favourite is the SMC-A* f/1.4 85mm (usually stopped down, although it's already very good for portraits at f/1.4). . .
Bruce Dayton - . . . FA100 f2.8 macro. . .does a decent job as a portrait lens while also doubling as a great macro lens. . . when having more than 1 person in the picture, 135 is going to be too tight unless you have a lot of working room.
Fred - . . . I think that 85mm to 100mm or so provides the most pleasing portraits for most subjects. . .
JoMac - . . . A "Soft" lens like the Pentax creates a sharp image, at all apertures, but scatters the light that is allowed in wide open (at the outside periphery of the outer element or group), and even a stop or two down. Stop down all the way and you have almost eliminated the softening effect. . .
Winston Setiawan - . . . extremely well built . . . Slight pincushion distortion at the edges, but not very noticeable, better than the 43/1.9 (7.). . .Highly recommended !
Andreas - . . . sharp wide open. . . and stop down at F4 it *is* sharp . . .color rendition is very good . . . ´bokeh´ is really great.
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . exceptionally good in contrast, color saturation, color rendition, visual sharpness and visual resolution. . .
George Stanley - . . . I have been fully delighted with the performance of [this] lens . . .
tv - . . . Color rendition is superb, sharpness is very high, it's beautifully made . . .
[An extensive set of discussions on the relative merits of various 85mm lenses is presented under Detailed Comments.]
John Tollefsrud . . . my favorite lens? My A85mm f1.4. . . It's heavy, but I love it, especially the warmth in the portraits I get with it using window light. . .
Fred - . . . I can recommend the A* 85/1.4 without reservation. . .
Bob Waldken - . . .it is staggeringly good . . .
Bob Blakely - . . . one of the best lenses Pentax ever made and one of the best, . . . fast 85mm lens ever made.
Pål - My FA* 85mm lens . . .is fuzzy and unsharp [ wide open]. . . It is still not sharp at 2.8. . .
David - ZX5Lx. . . I agree with Pål that wide open at f1.4 it is somewhat soft.....but soft in a good sense in that for portraits, it has just the right mix, of sharp detail with a pleasing softness, to be flattering. By f2.0 it really sharpens up quite a bit, with again just the slightest amount of edge taken off for portraits. At f2.8 it is extremely sharp. . .
Steve Graham. . . the 85mm is possibly one of the very best lenses available from any manufacturer for a 35mm SLR. . .
Bruce Dayton - . . . a fine lens if used for portraiture. . .
David ZX5Lx@aol.com - . . . The 85 f1.8 puts the subject squarely in the middle of the zone of focus...therefore when you match f-stop for f-stop of the FA 85 f1.4 lens with the 85 f1.8 lens...the 85 f1.8 was as good a performer..up till approx f4.5-5.6...at that point the edge would have to be given to the 85 f1.4...
George Stanley - . . . It is superb!! I think that it is one of the two best Pentax lenses that I have ever come across. . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - good color rendition, attractive image rendition
George Stanley - . . . I was quite disappointed with this lens, and got rid of it FAST! Physically, it was nice &small & light-- but decent performance required stop-down to F:5.6 . . . all the . . . [manual K-mount portrait lens in the 85mm--135mm range] are good choices, with two embarrassing exceptions: The SMC Pentax-M 85mm F:2.0; and the SMC Pentax-A 135mm F:2.8. Both of these . . . . . are quite mushy when used wide open.
Marc Polman - . . .[George's opinion above] . . . kept me from buying this lens. . . however,. . . I bought it [eventually] and have been very content since!
Bob Waldken - . . . The reason I disliked it was entirely due to its handling and had nothing to do with the optical quality of the lens. . .
Bibi Kwa - Very good lens. Very sharp and contrasty. Beautiful colors and bokeh.
Fred - . . . I found that the 85/2 is a lot better lens model than I had previously thought. . .
Jens- . . . It is better for "glamour-shots" than for super sharp/contrasty news shots . . .
Gerald Cermak - . . . for portraits it is nice. The aperature settings, while performing the indicated light changes, also change the amount of softness. . . The soft effect of the soft lenses is variable from the center outward . . .
Flavio Minelli - . . .It's a really weird lens. . .
Bob Blakely - . . . gives a soft, pleasing appearance to faces (or anything else you want to rub a little harshness off of) while maintaining the appearance of sharpness.
Ralf Engelmann - Mechanically the best Pentax lens I ever owned, . . . sharp from f=6.7 on . . .works nice with a 1.4x converter as a 120mm macro and portrait lens too.
Roland Mabo - The soft focus effect is at it's peak at f/2.8, then it vanishes more and more to be gone at f/5.6. From f/5.6 and above, it gives a good sharp quality performance...
David - . . . I would generally go for [a] prime lens for its sharpness and speed, but the FA85 f2.8 Soft doesn't get you the speed unless you want the softness and doesn't get you the sharpness unless you sacrifice the speed. . .
Anthony Farr - . . . I've only ever used it for portraits at f5.6
and wider. At f5.6 it's subtly soft, at f4 it's has nicely balanced
halos of diffuse light and at f2.8 it's extremely soft focus. . .
Jostein - good performers, even at full opening. . . a 49mm filter thread. . .surprisingly small and light, and I rather use it than the pentax 135/2.5, which I also own.
George Stanley - . . . The 100mm is OK, but no-where near as good as the 105mm non-M which it replaced.
Mark Winter - . . . truly a great lens, compact & light weight; fast and sharp. . .
Colin - . . . it's definitely a very good lens and well worth the price of acquisition. . .
Gianfranco Irlanda - The M 100/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses, maybe the most favorite lens at all, although I use it mostly for candid shots and do very few portraits with it. It is sharp and has a nice bokeh. .
Collin Brendemuehl - . . . a great sense of depth in photos taken with this lens. . . It's just plain good.
Boz - Wonderfully sharp lens. Somewhat large and heavy, but definitely worth carrying around
William Robb - I have yet to see a sharper lens, and I have seen a lot of lenses.
Bob Waldken - it's an absolutely superb lens. World-class build quality. . .
John Mustarde - The FA 100/f2.8 Macro is a great lens. Sharp, contrasty, resistant to flare, sturdy, easy to focus.
Doug Brewer - I . . .love it. It's the sharpest lens I've ever had, . . . If your primary goal is macro photography, you can't go wrong with the FA100/2.8 Macro. It's a stunning macro lens, and serves well as a portrait lens. . .
Phil - . . . It has a wonderful "Bokeh" so isolating your subject is a very desired effect with this lens . . .
Roberto Burgos S. - . . . It is a superb lens. tack sharp at all apertures. Very well corrected flat field and built like a tank. . .
Sas Gabor - My favourite Pentax lens! Extremely sharp, good SMC, well built, compact...works well on bellows, tubes, etc.,
Chris Brogden - . . . it's a superb lens. Very sharp, and with smooth bokeh. . .
Bob Blakely - . . . It works fine, very sharp, very flat field, but the regular 100/4 macro is more versatile.
William Robb - . . . absolutely fine optic. . .
Yoshihiko Takinami - charm of SMCP 85/1.8 with good resolution, natural bokeh, great color rendition, distortion free
Jose Rodriguez - . . . the SMC-K 105mm f/2.8 is definitely a better performer than the SMC-M 100mm f/2.8
Bob S... Ideal for your backpacking . . . at least comparable to the M 135/3.5 in sharpness
Joe.Cali - . . . one of my favourite lenses. It's very compact and lightweight and quite sharp at f2.8. . .
JTodd - . . . a great portrait lens. . . though, I found it a bit mushy when shot wide open, kind of like the 85 2 M.
[The 135mm focal length is another which Pentax (and other manufacturers) have returned to often There is therefore a confusing variety of these lenses available. See a "compare and contrast" discussion under Detailed Comments.]
Pål - . . . the A 135/1.8 is a great lens on all apertures except wide open where its quite soft . . .
Fred - . . . The 135/1.8 impresses me the most as having incredible wide-open performance - a truly superb low-light telephoto. . . .
Bob S. - . . . this is one of the 3 best lenses Pentax made, along with the A*85/1.4, and A100/2.8 Macro. . .
Pavel - 135/2.5 is very sharp lens (I feel one of the sharpest lenses in that range).
William Cornett - I have a Pentax 135 f 2.5 Takumar. I've never been happy with the resoloution, but the danged thing has at least five magazine cover shots to its credit,. . .
tv - Maybe the worst prime Pentax ever put out, in terms of resolution and contrast. Built like a tank. Good as a portrait lens, if you want to soften things up a bit.
Paul Stenquist - . . .among my favorite lenses . . . enough focal length to remain unobtrusive, yet it's short enough for hand held work in bright light. . . extremely sharp to my eye . . . brighter more saturated color than my other 135 . . . bokeh is subtle and very pretty.
Arne Lie - . . . I think you should avoid this one. . .
George Stanley - . . . Wide open at f/2.8 the resolution and contrast is very, very poor, and the lens does not get really sharp till f/5.6. Pentax tried to cut costs with this lens,. . . it was discontinued after a short & sad life.
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . As for the optical performance, . . . A135/2.8 is a bit soft.
David S - . . . it is not a sharp lens & you should avoid it.
Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . The only advantage of it over the two K lenses, IMHO, is its shorter minimum focal distance, 0.7m.
Derby Chang - Small and pretty solidly built. . . focusing ring. . . is a decent size and rubberized. Internal focusing is handy. I use it wide open all the time, and it is quite sharp.
George Stanley - have never done any Éresolution testing. . . find it to be a splendid performer. With the built-in hood, flare resistance is also excellent. Highly recommended!
PETER J. POPP - . . . I'm very impressed with the lens with the exception of the rubber focussing ring, . .. the ring appears to be somewhat sloppy or wobbly in mounting, [and] . . . the damping of the ring in manual focus mode is not what I expected. . .
George Stanley - . . . have actively used it for more than a year. Optically, this lens is excellent/ and mechanically it appears to be very sturdy. On my particular lens, the focusing ring is NOT "sloppy or wobbly."
Roland Mabo -. . . I'm very, very pleased with it. Excellent mechanical construction and build quality with a nice built-in lens hood. Also very nice optical performance.
Martin L - . . . good contrast, and small prints looks sharp. Unfortunately,I cannot say the same about large prints.
Roberto Burgos S. - . . . a superb lens. Lighning fast focusing and tack sharp center to edges. . .
Daphne - . . . I was amazed by the fantastic quality of the pics . . . taken; . . .[they were] incredibly sharp, saturated, contrasty - almost three-dimentional!
Mark Gosdin - . . . It's a nice sharp lens, closer to the 135/2.5 in appearance and finish. . .
Nick. - . . . an excellent lens, sharp and easy to use. It gives good results, even when used with close-up accessories.. . .
Richard G. Brennan - . . . Tiny thing, and very inexpensive - but sharp as a tack.
David Viles -. . . an excellent lens. It is very sharp and . . . very compact
William in Utah - . . . small, good feel, nice built in hood, and very sharp. Plus, it is usually cheap . . .
Bob S. - It's a good lens. Sharp, compact, and well built.
Alan Chan - . . . a very sharp yet dirt cheap lens with built-in hood.
Barry Brevik - . . . I feel the lens has exceptionally low contrast compared to other Pentax lenses. . .
Bill Robb - . . . a real gem of a lens. It seems very sharp and contrasty, . . .
Oh Cheng Yu - very sharp lens
Barry Brevik -. . . really superb lens both optically and mechanically (heavy though.)
Kent Gittings - . . . it is excellent although heavy, . . .
JoMac - [compared to the M*200/2.8 ] It's brighter in the finder, less depth of field, equal. . . in sharpness and construction, and heavy. . .
Mike Breen - The 200 f/2.8A is probably as good as any fixed focus 200mm lens made.. . . . It is sharp corner-to-corner wide open yielding contrast I can depend upon. . .
Aaron - . . . I adore this lens. I use it primarily in low to very low light . . . Great contrast, . . .
Bruce Dayton - . . . really sharp and a dream to use. . . the focus is very smooth and well damped for an AF lens. It is surprisingly light weight . . .
Glastonbury, John - I have and use both K mount and Screw mount versions . . . both are optically and mechanically very good even at full aperture. . .
Thomas Haller - . . . I like it a lot, very sharp, good contrast, . . .
Roberto Burgess S. - Ahhh! superb optics, great handling.
Bill Peterson - My most used macro lens. Excellent optically and mechanically.
Pål Jensen - The Pentax-A* 200/4 ED Macro lens is one of the greatest Pentax products ever. . . better than all the competition . . including the new Canon 180/3.5 macro and Nikon 200/4. A fantastic lens. . . a brilliant lens. There's nothing negative to say about it. . . .
David (Zx5Lx) - . . . It's performance at both infinity as well as 1:1 macro is superb . . .
Fred - . . . [this lens] impresses me as having the highest resolution of any lens I've ever seen, from macro distance (1:1 magnification) all the way out to infinity. . .
Pål - , , , we have another legend. . . this lens is simply amazing! I can't see any differences in optical quality between the apertures. . . the pinnacle of Pentax design . . .
[A table providing brief information on these lenses' physical characteristics.]
Pål - . . . one of the truly classic Pentax lenses. . .simply outstanding. . . Sharp wide open. Razor sharp at all other apertures.
Antti-Pekka -. . . this lens is really stunning in astrophotography (wide open). . .
Jarl Fr. Erichsen - Very sharp but heavy.
Philip J. Hoffman - . . .it's great. I've gotten shots that were as good as it gets. It's sharp at all aperture even wide open, . . .
Gianfranco - . . . a very good lens: sharp, contrasty, good bokeh; . . .flare . . . seems not a problem too.
Jens Bladt - It's a great lens. . . . The lens itself is . . . excellent (sharpness, contrast).
Texdance - . . .I liked the lens, but it was simply too difficult to focus on fast moving objects . . .
Fred - . . . best lightweight hand-holdable long telephoto there is in all of God's creation.
Bob Walkden - . . . The A* is easily handholdable . . . the quality is staggeringly good.
John Mustarde - . . . one of Pentax' best lens ever. . . the same great optics as the FA* version, but the F* also has a removeable rotating tripod collar. . .
Cameron R. Hood - . . . it is fabulous. Very sharp, accurate, and although the autofocus hunts a bit, it is a beautiful lens. . .
Carlos Royo - . . . it's one of my best lenses. The optical quality is simply superb, and also its build quality.
Winston - . . . absolutely excellent. . . .Very slight pincushion distortion, great close focus performance, lightweight, tripod mount, and high resolution. . .
Mark Stringer - . . . Imagine a 300mm lens that gives results like shooting with a 50mm lens. . .
John Mustarde - The FA* 300/f4.5 is *almost* a great lens. It is optically great, but lacks a tripod socket.
Bob Keefer - . . . It's very, very sharp, even wide open.
Mark Cassino - . . . excellent at all apertures . . . [Note - this is a very short snippet from a very long review . . . smh ]
Stephen Moore - . . . the 400/2.8 is one heavy s.o.b...
Paul M. Provencher - . . . it is terrific. . .balances nicely in the tripod ring, is pretty easy to focus, and gives sharp images as long as you remember that depth-of-field is nil. . .
Jostein -. . .the best resolution power of the lens is achieved at
f/9.5 or f/11, but that it's quite good even wide open. . . The
handling is really nice in AF, but the focus collar is too wide for
easy handling in MF . . . I've put some comments on my webpage
JCO - Very good optics but the manual aperture makes it difficult for sports.
Globetrotter - A very sharp and extremely cheap super-wide, extreme telephoto lens - especialy for a non-ED/APO lens.
Pål - . . . Slightly soft wide open with visible light fall-off at the corners . . . Sharp from F:5.6. Also very sharp at its smallest aperture. . .
John Mustarde - . . . a truly fabulous lens and worth every penny of its price. . . It is very sharp at f4, extremely sharp at f8 . . .
Brian - I like my A* 600-F5,6....I find the lens quite sharp, even wide open . . .
David (ZX5Lx) - It is a full frame fisheye..and a good one at that, especially if stopped down a bit.
R. Burgos - . . . 17/28 beats them all hands down. You get the extreeme coverage. . . with the advantage of zooming (fine trimming your super wide photos).
Paul G. Dileanis - . . . I use it a lot, especially for subjects which do not require lines to be straight.
Pål - . . . The fish-eye zoom isn't particularly sharp at any aperture although the result are usable.
Mark Cassino - . . . It's a fun and interesting lens.
Aaron - . . . The focus ring was amazingly smooth with the exactly right amount of resistance when I went to manual focus. . . No noticeable distortion anywhere in the range . . .
tv - . . . Sharp, contrasty, forgivable distortion for a zoom, good flare control.
Ralf - . . . I enjoy the size and the optical quality, which is absolute sufficient for normal use. . .
Leonard Paris - . . . a very nice lens. Seems to be very sharp with good contrast, too.
Pete - . . . The contrasty, full-frame sharpness, and distortion-free images have been phenomenal. . .
Andre Langevin - Small, . . . huge distorsion at 24mm . . .contrasty at "good" apertures, flare can be a problem, . . .
Bob Waldken - . . .highly recommend . . .well made, lightweight, metal, very good handling and first class optics.
Clive Williams - Good value for its price and weight. . . it does a good job. If it distorts, even at 24mm, I haven't noticed it, and the sharpness seems excellent. . .
Jim Brooks - . . . It is a nice handling lens, with a solid feel to the zoom and focus rings - . . .My only complaints with it are the lack of flare resistance, and the fact that it isn't all that easy to focus precisely.
Shel - . . .I'm not particularly thrilled with it. I find it a bit soft for my tastes, . . .
Raimo - . . .It appear to be very well built, . . . It is quite chunky but handles well with MZ-5n and battery pack Fg. Manual focusing is well damped but the ring is thin - The 24-90 is my new favourite, expensive but worth it. . . .24-90 is very good for general photography, for travel e.g.
Darren Sutherland - the FA* 28-70 f2.8 AL has not gotten the same super-favorable reviews that your FA* 80-200 f2.8 EDIF has gotten. . .
Pål - the FA* 28-70/2.8 is soft wide open. . . has a nice focus feel . . . nice clutch mechanism . . . [However] My lens . . . had constant recurring [mechanical] problems
Cameron - . . . I have never had any of the build quality qualms that others have talked about . . .
Steve Graham -. . . The FA* 28-70 is optically a superb lens. . .
Phil - . . . I would highly recommend this lens to anyone who is interested in taking sharp pictures. The only drawback to this lens is that it is a bit heavy.
Darren Sutherland - The FA28-70 f4.0 AL is a decent lens for it's price. . . fairly sharp É
Pål - The 28-70/4 is an excellent lens. Optically its fully comparable to the FA* 28-70/2.8 and probably better built. . . . but a narrow focus ring. . .
R. Burgos - The 28-70 /f4 FA . . . is optically better than any small zoom Pentax has issued before (except for the superb 28/70 /f2.8 FA). . . a superb lens
Ralf Engelmann - Good all round standard zoom, lightweigt but still sufficient mechanical quality, minor contrast problems at 28mm.
Steve Graham - . . . The FA* 28-70 is optically a superb lens...
Dave Anthony - The 28-70/4 is beautifully compact and light lens
Pascal De Pauw - Very good (sharp), but much distortion at 28mm.
Carlos Royo - . . . it is really a sharp lens, and excellent for its price.
Clive Williams - Nice lens. . . although . . .it a pain to use with a polarizer, as the focus changes when I try to adjust the filter.
Ralf Engelmann - Mechanically a very cheap lens with noticeable play in the focussing helicoid; moderate optical quality.
Jostein Øksne - . . . Nice macro function, but not the kind you would prefer for serious macro work. Good lens for the young novice. . .
Jens Bladt - . . . It may not be the worlds greatest lens - but it's not that bad.
Ken Waller - I have one (over 12 years old) that continues to see very heavy comercial usage. . . I regularily get enlargements from it that I have no problem with. I've never noticed any obvious distortion with it. . . If you need a lens in this range, I would recommend it. . .
R. Burgos S. -Nov 1997 - This lens has gotten kind of famous because its construction problems. It simply becomes loose after not much use. . . the elements are not well centered and actual axis shifts during zooming.
Pål - one of the the two worst Pentax AF lenses made [ the SMC-FA 28-80 F3.5-4.7 and the infamous SMC-FA 100-300 F4.5-5.6].
Steve Graham - . . . it's really not that bad . . .
Jens Bladt (From the web) - . . . It may not be the worlds greatest lens - but it's not that bad. . . good value for the money. . .
Joe Cali - . . . definitly not the greatest lens Pentax has ever made. It's bulky, heavy, not especially fast and the optical quality is average. . .
Charles Hardwick (From the web) - I'm very pleasantly surprised by this lens! I have been using the "EOS" system . . .
Ralf Engelmann - Probably the best standard zoom in the current program, very good optics, excellent 1:3 macro ability, mechanically good, but without the powerzoom it could be even better. A bit large for the new MZ-series bodies.
David (ZX5Lx) - . . .The Pentax FA 28-105 f4-f5.6 is an excellent lens optically, with weakness just at 28mm wide open. . . fairly well built and the power zoom works perfect. . .
Rubenstein, Bruce M - . . . If I was limited to one lens, that would be it . . . can deliver excellent pictures only 1 stop down, and very good ones wide open; . . . [it] is a bit large and heavy for its size, and I think the power zoom is a waste, but it's a very good lens.
Marc Polman - . . . low distortion levels and vignetting for it's class. The optical performance is not bad either. The short focussing distance is a real bonus!
John Francis - . . . arguably the best consumer-grade 28-105 on the market. . .
John Coyle - . . . may be the best all-round general purpose lens to be had. . .
Roberto - First impressions . . . The new FA28/105 lens shows good performance, very well built, extraordinary damping on the focus ring . . .
Roland Mabo - . . .Decent build quality, optically not as good as the power zoom but the differencies are quite small. . .
Roland Mabo - . . . It's incredible small! . . . The aperture ring is wide and easy to turn . . . A well made and compact lens that's well suited to travelling.
George Fockert - Good lens except the tele range, not very sharp at 135mm. . .
Fred - . . . has become my most used "everyday" or "walking around" lens . . . [it] is heavy (and it's "front-heavy", too, adding to the problem of balance). . .
Fred Sweeney - am VERY pleased with it. . . just about perfect for those occasions when you want to travel light. . .
Doug Hohenstein - It's not the sharpest lens in my box, but it's definitely the handiest. . .
Jerry Houston - . . . its manual focusing isn't bad at all. . . Optically, it's one of the best zoom lenses I've ever seen. . . . an OUTSTANDING lens for its implied purpose . . .
Roberto Burgos S. - . . . it is simply the best compromise ever achived in a "universal" lens . . . If wanting to travel light, its OK. But OTOH, if on assignment, this baby stays home. . .
Ed Mathews - . . . the lens does fine for most general purposes, snapshots, and vacation pictures of moderate enlargement. . .
Leonard Paris - It's not the sharpest lens in the world but, as a "people shooter" it does a very nice job. . .
(autofocus, but only if with ME-F body)
Bob Blakely - . . . Manual focus with [this] lens sucks. As a mater of fact, the lens sucks. . . . This lens has value only on the shelf of a collector where it should remain in all it's glory as the FIRST Autofocus lens. . . sucks up camera batteries like a starved cat lapping milk . . .
Mark Stringer - I used a Pentax M 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 for years on an ME-Super. It is fast, photos were excellent . . .
Tom Addison - I too have this 35-70 2.8-3.5M, . . . found it to be very good, sharp and contrasty for an older zoom. . .
Fred - . . . It's a pretty good little zoom, in my opinion, . . . Most impressive, actually, is its macro performance - better than most of the other so-called "macro zooms" that I've tested. . .
Alan Chan - Based on my experience, the f4 constant aperture one is sharper. . .
Malcolm Sales FRGS ARPS ABIPP - . . . its a lovely lens . . . it was my preferred lens for my LX's. Distortion is well under control for a zoom, and it is indeed very light. . .
Bob Waldken - . . . It's a very compact lens, more compact than the f/4 version, and the quality seemed pretty good. . .
Jens Bladt - I have this lens. It's an OK consumer zoom. But there is a lot of Barrel -/Pillow distortion . . .
Carlos Royo - . . . a better performer than most 35-70 or 35-80 (except wide open) . . . does not have a true macro capability. . .
Robert Harris - . . .loved it -- regret selling it when I went to AF. It was pretty much my general walking around lens for years, with an LX. Sharp and good close focusing. . .
Fred - . . . an unpretentious but effective little zoom lens. It has a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end (only), but it is quite sharp . . .
Gene Poon - . . . excellent optics, . . . excellent close focus capability at 70mm.
Ralf Engelmann - Moderate . . . quality, but for the price . . . o.k.. Contrast doesn't improve when stopping down.
Moses Knopfler - . . . tends to be fuzzy in the corners until you stop down to f/8, but it is certainly not a bad lens, having good contrast and low flare. . .
Michael Zirngibl - This one sucks. Only buy this one when can't afford another - or get a used 50mm/1.7, it's cheaper . . .
Ed - . . .It's actually quite good, especially from about 45mm - 80mm.. . , but from 35mm to 45mm the barrrel distortion limits it's use somewhat. Overall, it's a real bargain, extremely light and compact, and focuses well and accurately.
Artur Ledóchowski - . . .For me it's the best standard zoom in it's class on the market. Pretty sharp, little distortion, low price for nice quality . . .
Joe Tainter - For an inexpensive, default lens, it is surprisingly good. . .
Bill Kane - . . . my favorite by far. . . I can't tell the differance between pictures I have taken with this or my 50mm prime.
Tom Addison - I find that while it does take great slides in good light, the performance wide open is not so good so it is really a f5.6 with a bright V-finder . . .
Jerry Houston - . . . versatility . . . without exacting a terrible cost in lost sharpness and contrast. Under most circumstances, I would be at a loss to tell which pictures I'd taken with my 35-105 and which I'd taken with my prime lenses.
Richard S. Ross -. . . . optically it is just about as sharp as any prime. I can rarely tell the difference on my chromes and use this lens along with my 24 and 200 for just about everything . . .
Doug Hohenstein - . . . a fantastic lens. Sharp as a tack, and very bright and contrasty.
Mike Breen - the Pentax 35-105A is a constant aperture lens, f/3.5 all-the-way, and one of best zooms Pentax has made . . . in my experience. . .
Fred - . . . seems to be an excellent lens, in my experience. . . . quite sharp, low in linear distortion, and surprisingly resistant to flare. [long detailed review follows . . .]
Bob S. - nice lens if a bit heavy, good walking around lens . . . fine for normal photos, but not much of a macro.
Steve Larson - . . . a great lens optically. Mechanically, I think it lacks just a tad, seems a little loose. . .
Jan Schuur - . . . The lens is sharp, contrasty, and lightweight and has got a usefull macro setting.
Michael Hubbard - Im very pleased with my 35-105 F series lens. . . Doesnt flare, contrast is nice, and the macro abilities are decent. Its small enough and certainly light. . .
David B. Vance - It is big compared to modern standards, but it is sharp and contrasty with minimal flare . . .
Nenad Djurdjevic - Disappointing wide-open. Soft, especially at the edges and lacks contrast. Improves stopped down but then is hard to hand-hold. . . .
Bob S. - The reputation on the lens from day one has been weak. . . . I have a copy and it is OK, but not as sharp as the A series zooms.
Steve Scott - I've found it has excellent contrast and sharpness
Tonghang Zhou - This . . . is a terrible lens. . .The resolution is not the worst, but the color and contrast really stinks.
R. Burgos - I have the FA70/210 4.0-5.6 and its a good lens. It doesnt come loose as the 28/80. Great lens for portraits.
Ralf Engelmann - A good and optically brilliant lens, . . . big compared to modern telezooms.
Jerry Houston - . . . It is very convenient to use, and it was made at a time when Pentax lens build quality was about as high as it's ever been.
João Vale - . . . a superb lens.
David Cook. . . flare is very well controlled.
Tom Addison - . . . I have one, I love it. It is heavy and really well built and the optics are very good for a zoom. . .
David Collett -. . . it is robust, makes nice pictures and has a constant aperture - what more could one want? . . .
Mark Lindamood - . . . found to my great horror, given the reputation of the 70-210, that the 80-200 was clearly sharper at 4.5 than the 70-210 was at 4.0. . .
Fred - . . . a sharp, solid lens. . . my most used all-around nature photo lens . . .
Alin Fleider - . . . It's by far the best optically among its peers . . .
Gene Poon - . . . Very happy with optical performance . . . Not so happy with build quality . . .
Jens, Denmark - I didn't like my FA 70-200/4.0-5.6 much. Not bad, but not very good either. . .
Stephan Schwartz -. . . one of the best lenses Pentax ever made . . .
herbet brasileiro - . . . an excellent lens. . . only drawback is the rather slow autofocus. . . But . . .great lens for the price.
G.T.Addison - . . . by keeping the range of zoom low Pentax made a very useful, highly portable, fine quality lens . . .
George Stanley - . . . Really, Really Excellent! . . .the designers were able to achieve really superb optical performance.
Shel Belinkoff - My least favorite lens. . . It's too "soft" for my taste, . . . and too big and bulky . . .
Dave Weiss -. . . it never has disapointed me. It always renders sharp and contrasty prints.
FstopTraveler - . . . superlative . . .
Sas Gabor - It's one of my favorite optics on my LX. I found the results sharp an contrasty even wide open.
Doug Brewer - . . .while the weight issue is real, I consider the resultant photos worth the trouble. . . can tell you from my =real world= use, it's simply outstanding. . .
Phil -. . . To start with, this is a great lens. Optically, I have never been disappointed with its performance. . .
SudaMafud - No one, not even PENTAX, makes a better mid-range zoom.
It's a lens that perform very stable image quality...I haven't had bad picture since I had it.But it's heavy and huge,not easy to hand held. . .
Ralf Engelmann - . . . mechanically without problems, optically moderate to good quality with some problems full open.
Douglas J Stemke - I've grown to really like this lens. . . I've taken really lovely photos . . . blown up from a slide to 8X12 inches and it still retains great sharpness. . .
Ralf Engelmann - . . . a compact and affordable standard telezoom. . . . it's the most convincing offer in the Pentax telezoom range. . . does more than one would expect from the price and size. Optical quality is o.k., mechanical quality is pretty good and I like the internal zooming feature.
Ralf - . . . definitively a step back. If you can get the former SMC-F 4.7-5.6/80-200mm, buy that one. Same optics, but considerable better mechanics than the new silver FA version. . .
Ken Kuo - Good overall lens, but no significant change from the 100-300Élacks macro feature. . .
David (ZX5Lx) - . . . I had the chance to test the new 80-320 against the original 100-300 (both Pentax). . . tripod mounted, good contrasty lighting conditions with both print and slide film. . . they were extremely close in optical performance, virtually identical, with maybe a very slight edge going to the 80-320 in terms of contrast. . .
Roberto Burgos S. -. . . From 80 to about 250 is tack sharp, then it softens towards the 320 end. Flare is very well controlled . . .
Derrin Auerswald - . . . it is solidly built, and nicely balanced.
Pascal De Pauw - Better then FA100-300, but still soft above 200mm. Good build, reasonable. . .
Mark Cassino - . . . Main advantages -- it's sharp, contrasty, well designed, light, compact, and affordable. AF is reasonably fast. . . What I really like about this lens is the way colors get punched up - it delivers a very saturated and contrasty image. It's also nice and light, . . .
Bruce Dayton - . . .pretty good . . .
Alin Flaider - . . . It certainly delivers better optical quality than most consumer zooms . . .
Treena Harp - . . . I get very good color and contrast from this lens . . .
Andreas Busse - I'm satisfied with the quality. . . it lacks a bit sharpness wide open.
Ralf Engelmann - Optically a sharp lens, but some contrast problems beyond 200mm. . .
Raimo - . . . if you close it down a couple of stops you might be quite satisfied . . .
Pål - one of the the two worst Pentax AF lenses made [ the SMC-FA 28-80 F3.5-4.7 and the infamous SMC-FA 100-300 F4.5-5.6].
Udi Efrat - I like my AF 100-300. . . the sharpness and contrast look good. . .
Steve Graham -. . . it is certainly not one of Pentax's better efforts. It's quite soft at the 300 end, and build is not great. It's still useable though.
fritz polesny - . . . this optic brings good results if you use it only between 100 and 200 mm. . .
rob -. . . I am very impressed....It weighs nothing compared to a 400mm lens. The f8/12 is no problem focussing in normal daylight.
Donald Ross - . . . It's very compact and light for the reach it gives you
Valentin Donisa - The "A" comes in two versions. SMC and non-SMC. I have the "wrong" one (non-SMC). I took good slides with it anywhere in the 28-60 range. At 80 it's soft (nice portrait soft-lens :-) It's said to have distorsions (barrel?) at the 28mm end, but that didn't bother me. Vignetting? Never bothered me either. . .
Dan Johnson - . . . It's a fairly heavy lens, especially compared to the newer zooms in the same zoom range. . . . Maybe I got lucky but...this lens is sharp, even at 28 and 80 mm focal lengths, and has lower-than-average distortion. I . . .found this PENTAX lens astonishingly better than the NIKON lens I had been using, and it was a good lens! . . .