Pentax 28-80/f3.5-5.6 vs. 28-70/f4

Any experience with these? Which is better optically? I won't be using
the Macro feature on the 28-80 much, so that's not an issue. To be
used on a ZX-5. Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

TIA,
Pinaki.

Pinaki:
Pentax 28-80/f3.5-5.6 vs. 28-70/f4

Have a look at photodo.com. I am not sure these are the correct
versions of the lenses, because the tests are rather old. But the 28-80
has the worst resolution I have every seen in a test. The 28-70 is ok,
but not outstanding. I am sure there are better lenses out there.

Thomas

Pinaki wrote:

Any experience with these? Which is better optically? I won't be using
the Macro feature on the 28-80 much, so that's not an issue. To be
used on a ZX-5. Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.

These guys http://stans-photography.info/ like the 28-70, but haven't
updated for the 28-80 yet.

The 28-70/4 is by far a better lens, given all reports.
But its construction is questionable. Many have reported lens
separations when it gets a little older.
And it's not very fast, so AF work may suffer.
One would be better off, imnsho, to get a Tokina instead.

Collin
KC8TKA

Thanks a lot, Collin, Paul and Thomas. Seems to be a no-brainer. Indeed
both
the websites give a hands-down verdict. Collin, do you mean the Tokina
28-70/f2.8?

Now, the Pentax 28-70/f4 is available new at Broadway Photo and A&M
Photo
world for $150. + shipping. KEH has one in Ex+ cond. for $94. A quick
googling
reveals "not-very-favorable" opinion about B-way and A&M. Shall I be
better
off with the KEH deal?

On a different note, the local Ritz Camea has a Sigma 28-80/f3.5-5.6
(Asph)
on clearence for $36.00 (new with full warranty). Is it worth it at
this price? Or
is the money better spent on a McCallan? :-)

Thanks,
Pinaki.

Yes. The Tokina AT-X 28-70 2.8 or (iirc) the 2.6-2.8 have a better
build.
They're faster, so af response is better.
They're faster, so will cost more.
But that bright finder really is, to many, worth the difference.

Now, I wouldnt be surprized if the Pentax 28-70/4 would be a tad
bit sharper. But since the Tokina is an excellent, well-regarded lens
the difference is likely very minimal -- you won't see a real
difference.

Personally, I've only ever owned a couple of lenses that were "bad".
And that means something very simply -- the difference is visible
on a 4x6 print from a 35 neg. Those Chinon lenses from the 60s & 70s
were pretty bad. And that old Soligor stuff generally reeks.

But get to the 80s and some good lenses can be had for modest prices.
One of my favorite bargains is the (manual focus) Sears 80-200/4
(Model 202) that was made in Korea. Early versions are K/M mount but
later units have the "A" contact for later bodies. These lenses have
good contrast
and perform rather well. And they sell for only around $40 or
thereabouts.

Collin
KC8TKA
http://www.brendemuehl.net

According to Alex gallery, the following zooms were classified 'very
good'
SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6
SMC-F 28-80/3.5-4.5
SMC-FA 28-70/4 AL
SMC-FA 28-105/4-5.6
SMC-F 35-70/3.5-4.5

The site did not give any criteria as to how he arrived at that. I have
the last one but I only like it around 35-50. Maybe I am spoilt with
only prime at 28, 50 & 100. But the zoom's advantage in convenience is
undisputed.

Daniel

Daniel

"dtong22" wrote:

According to Alex gallery, the following zooms were classified 'very
good'
SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6
SMC-F 28-80/3.5-4.5
SMC-FA 28-70/4 AL
SMC-FA 28-105/4-5.6
SMC-F 35-70/3.5-4.5

The site did not give any criteria as to how he arrived at that. I have
the last one but I only like it around 35-50. Maybe I am spoilt with
only prime at 28, 50 & 100. But the zoom's advantage in convenience is
undisputed.


Beware! The SMC-FA 28-70/4 AL performs well when new but this design
seems to suffer from severe optical problems later in life.

There appears to be a problem with cemented elements separating.
Repair is impracticable. If you buy one that isn't yet affected by
this problem, you are taking a big gamble.

It's a pity, as this was a very nice lens.