F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
RE: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
G'day Greg. I have 2 of these SMC F 35-135 lenses. One lives on the PZ-1p. The other lives on the *ist Ds. I've found it to be a very good lens on both the Ds and the -1p. 35mm focus is about 8 to 10 feet (I haven't actually measured it accurately). 135 mm focus is about the same. What body are you using? It's a shame it doesn't focus closer as it is a very sharp lens with a very usable zoom range. The second lens was CLAed by C.R.Kennedy in Melbourne a few months ago. For a walk around lens, it's great. It allows you to reach further than a 28-105 and be less intrusive in public. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Grafton, Australia -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
RE: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
Oops. Forgot to mention. The Macro focus also helps for close focus. Some times at 35mm you can actually get close focus 2 to 3 feet by going to macro at 135. Regards, Trevor
Re: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Can't speak to the design, but I know I looked at that very same lens in the used department of National Camera here in Minneapolis last winter. Fresh off the purchase of my DS, I was dying to fill out my collection of autofocus zooms, and this was sitting in the case with a very low price. The loong minimum-focus distance is what prompted me to leave it there and look for something else. Otherwise, it seemed like an OK lens. So, while I don't have the exact distances marked off to compare against the one you've got, I do recall that you do have to step quite a ways back to photograph someone who is in the same room with you. I get better close-focus results with my Tamron XR 28-200! -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
I have this lens and regret I bought it, even if I paid very littler for it. Its not very sharp, at least not my copy, and the min focus thing is a real pain. Because of these two issues, I rarely use it anymore, and resort to my 24-90 when I need a range like that. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
