On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andre Langevin wrote: > DJE wrote: > > >SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap > >"beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. > > I am a bit surprised by your evaluation here. Have you used a SMCT > 35/3.5 in your comparison? I find the K 35/3.5 (supposedly identical > to the SMCT 35/3.5) superior to the K35/2 (supposedly identical to > the SMCT 35/2) as far as flare and resolution are concerned.
I'm a bit surprised by the results of my testing, I'll admit, given that it should be easy to build a good 35/3.5 and much harder to build a good 35/2.0. However, the 35/3.5 was the least sharp 35mm prime I tested in both center and corners, only achieving parity at f/8.0. In general other 35s were equally sharp at a stop wider aperture than the 35/3.5. Of course most of them also open at least a stop wider! This was the Super Takumar and not Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version, which is probably why the more modern 35mms I tested against it did better. On the other hand, in my testing the non-SMC 35/f2.0 was sharper across most apertures. This is NOT TO SAY that the 35/3.5 Super Takumar is a bad lens. It outperforms the Pentax A and M zooms I tested it against in that focal length range, and probably most other zooms as well. By f/8.0 it is competitive with many other wide-angle lenses. Note also that I'm testing for sharpness/contrast, not bokeh, distortion, or any of the other sometimes subtle properties that give a lens its "look". "Flare" in my mind is something that describes how a lens handles light coming in at difficult angles, which is also not something I tested. I suspect that the 35/3.5 was a "beginner" lens because in its day 35mm was the standard wide-angle focal length, the one recommended by Keppler in his "Asahi Pentax Way" as a first wide-angle. It appears to have been felt back then that wider lenses were too obviously distorted. Nikon also made 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 kinds of lenses back then that were small and cheap and they have only mediocre reputations in the Nikon community, also probably as "first wide angles". Nikon also made a 35/2.0 for years, just like Pentax. Gerjan's book says that the front element of the 35/3.5 was NEVER multi-coated, even in the SMC Takumar version, which also suggests that it was a "bargain starter" lens for Pentax. (That's also why I don't have an SMC 35/3.5 to test, given that I've already got a non-smc one. I don't have an SMC-T 35/2.0 because I can't find one!) The existance of the 35/2.0 by itself makes me wonder how Pentax felt about the 35/3.5. They didn't in the same era make more than one concurrent version of the 24 or 28, but they made 2 35/2.0 designs and had them availible alongside the 35/3.5 for years. I could always have a bad sample, too. DJE
