> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Pentax Fish-eye Takumar 17/4.0 and Kiron 28/2.0 (K) > > One of each of these is coming my way. What are your opinions on > them? > > Just making conversation, > Kostas
I've got a 17/4.0 super-tak (I'd really like the SMC if I could find and afford it) which is small, light, and fun to play with but I'm not yet convinced it is all that sharp. The A16/2.8 is sharper, and a little better designed in some ways. The rotating filter thingie on my 17 tends to wander, sometimes leaving a filter half in the optical path. There is very little to keep you from sticking the lens cap or your finger into the front element. Yes, all fisheyes have this problem, but I don't have it so much with the A16 which has a little lens-hood and a deeper lens cap. The 17/4 is also interesting on my Spiratone 2x converter. Firstly, it has a wider angle of view than the 35mm you'd expect, and while it doesn't have all that much distortion at the edges (lines bowing out) it's got pronounced barrel distortion in the center. Why I'd want a distorted 34/8.0 I'm not quite sure.... Given my experiences with 3rd party lenses, I'd be leery of the 28/2.0 Kiron. Even manufacturer's 28s can be weak at the edges, especially the fast ones, and I don't recall Kiron being in the top tier of the 3rd party manufacturers. That's not to say that I won't believe it could be fun and useful, especially if you got it for a lot less than the $350 or so that KEH currently has an M28/2.0 listed at. I've never used any Kiron lenses per se. I've used one Tamron (80-210/3.8-4.0), one Tokina (35-70), and one Sigma (14/3.5) plus a Tamron 17/3.5 that I haven't tested and a Tokina 28/2.8 that I haven't seen any real pictures from. Aside from the Sigma 14, all were adequate but inferior to Pentax or Nikon lenses. DJE
