You're right the little 35 to 70mm isn't the sharpest lens Pentax ever
made. It isn't even the sharpest zoom that Pentax ever made. It falls
short a bit short when compared to the 20-35mm f4.0 or it's original
stablemate the 70-210mm f4-5.6. But then the 20-35 is damn near the
sharpest zoom I've ever seen and the 70-210 seems to be one of the best
regarded zooms Pentax ever made in that focal length range. A good
prime will easily out preform it, but you'd expect that. It's forte is
being very small, about the same size and length as a normal (35mm on
APS-C digital, or 50 on 35mm film), prime, and sharp enough. It fills
the focal length gap between the two aforementioned zooms nicely and
gives better than adequate results.
Doug Franklin wrote:
>P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yea, compare it to the best... Poor thing must have gotten an
>>inferiority complex. I didn't like this lens on film as much as I liked
>>the FA 28~70 F4.0 many it rest in peace. Seems that most aren't happy
>>with that lens on digital...
>>
>>I think that the F 35-70mm probably out resolves the 6mp sensor. Maybe
>>I'll be disappointed with it when I finally get a K10D.
>>
>>Doug Franklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Boy, that sure wasn't my experience [with the smc Pentax F 35-70mm
>>>f3.5~4.5]. [...] I was disappointed in the sharpness, [...]
>>>flare control was certainly up to Pentax' (high) standards. [...]
>>>could've seemed less sharp because the same rolls contained shots
>>>from the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 and A 50/1.4.
>>>
>>>
>
>I guess I should give it a try on the *ist D.
>
>When I got back into photography after a long hiatus, it was a handful
>of months before the ZX-5n/MZ-5n came out, so I ended up getting a ZX-5.
>Trying to economize, I also got the F 35-70 and F 100-300 lenses with it.
>
>I made those decisions in the emotional aftermath of trying to shoot the
>first Petit le Mans with a K-1000 and a couple of Promaster zooms (35-80
>and 80-200). They were *not* the best decisions I ever made, or the
>most considered ones.
>
>>From almost the beginning, I wasn't satisfied with the 100-300. At
>first I thought it was me. After I bought some serious glass, I found
>it wasn't. Since I shoot mostly at the long end of the focal length
>spectrum, it quickly went into a box in the closet while better lenses
>populated my field bag.
>
>For a long time, I was mostly satisfied with the F 35-70, but I always
>felt that I wasn't getting the images I should be getting from it. It
>had been quite a while, but I got into this hobby with a K-1000 and an
>SMC-M 50/1.4 and a buttload of Tri-X Pan, many moons ago. The F wasn't
>coming close to what I was expecting.
>
>When I got an A 50/1.4 I finally started getting the images I expected.
> Granted, it's one of the best 35mm SLR lenses around, but it's what
>that old M 50/1.4 had trained me to expect.
>
>As I attempted more motorsports photography (it's almost all I do
>anymore), I realized that it was a situation where the equipment really
>does matter. So I started getting good long lenses, like the FA*
>200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5. I couldn't afford the FA* 600/4 or FA 400/5.6
>or FA* 400/2.8 or FA* 300/2.8, but if I could, I'd snap them up in a
>second. I have a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro that's good, but I still want
>the Pentax.
>
>[BTW, the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 are absolutely, bar none, the cat's
>meow. It took me a long time to find them at reasonable prices, but it
>was worth the wait. I can't wait to see how they perform on the K10D,
>because they look as good on the *ist D as they did on 35mm film.]
>
>I don't have credentials, so I have to shoot from the cold side of the
>fences. That means distance. I'm used to working corners where the
>cars are a dozen feet or less away. Shooting from the "nearby hillside"
>just annoys the heck out of me, in addition to making it more difficult
>for me to get the shots I want to get. The shots that I know are not
>only there, but that none of the "pros" there are going to get.
>
>[Note: The skills for getting good shots at 10 feet are a bit different
>than the ones for 50m with a long lens. :-) ]
>
><rant>
>One thing that just annoys the feces out of me is the "herd photography"
>I see at pro race events. At the Petit le Mans last weekend, there were
>probably somewhere north of 100 credentialed still photogs and more
>credentialed video photogs. And they move around the track like a herd
>of bison on the prairie. For the Thursday night practice session, the
>course marshals ("corner workers") at turn seven had to call in to race
>control asking for "crowd control" support, because they had /31/
>photogs blocking the Emergency Vehicles (EVs) access to the track,
>between the turn station and the "Jersey Barrier" wall to drivers'
>right. WTF?! Get off your lazy asses.
>
>I work corners, so I know a lot of the corner workers at any given event
>at several tracks. All I would have to do is work one day of an event
>to have a "track" access pass, which would get me to virtually any "hot"
>area on the property, and virtually none of the "VIP" areas.
>
>Since I work corners, I'm used to being in places and situations on the
>"hot side" that most people don't encounter. So maybe I'm being a
>little hard on the "herd". But I don't really think so. It only takes
>a little bit of looking around to find great shots that no one is
>exploiting.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have a "blue vest" (official credentials), so I
>(mostly) haven't been able to take advantage of this. One case where
>some "friendlies" took care of me was the first turn of the first lap of
>last year's Petit, and it resulted in these shots:
>
>http://NutDriver.org/Wreck/Narrative.shtml
>
>When I took those photos, only one "pro" was anywhere nearby, and no
>amateurs of any stripe. We were in what is euphemistically termed the
>"impact area", and almost participated in an "impact", but for the skill
>of the drivers. It was a dangerous spot, no doubt about it. But that's
>where the shots are that no one else is taking. And you don't even need
>long lenses for a lot of the best shots. Something like a 28-80/2.8 on
>35mm film would do for more than 80% of it. But you do need quick
>reflexes and a preternatural sense of hearing and danger. :-) The
>ability to quickly lug a 20# fire bottle through the gravel is
>appreciated, too.
>
>There was a "herd" of about 50 photogs to our right about 30 meters, all
>getting the same shot, broadside to rear quarter. Not really exciting
>or explanatory. That one pro and I got a sequence that clearly showed
>the entire incident, staring down the muzzle, as it were. We also got a
>shirt full of gravel. If only I'd known who to contact to sell it to.
></rant>
>
>So, to get back on point after all that drivel, I guess the situation is
>that as I've demanded more of the equipment, and as my skill has
>improved, I've been moving up-market on lenses, and I've gotten a lot
>more critical of the glass, and I'm less likely to ascribe quality
>issues to myself, because I have a better regimen that largely
>eliminates "one off" effects.
>
>Net/net, the F 35-70 was up to my standards at one time, but now it
>isn't. But it's being compared against some of the best glass Pentax
>has ever made.
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
