I used Bob Sullivan's 15/3.5 (don't recall if it was an A or a K) pretty much wide open when I was in Chicago last year. the negs and the prints of "Sue the Dinosaur" were gorgeous, very sharp, good contrast - Leicalike in definition. The shots were hand held, too. I highly recommend this lens.
Fred wrote: > > Prompted by the inhumane conversion of a Pentax K 15/3.5 to a Nikon > mount (in the "Poor SMC Pentax 15/3.5 in a (Gasp!) Nikon Mount" > thread), and wondering just how the Pentax 15/3.5 design stands up > to the apparently more expensive Nikon 15/3.5, I dug out some > Amateur Photographer reviews. (The bottom line is that AP found the > two lenses to be very similar.) The K and A 15/3.5 lenses have been > reviewed in Amateur Photography at least three times: > > "Test Report - Ultrawide from 7.5 to 24 mm", March 13, 1982 (K > 15/3.5, along with Hoya 24/2.8, Canon 20/2.8, Tamron 17/3.5, and > Minolta 7.5/4). > > "All -Round Vision", Dec. 15, 1990 (A 15/3.5, along with Canon > 15/2.8, Sigma 15/2.8, and Nikon 15/3.5). > > "Superwide Shoot-Out!", March 12, 1994 (A 15/3.5, along with Canon > 20/2,8, Minolta 20/2.8, Leica 19/2.8, Tokina 17/3,5, Vivitar 19/3.8, > Tamron 17/3.5, and Sigma 18/3.5). > > >From 1982: > > "This lens looks like something used on a moon mission." "Despite > its size, the Pentax handles very well. Focusing was a little stiff > and the viewfinder image a little dark, despite the quite large > f/3.5 maximum aperture. Distortion is remarkably low for such a > wideangle. If kept horizontal, it is difficult to believe you are > looking through a 15mm lens because of the lack of distortion." > "There seems little point in including both skylight and UV filters > as they are much the same - a red or correction filter would have > been more useful." "The focusing movement is very short because of > the massive depth of field." "Performance of the Pentax was very > good. Test prints were slightly soft at full aperture but crisp from > f/5.6 right down to the minimum aperture. Contrast held up well." > > Overall performance - Very good > Central definition - Very good > Edge definition - Very good > Image contrast - Very good > Optical balance - Good > Best central definition - f/11 > Best overall definition - f/11 > Best edge definition - f/11 > > >From 1990: > > "The Pentax lens is free from barrel distortion and is good value > for money." "This Pentax and the Nikon [15/3.5] both show less > rectilinear distortion than most zoom lenses. At the edges of their > respective fields the deviation from the straight in the images is > too small to be reported." "In both lenses, it was possible to > measure the resolving powers in the outer field, and it can be said > that the images held up their quality to a previously unheard of > degree." > > Measured focal length - 15.8mm [Nikon was 15.7mm] > Distortion - Rectilinearly corrected [same for Nikon] > Central definition - Excellent [same for Nikon] > Edge definition - Excellent [same for Nikon] > Overall - Excellent [same for Nikon] > > [Resolution graphs also shown] > [Best high contrast resolution in center at f/8 and f/11] > [Best high contrast resolution in edge at f/8] > [Best low contrast resolution in center at f/8] > [Best low contrast resolution in edge at f/16] > > >From 1994: > > "In looking at the test graphs, keep in mind that this is a 15mm > lens which has very good overall performance and note there's > somewhat more barreling than is to be found in the previous three > objectives [the Pentax was the widest lens tested in this review], > and one stop drop in corner illumination at open aperture is to be > regarded as something of a miracle in a 15mm low-distortion lens." -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
