Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 14, 2008, 5:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
thkn777's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831

Hello there,
I read a lot about that lense and to sum it up most people wrote something like "I still regret that I sold mine". So when I saw one on eBaythese wordscame into my mind and I decided I'd give it a go and placed a rather low bid (for a f/4 lense) and today I had it in my postbox!

For those that are interested some first quick shots and impressions. It's smaller than my Vivitar 70-210/2.8-4, about the same length, but 55 vs. 62mm diameter. It's really lightweight compared to my Viv lense, which is the next reason why I bought it. It's not so much the carrying around that bothers me, but if you shoot 2 hours with the Viv you really know what you did. The lense is in very good shape, looks and feels like new and came with both caps anda softleather bag.

I could only shoot inside since it was already late, so nothing fancy here. It's a fully manual lense, I took the photos in RAW and if not stated otherwise they were just converted with Pentax Photo Lab (PPL), indoor WB, sharpness -3 (smoothest setting, I don't like PPL's sharpening), full color noise removal, no other noise removal. I adjusted exposure in PPL if necessary. I'll post all images at 600*400 size, with giving the full view (1 exception) and detail crops, which are 1:1 crops. No other postprocessing (again 1 exception). Images were saved in JPEG fine from PPL.

All photos taken wide open, at different ISO settings. Most of the shots were taken hand-held, but I leaned on something if shutter speed was too low. There might be a tiny shake in some pictures, at least sometimes it feels that way. Here we go.

#1 - catalog (A4 size): 200mm, ISO800

#1 - detail

#2 - flower: 200mm, ISO200

#2 - detail

#3 - flower: 200mm, ISO3200(!). I took this because at that flower it always felt as if I was shaking ever so little.

#3 - detail. Postprocessed with noise reduction and sharpen/refocus, histogram. Judging from this picture I'd say I can do even better with a tripod and ISO200 in #2

#4 - eye: 200mm, ISO1600, detail

#5 - orchid branch: 80mm, ISO1600

#5 - detail

#6 - magazine (A4 size): 200mm, ISO200

#6 - detail

#9 - flower: 200mm, ISO800

#9 - detail 1 (red)

#9 - detail 2 (green)

#10 - bouquet: 80mm, ISO800

#10 - detail

#11 - white flower: 200mm, ISO800

#11 - detail1

#11 - detail 2

#13 - crisps: 200mm, ISO800

#13 - detail 1

#13 - detail 2


Ok - that's it. My first impression: performance wide open is nice, the bokeh is smoother than with the Vivitar. There is very little CA so far, but that will change in broad daylight I guess. Colors look good, warmer than on the Viv and more natural. Contrast is good, too - the Viv tends to produce a slight "haze" now and then.

It's too early for me to really draw a final conclusion, but I am really happy with the first impression. The lense is a pleasure to use/operate and the results look good to me.

Best regards and happy snapping,

thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 14, 2008, 11:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,177

You would have to post nice pictures with this particular lens. I have one (still) that has oil on the aperture blades (a relatively common problem with old Kiron lenses - make sure yours doesn't have this fault). I keep thinking about getting it repaired, because when I can get it to stop down somewhat, it's quite sharp. The thing that holds me back is that I know I can probably get one off of ebay for less than what it would cost to get mine fixed. So it sits on the shelf because I can't quite bring myself to toss it out. Now you've gotten me thinking about it again.

As far as faults go,as Irecall, minesuffers a bit from flare under certain lighting conditions - more so than the modern digital lenses with their extra coatings. It doesn't have as much trouble with it as my old K-mount Takumar (non SMC) 135mm 2.5 lens does, though. I really like the push-pull zoom.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2008, 11:43 PM   #3
Senior Member
bigdawg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981

Not too shabby!

bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2008, 3:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
thkn777's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831

Thanks you two

Here are three other shots, I am still only toying around, but it's funny to get the hang on a "M" lense (used F and A ones only before).

#1 - ("Foot" of a ) tree and flowers

#2 - spring has sprung: now hurry to catch up!

#3 - Scilla (don't know how these are called in english /shrug, but they do look nice)


thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.