Will reslove 200 LPMM or better, minimum distortion entire zoom range, with lens hood does not show flare, all as compared to primes within the zoom range.
Who actually cares? If a print is made using film and the print is sharp then what is the problem. This insistence on even higher definition from the lenses will not affect how good a film is or make it better. As I said in my previous post the best definition is gained when a tripod is used.
I used the Carl Zeiss 35mm lens system in the 1980s and, indeed, there was no zoom available maybe because zoom technology could not compete with the primes.
View attachment 232690
Who actually cares? If a print is made using film and the print is sharp then what is the problem. This insistence on even higher definition from the lenses will not affect how good a film is or make it better. As I said in my previous post the best definition is gained when a tripod is used.
The Vivitar Series One 24-48mm comes in the Pentax K Mount and is a very good lens, as is the Vivitar Series One 28-90.
Both of the above are very sharp and provide excellent alternatives to the marvelous Pentax Prime lenses if you need a zoom. The primary downside is their weight.
I concur. Both of these lenses were excellent. I find I like the 28-90 a little less at the 28 end of its range as I start to notice distortion and it vignettes even with a WA hood, but once it gets out to about 35 it’s great. Heavy as hell, but great.In fact, the Komine built Vivitar Series One 28-90 and 70-210 lenses make a great set for those wanting zooms for their older Pentax cameras.
Those images look plenty sharp with sufficient contrast to me. I certainly wouldn't call that lens "bad" or "junk" as some photographers here may feel inclined to do. And not to forget, zoom lenses can be quite practical in some situations, despite whatever optical short-comings (real or imagined). If I had the choice between missing a shot with a prime lens and getting the shot with a zoom lens, I would probably opt for the latter.These are with the 40+ year old Zoom-Nikkor 80~200/4.5 Ai.
View attachment 232751 View attachment 232752
At 200mm v
View attachment 232753
at 80mm v
View attachment 232754
All wide-open, at F4.5.
View attachment 232755
I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.
Canon UK are currently offering double cash back on EOS D/SLR lenses, so now might be the time to compare old and new zooms on a 35mm body. This act of generosity may not be unconnected with Canon's conversion to mirrorless and the R full frame mount.EOS L series zooms gives the ride even to to Leica primes, I also have.
There are a few Pentax 2x or 3x zooms that are highly regarded: the A24-50 has been mentioned, the A35-105/3.5 is often described as a 'stack of primes', the A70-210/4 is also highly regarded. The A series lenses will work seemlessly as manual focus lenses on any Pentax film or digital body. Some of the Vivitar Series 1 or Tamron ADii SP zooms are also very good.
I use the FA20-35/4, F35-70/3.5-4.5, M75-150/4 & M80-200/4.5 without any complaints.
Check the Pentax Forums lens review database: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
The Vivitar Series One 24-48mm comes in the Pentax K Mount and is a very good lens, as is the Vivitar Series One 28-90.
Both of the above are very sharp and provide excellent alternatives to the marvelous Pentax Prime lenses if you need a zoom. The primary downside is their weight.
In fact, the Komine built Vivitar Series One 28-90 and 70-210 lenses make a great set for those wanting zooms for their older Pentax cameras. You would certainly have the focal lengths pretty well covered with some pretty nice glass. Image quality from those two zooms is certainly more then adequate. You will do a bit better using primes but you will certainly feel the extra weight in your camera bag.
Add in the Vivitar 2x TC and your reach is even greater. Though the image quality degrades a bit with the tele-converter I find it is often preferable to cropping while enlarging.
Interestingly I find that if I can get focused properly with these zooms the results are really spectacular. A good tripod, a sharp film like TMX100, and the Pentax Action Finder on the LX are wonderful tools for ensuring tight, sharp focus and astounding image results.
Yet, this is analog forum, digital bits don't apply, that was the idea. I guess ideas mean nothing because someone said there is overlap thus anything goes ... not.It's on topic. One of the differences between old and new zooms is in-camera sharpening and other tweaks. That makes it more difficult to tell what's lens definition and what is processing. Canon EOS is one of the few brands that has a lens range to fit both film and digital cameras natively, so direct comparisons can be made.
I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.
I really like my old Nikon Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8
Are you saying lenses designed in the digital era that fit Canon EOS film cameras are off limits because they were made for digital cameras? That seems a fundamentalist stance even for this forum.Yet, this is analog forum, digital bits don't apply, that was the idea. I guess ideas mean nothing because someone said there is overlap thus anything goes ... not.
Back to topic, Minolta's 70-210 / 4.0 MD mount was a superb zoom and arguably one the few that gave primes a run for the money at the time. Even those Leitz people liked it.
No, the digital chat associated with them.Are you saying lenses designed in the digital era that fit Canon EOS film cameras are off limits because they were made for digital cameras? That seems a fundamentalist stance even for this forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?