Pentax-A 28-80mm 1:3.5-4.5 zoom - different versions.

The old Pentax-A 28-80mm 1:3.5-4.5 zoom often comes in for quite a lot of criticism. I have read quite a few comments about poor build quality and soft images. However I never realised before, there have been several different versions of this lens, and I was wondering if these general comments apply to all versions.

It seems between 1984 & 1988 there was a non smc "TAKUMAR-A" version. Then between 1989 & 1994 it appears the same lens (well comparing the specifications on Bojidar Dimitrov's excellent web site anyway), was marketed as a non smc "PENTAX-A" lens.

However between 1986-1988 there was a "SMC PENTAX-A" version with a completely different optical formula, this time with 12 elements in 9 groups, as apposed to 8 elements in 8 groups, and of course the famed SMC coating.

On paper at least it would seem the "SMC PENTAX-A" version would perhaps have been better, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum who has owned one could confirm or deny this ?

My interest is I have a small, but growing collection of A series lenses, and in the past have never considered buying the 28-80, mainly due to its reported poor performance. However if the SMC coated version was better I'll keep my eyes open for one. Two changed hands on ebay over the weekend, so they are out there !

Cheers,

/Ian

my understanding of the situation is thus:

The SMC Pentax-A lens is an ok performer, I've never used one personally but expect normal Pentax late 80s kit zoom performance. Not stellar, not bad.

The Pentax-A and Tak-A lenses are actually identical. The Tak brand was used in the states, while SMC less lenses in the UK were just labeled Pentax-A. These lenses get a lot of bad press but my Dad has taken some stunning shots with his Pentax-A 28-80 so there are good examples although it's likely there are a lot of lemons. The inferior coatings do make them more prone to flare in any case.

The non-coated (or, to be precise, not fully SMC-coated) lenses are different from normal lenses primarily for that reason. In situations where the light is not going to cause flare problems, the performance of these lenses can be quite reasonable.

G

If you need a "wide" zoom, the 24-50/4 is very good. For the slightly longer lengths, the 35-105 is excellent. The 24-50 is not common but the 35-105 come up quite often. Bearing in mind the prices these days, why compromise on a lens that although might not be a "poor" performer, is only medocre in comparisom to what else is available. Om the other hand, if a 28-80 came up a real bargain price of £10 or so why not? You couls always sell it at a similar price if and when you get one of the better quality ones.

Kim

Takumar-A lenses were also available in the UK.

Some of them have simplified construction as well as not being SMC coated.

I have had the Takumar A version for several years, and all I can say is if anyone wants it, the cost of posting is all it will take!

Not sure it's worth that much.

Kim

Neither am I.

This is related to this thread I hope and maybe someone can advise me....

I have a K10D that currently uses a Pentax-FA 28-200 SMC f 3.8-5.6 from an older MX50 Kit I purchased ages ago and this lens alone was the reason to purchase my original istDS and now upgrade to K10D.

But I am less than convinced this is a 'good enough' lens for the K10D and struggling to justify the upgrade now to the new 18-250 recently announced (I was set on a Sigma 18-200).

Some one tell me the lens is good, indifferent or it is just the user before I commit to upgrading. I feel I have had some good shots but wonder if 'great' ones are around the corner.

I want a good all rounder before a trip to NZ over Xmas.

Well I have one of these, and it's my single most used lens. I'm sure it's not the best optically, but the results I get from it are limited by my abilities far more than its quality.

I think you need to define more precisely what you mean by "good enough for the K10D" in terms of your needs. It both is and isn't, depending on what you need.

If you need a good all-rounder, it's very good indeed, although I find myself wishing for a bit more at the wide end sometimes, in which case I'll usually switch to the 18-55, which is also limited by my abilities more than by its optics.

If the new Pentax 18-250 really is mostly the Tamron, then it might well suffer from the same barrel distortion at the wide end, which is quite noticeable if you have architecture (with vertical walls) filling the frame to the edges, but unless you're doing a lot of that (and it's correctable in software anyway), the Pentax 18-250 with its SMC coatings is probably going to be another very good all-rounder.

Quite honestly, "feeling" and "wondering" about the quality of a lens you use suggests that like me, it's the bit behind the body not in front of it, that could do with improving first.

If you are happy with the 28-200 why change it? If you need a single lens solution perhaps there would be a case for it but in this case, I would be tempted just to supplement it with another lens which covers the wider aspects.

If you still have the film bodies, I would consider the 18-35, if not the 18-55 can be had new for about £30 and there is a second hand one for sale on the forum for £20! If you feel you can spend more, why not the 12-24?

Kim

Just to go back to my original post. I purchased a Pentax-A 35-105mm lens and I have to say it is truly a magnificent piece of engineering. Works well on the K10D, and has a very useful macro setting across the whole range. Thanks for the good advice.

/Ian

You will find that the 24-50/4A is very similar. However the later 24-50/3.5-4.5 is not in the same league.

Kim

Slightly off topic I know but I did have the 28-80 'F' lens and this didn't have SMC it was back on ebay in days. I had a 35-135mm 'F' and found that to be a quite a reasonable walkabout lens, despite the somewhat garish
appearance the 'F' series lens have. Then I bought a Sigma 18-125 and that basically made it redundant as it did the 18-55 kit rubbish.