The Jupiter-9 & Helios-44 are not as good as the Pentax equivalents, but as Hefty pointed out they are nearly as good for a small fraction of the price.

The Zenitar is sharper on my DSLRs than the A16/2.8, FA17-28 and DA10-17 (at 17mm).
It is more susceptible to flare, although it's possible to attach an additional hood using a 60-62mm step-up ring.

R

I'd suggest the following Russian lenses:

Jupiter-9 85/2
Zenitar 16/2.8
Helios-44 50/2

They punch well above their weight and can be picked up for beer money (at least they could before the recent plunge in Sterling).
They are even well made (by fsu standards ) The Zenitar is one of my favourite of all lenses and has a permanent place in my bag.

I've also been impressed by the Tamron 70-300 that I got for £30 from Jessops. It's not a competitor to the DA*300, but it does make a good travel substitute for 1/30th of the price.

R

That probably makes two of us

Here's a picture of the hood on my K24/3.5. It's a perfect match for that lens on APS-C:




I originally got it from Arnold Stark, who contributed a lot stuff to Bojidar's K-mount page in the early days. I never asked him where he got it from (I'm curious to know now though!)

R

I have a K30/2.8, which I've had since the days of film.
I like the rendering of this lens very much and used to use it a lot, but it's not been on the camera since I got the magical 31...

I know Steve says the M35/1.4 never made it into production, but I have the lens hood for it (and it only fits this lens)
and like to think that there are one or two copies of the actual lens floating around in Japan

R

I took some shots on my own SD card, but they were all slightly out of focus, so I don't think it would be fair to judge quality based on those.
Contrast and colour look good though.

As I was saying in the other thread, it's far too big for my usage. I don't think I'd be able to use it without a monopod.

R

Yes, I bought one after selling my M*300 (see this thread).

As good as the M*300 was, the DA has much better bokeh, contrast and colour. It also has a complete absence of fringing (useful when shooting things like birds, against a bright sky).

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. It is heavy though and I usually use mine with a monopod.

R

I guess the difference is I'm usually shooting things where I never have enough reach
(or if I have, I prefer something more easily hand-holdable)

I stood the 60-250 and the 300 next to each other and the 60-250 is considerably fatter than the 300, although 300 was slightly longer.
The weight of each felt very similar in the hand and I wouldn't like to say which was actually heavier.

R

I'd forgotten it was match day and the train was full of football supporters and there was even a police van parked outside of SRS

Like Hefty, I wasn't too impressed by the 60-250 as it's as large as the 300 (and even more expensive), but without the reach. I don't really see the point of it!

I also quite liked the K-m, which seems to be the fastest focussing Pentax DSLR so far It had no trouble focussing quickly and accurately in the dim light of the shop.

One of the Pentax guys was saying the DA15 was going to be £500-600, which I think is maybe a bit too much

I came away with a nice Pentax mug, which was nice.

Anyway, thanks to Chris and everyone for laying all this on.

R

I recently sold my M*300 (optically the same as the A*) and bought the DA (see this thread for some pictures taken with the M*).

In my opinion the DA is a much better lens, although the M* is still good. In terms of sharpness they are about the same, but the DA has much better contrast and colour. It also has very nice bokeh and a complete absence of fringing (what you want for things shot against a bright sky)!

The M* & A* are the same optically, as are the F* & FA* (although there are coating differences). The FA* is actually a downgrade of the F*, as it is missing the tripod socket and has the easily scratched silver paint

R