The K1 with the F35-135mm lens

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Historicity Senior Member • Posts: 1,487
The K1 with the F35-135mm lens
1

https://lawrencehelm.smugmug.com/RiverPhotography/Apr-2018/i-WVDd6fh/A

In the reviews I read before I bought this lens, some people loved it and some people didn't.  Those who didn't thought it was poor when used wide open and that is something I never, or almost never, do.  The rest liked it at the apertures I normally used.

The hike we went on today would be challenging for any lens.  It was mostly in a region of the river heavily overgrown and with occasional regions of wet clay that the dogs sank into.

When we were safely done with the hike and heading back, Duffy decided he was going to drink from a little pool in the midst of some clay.  I urged him not to -- yelling at him actually -- but he ignored me and sank into it much like the dinosaurs did in the La Brea Tar pits .  When he was well in it he began to frankly swim back out.  I was just at the point of stepping in to pull him out, when he made it on his own.  I gave him two baths after we got home and still didn't get all the clay off -- oh well, he is scheduled for a grooming on 4-26-18.  The groomer can get the rest.  In one shot, Jessica is looking at him with an expression that seemed to be of deep disgust.  Duffy, however had no shame and rolled in dirt and sand trying to get it off.  That works a bit if he has been in mud, but it doesn't do anything for clay.

After looking at the day's results in Lightroom I decided I liked the lens.  It is 30 years old but in excellent condition.  Because of the darkness under the trees (and some recent conversations) I was a wee bit wider-open than I might otherwise have been.  I was at 7.1 most of the day but if I did the same hike over again I would go wider.

The lens weighs 17.1 ounces, which is slightly heavier than the DA 16-85 at 16.07 ounces, and the DFA 28-105 at 15.5 ounces.

In the brush and trees where we spent the most challenging time today, I had the lens at 35mm most of the time.  I thought it did very well at 35.  Someone recently did a comparison of his lenses at 35mm,  I'd be interested in what he thought of this one at 35mm.  I was impressed.

I took a couple of shots at 135mm and it seemed fairly sharp, sharper than I remember the DA18-135mm.  I think the last shot I posted is at something like 83mm and it seemed pretty good to me at that range.

So in conclusion, if you need to shoot wide open, don't get this lens (according to a consensus of reviews), but if you are content to shoot at typical hiking aperture settings, it will do very well IMO.  Will it do better than the much loved DFA 28-105mm?  Probably not, but it might do just as well at f/8, and it might do as well or better at 35mm.  Also, if you get a good used copy, it will be much cheaper and not too much heavier.

Lawrence

 Historicity's gear list:Historicity's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-420 Olympus E-500 Pentax K20D Olympus E-600 +83 more
Pentax K-1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow