Thanks, RemcoR! Do you remember what aperture it was?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A few boring shots with Pentax-A 35-105mm/F3.5
- Thread starter alex_virt
- Start date
Very pleasant indeed. The balance of sharpness and softness is just right!O.K. here is the one, though I would not classify it as a portrait. It's taken at the fully open (f:3.5) lens, so it is not a "super sharp", just the "pleasantly" sharp:
--
www.gridenko.com
RemcoR
Senior Member
I would have to look in my database, but it wasn't f3.5, nor above f8, so around f5.6. I will let you know if it was wide open but even this lens couln't be that sharp wide open. But again, love the rendering!
RemcoR
--
Pentax K-5
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical
Pentax FA 35mm F2 AL
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm F3.4 Macro
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.7 Contax
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm F1.4 ZK
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796413@N03/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/RemcoRog
Last edited:
flektogon
Veteran Member
Once (upon the time) I had a typical portrait lens, it was the U.S.S.R. made Jupiter-9 85mm/f:2.0 - probably some Zeiss Sonnar clone. I bought it a brand new at the local Foto-Kino store for an equivalent of $10, which even 50 years ago was an excellent price. Well, I had a little bit trouble with it, as it was designed for the Zorki cameras and I had the FED II (NKVD versionVery pleasant indeed. The balance of sharpness and softness is just right!O.K. here is the one, though I would not classify it as a portrait. It's taken at the fully open (f:3.5) lens, so it is not a "super sharp", just the "pleasantly" sharp:
--
www.gridenko.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_virt/
). Anyway, both cameras used the same mount, the Leica's 39mm, but for some reason the Zorki cameras had the flange farther from the film plane, but about 1mm. So I had to machine two 1mm thick rings, one had to be glued to the lens flange and the other to the lens "end", where the lens was touching the rangefinder lever. Anyway, it worked perfectly. The slides were beautiful, with unbelievable bokeh (well, at that time this term was completely unknown).--
Regards,
Peter
Last edited:
widgetbox
Leading Member
I bought one of these a few weeks ago having been on the lookout for a good one at a bargain price for quite some time. That's quite a challenge as it has a good reputation and the price is generally way above all those other 80's zooms going for for <$50.
Not really had much chance to give it a work out. I bought a "spares" one for $20 last year. Not sure what the previous owner was trying to do with it - it was in perfect condition except for being slightly disassembled. Speaking to Pentax in the UK the not surprising response was "we can probably fix it but it's not economically viable".
Still on that bookshelf over there. Can't bring myself to chuck such a solid piece of kit in the bin.
Not really had much chance to give it a work out. I bought a "spares" one for $20 last year. Not sure what the previous owner was trying to do with it - it was in perfect condition except for being slightly disassembled. Speaking to Pentax in the UK the not surprising response was "we can probably fix it but it's not economically viable".
Still on that bookshelf over there. Can't bring myself to chuck such a solid piece of kit in the bin.
That's what I thought, around 5.6.
Fortunately, I didn't have any experience with Soviet cameras and lenses, whether from NKVD, or KGB, or LOMOOnce (upon the time) I had a typical portrait lens, it was the U.S.S.R. made Jupiter-9 85mm/f:2.0 - probably some Zeiss Sonnar clone. I bought it a brand new at the local Foto-Kino store for an equivalent of $10, which even 50 years ago was an excellent price. Well, I had a little bit trouble with it, as it was designed for the Zorki cameras and I had the FED II (NKVD version
I did. As you said, trying to fix it isn't economically viable.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum