85mm
A*85/1.4 is heavy, but a great performer. It's said to add the "warmth" quality to portraits (not to mention its shallow DOF, and great bokeh).
85/1.8 is also a superb performer, comparable to A* version. It puts the subject squarely in the middle of the zone of focus.
FA* 85/1.4 is said to be comparable to 85/1.8 in sharpness (starting at ~f4 and up) and overall performance. In terms of bokeh, it's clearly superior to 85/1.8 and 85/2. It is believed that it was "optimized" for portraiture photography by featuring:
better apparent sharpness at "close" focus distances than at far distances,
plane of sharpest focus is located near the rear of the DOF, yielding a more out of focus background than one might expect, regardless of the shooting aperture
highly regarded bokeh
M 85/2 is considered to be the worst among 84mm lenses, which does not mean that it's a bad performer. It's just that other 85's are "oh , so good".
85/2.8 (soft) is mechanically superb, and very sharp from ~f6.7 on. The difference between using this lens and the regular 85mm with the soft filter was explained by JoMac as follows:
A Softar filter softens the light before it enters the lens, so that in the image everything is softened, even the edges of things. A "Soft" lens like the Pentax creates a sharp image, at all apertures, but scatters the light that is allowed in wide open (at the outside periphery of the outer element or group), and even a stop or two down. Stop down all the way and you have almost eliminated the softening effect. A filter with a clear center and a frosted outer 10mm band would behave similarly. But you'd need a set of filters with 5mm bands, 10mm bands and 15 and 20mm bands to have the control approaching the variable fogginess of the Pentax 85mm 2.x Soft lenses.
M85/1.4 does not exist.
100mm Macro
f2.8
M100/2.8: a lovely lens for portraits in terms of weight, size, and price.
A100/2.8 is superb. The lens is an "absolute gem", it is tack sharp at any aperture, and at any focusing distance.
Note: all film resolution tests on this site were done using this lens. 揟his lens is WAY beyond outstanding? said William R.
FA100/2.8 macro is also a "fantastic lens". It has a wonderful bokeh. It also has a focus limiter switch that changes the dampening so that it feels much more like a MF lens. The focus movement slows down.
Comparison of A, F, and FA versions by the "certain" magazine (quality/price/love factor)
SMC A 100/2.8 macro VG / VG / EX
SMC F 100/2.8 macro VG / G / G
SMC FA 100/2.8 macro VG / VG / VG
f4
100/4 bellows macro (no focus helicoid) is very sharp, flat field lens. (All Bellows- and SMC Takumar- or Pentax-M/A 100/4 have been optically equal, except for the coatings and, in the case of the Bellows lenses, the internal focusing helicoid. All these lenses feature very fine optics.)
M100/4 Dental Macro lens goes to 1:2, and differs from the non-dental version in the yellow and red marks that show the magnification ratio when used with the yellow and red closeup lenses (filters). Both dental and non-dental 100/4 Macro lenses are reputed to be of high quality The differences can be seen here: www./pentax/k.
The new 100/3.5 macro is a Cosina design, sold by Pentax under their name. This lens is very good (said to be almost equal to the original Takumar / Pentax 100/4 as far as the optical qualities are concerned). From the mechanical point of view, the new macro lens is a typical AF lens with a helicoid that runs a bit too loosely for critical manual focusing. Cheaper construction and slower speed result in lower price when compared to FA100/2.8
If you are thinking whether to purchase a 50mm Macro or a 100mm one, think about the extra working distance that the longer lens will provide you with. Another thing to consider is the fact that autofocus is less than necessary for macro work, the subjects tend to be fairly static, and thus you might save by finding an older MF Macro. Also look at some of the excellent lenses by Kiron and Vivitar .
105mm
The K105/2.8 is a great lens. K105/2.8 was mentioned to be 揼loriously sharp and contrasty?and superior to any other lens in 100-
120 mm range made by PENTAX.
120mm
There were two 120mm K-mount Pentax lenses: the original Pentax 120/2.8; and the later M120/2.8. The later M version was smaller and not as sharp as K120/2.8. Both lenses feature good performance, but not good enough to use them instead of some of the 135mm Pentax gems.
135mm
M135/3.5 is generally regarded as very good; it is plentiful it should be inexpensive.
A135/1.8 is a great lens on all apertures except wide open where its quite soft, but still better wide open than most other Pentax lenses. The lens is highly recommended and beautifully made is much sharper than the FA 85/14 at wide apertures.
Comparing the M135/3.5, K135/2.5, and A*135/1.8, the old K135/2.5 is clearly a much sharper lens than the M135/3.5 (not to bash it). The A*135/1.8 seems to be a lot better than the K135/2.5.
A 135mm f2.8 is a dog (comparing it to other 135's)
The FA135/2.8 IF is a superb lens. Lightning fast focusing and tack sharp center to edges. The FA135 is also built like a tank. Has metal barrel, built in hood, and takes 52 mm filters.
150mm
M150/3.5 is rare, very sharp and contrasty. The bokeh of the lens is quite pleasing also.
200mm
f2.8
K200/2.5 is a great lens, extremely sharp. Not as compact as the A* 200/2.8, but it has a tripod mount, though its quite hand-holdable. Very nice bokeh (important for such a long, fast lens) and performs well even wide open, but is said to have a little loss of image contrast at full aperture. Its focusing is somewhat 搒tiff?and feels like that of many other M* and A* lenses
M*200/2.8 is equal to K200/2.5 in terms of sharpness and construction
A* 200/2.8 ED is a GREAT lens. It does not have a tripod socket, but can easily be supported by a tripod mounted body. It is said to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made. This lens shows some light falloff at maximum apertures, but it is essentially gone at f/4. Fred has compared this lens to the K2002.5 and reported essentially identical image quality in terms of sharpness and light fall off at maximum apertures. He also reported that 搃t is quite 'easy' (as in 'not stiff') to focus, more so than any other A* lenses?he have ever tried.
The FA200/2.8 is another beautiful chunk of glass, it's very sharp & focuses close for a 200 (closer than A* version). It also features internal focusing.
f4
K200/4: it's an amazingly good lens for the price capable of some fine photos. The K200/4 seems to be pretty similar to M200/4 in terms of bokeh.
M200/4 is sharp even wide open, has built-in hood, great build, quite compact in size, and is more common than K200/4. It does well in flare and has a pleasant bokeh
A200/4, seemed to have lower resolution and contrast comparing it to K200/2.5 and A*200/2.8. Although the A200/4 is not a bad lens overall, it is simply not a particularly strong performer. I should point out that the A 200/4 is a different lens from both the K and M 200/4's
200/4 ED Macro is one hell of a lens. It beat both the Canon 180/3.5 Macro and the Nikon 200/4 Macro in a recent German test.
300mm
A*300/2.8: at wide open, the definition in the corner of the frame is very impressive. This lens also features very heavy construction.
K300/4 is heavy but very good.
M*300/4 and A*300/4 lenses are much smaller, but still heavy. Both are missing tripod mounts. According to Fred, 搕he M* 300/4 was the first and only M* lens that 'anyone' has ever seen. As far as I can tell, it is the twin of the A* 300/4, both mechanically and optically. The only apparent variances are in minor M vs. A trim differences, the presence of the A electrical contacts on the A* version, and an apparent (but not surprising) difference in SMC treatment (judging from a somewhat different set of coating colors in each model).?
A* 300/4: the quality is staggeringly good. It's easily handholdable, smaller but heavier than A70-210/4. It doesn't have a tripod shoe.
Pentax F* 300/4.5 are excellent. F300/4.5 has tripod shoe. Wolfganng's comparison of F*300/4.5 to A*300/4 showed F* to be noticeably sharper at open aperture.
The FA300/4.5 is very impressive, but Pentax removed the tripod shoe from this lens. It has the same optical design as the F version. Also, FA* version will allow you to switch to manual focus by just pulling the auto-manual focus switch/clutch on the lens whereas the F* requires that you set both the switch on the lens and on the camera body. (This feature was a difference between all, or most, FA* lenses and F* Pentax lenses.) Also, the only original converter that fits the FA*300 is the A 2x-S.
400mm
400/5.6 is said to be quite nice.
The A lens (latest MF 400mm) is a very fine lens. A received a 3/4/5 C. d'I. mark. It is said to be one of the best non APO lenses, the results are very good at f8 and above. Wide open the resolution was less and there was a bit vignetting.
FA 400 seems to be way over priced, and though I haven't seen too many comments on it, it's thought of as a good performer.
Pentax A*400/2.8 ED IF seems like a good lens to own, if you can afford one.
500mm
K500/4.5 feature very good optical design as well as a preset aperture. It's quite heavy and, unless you want to strain your back and get a fuzzy shot, it should be tripod mounted most of the time. This lens has the same design as the previous Takumar version of 500mm. K500/4.5 lens has a 52mm rear filter.
600mm
According to Fred A* 600/5.6 lens' features include:
Size. The 600/5.6 is wider than the A* 300/2.8 and is as wide as the FA* 250-600/5.6, and it uses the same 112mm front filters as these two lenses. The A*600/5.6 is longer in physical size than the 300mm and 400mm lenses. It weighs less than half the weight or mass of the FA*600/4 (about 7.22 pounds or 3.28 Kg, compared to 15 pounds or 6.8 Kg).
The A* 600/5.6 has the same maximum aperture as the considerably heavier FA* 250-600/5.6 zoom.
And, finally, the A*600/5.6 costs new (B+H prices) about $1,000 less than the FA*600/4 or the A*400/2.8, and almost $1,500 less than the FA* 250-600/5.6, so it's: "cheap".
BTW, The A*600/5.6 has the same maximum aperture as the FA*300/2.8 when used with the 2X-L teleconverter to reach 600/5.6.
