Note that for the first star/rating column it is about the optical quality and the second column is about the mechanical quality. And, the lenses are ranked, from the best (which is at the top) to the worst (down to the bottom). As for the last column of the table, it is "highly recommended" if it is marked.
Enjoy! Btw, whilst PZ/Klaus has been updating his review for these old Pentax lenses on a new K-5 body of his, it has been verified that the results and conclusions would be much different from the old ones. That is, good lenses are yet good ones and mediocre lenses are still mediocre! :-o
Read Also:-
Why Lens Tests Would Not be So Meaningful?
RiceHigh's Subjective Ratings on Pentax AF Lenses on Pentax DSLRs 2011
Logging you in...
Victor · 700 weeks ago
Ying · 700 weeks ago
I laugh at all lens tests.
RiceHigh 110p · 700 weeks ago
Nevertheless, those tests can still be taken as reference, as when there are more references, better conclusion could be made.
Denis · 700 weeks ago
Chris · 700 weeks ago
Michael A. · 700 weeks ago
Chris · 700 weeks ago
Chris · 699 weeks ago
I promised to come back and here I am. Pentax sent my 77 back, stating: it performs flawlessly within specs, the purple fringing and other issues are well known. The 70 is a more modern design and better. So far the Pentax statement.
Actually, that was the worst news they could have given to me. To me, that means the 77 ist overhyped, and the 70 is better. Hands down.
Michael A. · 699 weeks ago
Chris · 698 weeks ago
It is sad that Pentax has no presence in shops here anymore, especially the Limited series. Otherwise, I'd like to try another 77 and see if it has the same amount of PF. The way I see it now, the 70 and 100 are far better than the 77.
Oh, and for all those who say "the PF issue goes away when stopping down" (like photozone) - thank you, the 70 is one stop slower (and much lighter and smaller), so that would be the obvious choice then...
So the rare occasion where I would use the 77: when shooting portraits with little contrast (dynamics) in the picture, and I want to use the extreme 3D effect of f/1.8.
Chris · 698 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 698 weeks ago
Chris · 698 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 698 weeks ago
Michael A. · 698 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 698 weeks ago
In particular, I owned the film 35/2 and found that its CA and PF are more severe than the digital optimised DA35/2.4, even if both are compared at f/2.4.
justmy2cents · 700 weeks ago
I've noticed big differences between the performance of two of my lenses between the k20d and the k5:
35 Macro Lim.: seems a bit less sharp with the k5 than it is with the k20d, but the bokeh tends to be much smoother with the k-5
55-300: focusing and sharpness issues with the k20d, no focusing issues and good sharpness with the k5
I've checked for possible focus misalignment before testing, RAW shots (PEF), converted with PDCU4 without sharpening to avoid artefacts.
If you add sample variation (which is a real issue esp. with the cheaper lenses), it seems better to buy the intended lens online, test it with your own body, and send it back if bad, than to blindly rely on published tests. They are helpful, yes, but they may never replace your own experience
Vladimir · 700 weeks ago