Personal View site logo
35-100mm Panasonic vintage lens alternative
  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    Looking for suggestions for a cheaper alternative to the 35-100 X lens from Panasonic.

    So far I have looked at the 35-105 3:5 Canon FD, which is pretty close.

    Is there anything better than this in any other mount?

  • 23 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Yep

    SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-35-105mm-F3.5-Zoom-Lens.html

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-28-75mm-f2-8-af-xr-di-ld-macro-sp.html

  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    Im drawn to this Vivitar as well as it is slightly wider - 28-105 2:8-3:8

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/390592808983?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Sph1nxster

    It is best to get constant aperture zoom and Vivitar is really pain in the ass for repairs (and very common to have oily blades and sometimes oil on lenses).

  • xntrggrxntrggr

    I have the Pentax-A 35-105. It's quite a heavy lens, about twice the weight of the Pana 35-100 (and a stop slower too). It's got a nice vintage look, slightly busy bokeh, and mine has a cool colour cast. It's not clinically sharp at max aperture unlike the more modern lens designs, but around f5.6, contrast and sharpness are much better. I don't like how minimum focus is 1.5m, and you have to push the focus ring out to go into macro mode. So if you're thinking of using a follow focus, that will be a problem.

    But it's cheap.

  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    not using follow focus, will be mounted to GH3 on a tripod or monopod and used during weddings.

    Anybody have experience with the Hoya version of the FD 35-105 3:5? I'm seeing a good deal for one of those as well = £45

  • xenogearsxenogears

    The image of the Canon FD 35-105mm is not espectacular but very usable, is nice builded, expand the size when focusing almost half inch; so work good with a Matte Box. Constant f3.5. The only annoying thing is the rotating front ring when focusing.

  • aldolegaaldolega

    The Minolta 35-70 f3.5 is supposed to be very good as well.

  • joesivjoesiv

    That's funny, I used to own the 35-100mm pentax f/3.5, had some nice qualities to it. @xntrggr It's only 2/3rd's a stop dimmer than the panasonic btw.

  • xntrggrxntrggr

    @joesiv yeap you're right, it's just 2/3 of a stop

  • johnnymossvillejohnnymossville

    I know this lens doesn't reach out to 100mm, but how would the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D work on a gh2? I know Ken Rockwell seems to rave about it and it is a constant 2.8 aperture. I'm seriously considering this one.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @johnnymossville

    I think that Tamron is really better. Older zooms are usually inferior to newer ones except few.

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    Bad thing about the Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 is that it is not parfocal. Only for that reason I've sold mine, otherwise it would be such a great lens for many purposes.

  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    Struggled to find a Pentax 35-105 in the UK.

    Ended up going for a Hoya 35-105 f/3.5 - FD Mount

    I'll report back here with how I get on

  • balazerbalazer

    The Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 is parfocal when the back focus is properly adjusted. You need to remove some screws to expose the adjustment.

    But even then, the lens is a stinker. You need to stop down to f/5.6 to get rid of the haze. The zoom mechanism cams are loose, which causes the focus to shift when you switch between zooming in and zooming out. And 3x zoom is not a large enough zoom ratio to be really interesting to me.

  • FrameFrame

    A Video with a Pentax PK 28-70 lens. After some seconds it got stuck between 28-50 while shooting. You can see some desperate zooms in ther forst 30 seconds :-) When I removed the pin that controls the iris through the camera´s aperture, the problem was gone. But the stuck zoom could not be related to the iris, but the macro...

    Did not use the zoom after the repair, because focus has some play. So next test will be a Soligor 28-200, in another concert by those guys...

  • MordaeMordae

    Just bought an old Tamron Adaptall lens for 6€, since my Novoflex FD-m4/3 adapter got stuck on my Adaptall-FD adapter.

    The lens is a 35-70mm f3.5, not the fastest lens, but for 6€? No brainer. Produces a very filmic image, a very large gloom effect, which I personally love. Makes the blown highlights look much nicer. Picture of my dog with this lens.

    _1040819.jpg
    800 x 601 - 217K
  • beneufeldbeneufeld

    If I may try to revive this, anyone with the pentax 35-105 get an adapter for m 4/3 that keeps it parfocal? Picked one up recently but it won't hold focus between zooming with the fotodiox adapter.

  • flabloflablo

    If you need to go from 35 to 100 and not lower, I think you could also investigate some c-mount vintage TV/Cine zooms like some Canon C..X... or V..X.. series or Fujinon. Those made for 16mm or 1" sensor, of course, could cover the MFT sensor from 35mm (maybe). Plus you would get fantastic fluid and parfocal zoom

  • balazerbalazer

    No TV zoom covers 4/3 well, but a 2/3" zoom in 1080 etc mode is fabulous. Look for a 12.5-75 mm f/1.4 or f/1.8.

  • beneufeldbeneufeld

    Thanks for the suggestions, but my issue with the pentax lens isn't that it doesn't cover the sensor, but that with the adapter it doesn't have constant (or near constant) focus with zooming. Seems like that could be an issue with adapting any parfocal zoom lens, no?

  • balazerbalazer

    Yes, adjusting the back focus is an issue for all adapted parfocal zooms. That issue is more easily dealt with on C-mount because you can add shims between the lens and the adapter. Sheets of paper or plastic cut into rings and put around the mount threads work just fine. It just takes some trial and error to get the right thickness. 2/3" TV zooms are common and inexpensive.

    A bit of math for you: a 12.5-75 mm f/1.4 TV zoom lens for the 2/3" format is hazy at f/1.4, but has good contrast and sharpness at f/2.0. Assuming your camera is the GH2, in 1080 ETC mode this lens at f/2.0 becomes the equivalent of a 32-194 mm f/5.2 lens used with ETC mode off, in terms of angle of view and aperture size. That's actually better than an old Canon or Pentax 35-105 f/3.5, because those lenses only look good when you stop down to f/5.6 or so. (not to mention 6x zoom ratio instead of 3x) TV zoom lenses for 2/3" and smaller tend to not be very sharp in the corners, but you almost entirely avoid the corners by putting the GH2 in 1080 ETC mode. (8.26 mm sensor diagonal compared to the 2/3" format image circle of 11 mm) What you don't have with this setup, of course, is wide angles. But you gain the ability to use lower ISO settings, since the TV zoom lens is faster. It's not that the old 35-105 lenses are bad - they're just not matched to m43 cameras because our sensors are so much smaller than full frame. 2/3" lenses are quite well matched to 1080 ETC mode, if corner sharpness is more important to you than wide angles. If you want wide angles, go for a 1/2" lens (but there are few good 1/2" TV zoom lenses).

    A 2/3" TV zoom is great for 1080p, but it won't help you for 4k on the GH4. :)

  • beneufeldbeneufeld

    Thanks for the info, in the end I was able to shim the adapter for the pentax lens with tin foil to get it pretty close to parfocal so that issue is solved. I had tried that before but only adjusted for the long end of the lens without thinking of the wide end. Wish I had done my research on TV zooms before buying this one, but for now there's that cliche a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush... I better try to sell my panasonic 45-150, which the pentax replaced before replacing the pentax with a TV zoom. Anyway, much appreciated.

Add a Comment