| Author: | | New Member Registered: August, 2020 Posts: 13
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 6, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Color and rendering | | Cons: | Mustache | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: SONY A7R2
| |
The Pentax K 3.5/15
...My opinion from experience.
This lens is sharp enough - Compared to some modern lenses corner sharpness is perhaps a little weak, but the color is superior and I have no problems using it for architectural photos. The biggest problem is some mustache distortion. Bokeh is really of periphery interest considering it is a 15 mm lens. -The Zeiss version of the lens has a floating group which makes it focus closer so perhaps it is possible to get some bokeh with that lens but I have not tried it. The lens was also made in a Leica version (It was Erhard Glatzel at Zeiss who made the design in connection with a cooperation with Pentax In the early 1970s). The most important for me is the balance in the pictures the lens produce, its fine ability to reproduce the subtle gray and color shades, and its good 3D rendering. Overall the lens is a very good super wide, just as good as my Contax Zeiss f:4/18mm from the same period.
I have added two fresh pictures shot with my 3.5/15mm lens. I hope it will tell more than my words
Copenhagen harbor after sunset
6 September 2020 - f: 6.3 - 1/15 - ISO 800 - SONY A7R2
Here is another - only facade, no digital sharpening in camera or Photoshop, but with mustache
6 September 2020 - f: 5.6 - 1/10 - ISO 100 - SONY A7R2
But it is possible to edit, crop, or cut the beard | | | | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2019 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 24, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Width, novelty size, character | | Cons: | Heavy | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: Bmpcc4k
| |
I really enjoy this lens, i use it for video work with a speedbooster. It has an interesting character and i enjoy the built in filters for black and white work which in my opinion is where the lens really shines. I think it gets a bad wrap unnecessarily
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2016 Posts: 33
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 30, 2016 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | incredible FOV in FF | | Cons: | expensive, heavy, bulky, exposed front element, flare | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 3
Value: 5
Camera Used: K2, MX
| |
Had this lens back in the 80s... and sold it after 3 weeks 
As people said before, this lens is slow to handle and should not be used more open than f8. Otherwise you just get ugly dragged corners at pretty low resolution. Only invest in this lens if you REALLY need the incredible field of view in FF. Take your time for perfect compositions, otherwise pictures will simply look "overdone". And never place people outside the centre, distortions will just kill them...
This lens will mainly add stress to your life. It is hard to carry around and you will be in constant panic of ruining that exposed front lens picking up all the flare in the world. Normally you don't want that  | | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2012 Posts: 14
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 8, 2013 | Recommended
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 5
Camera Used: K-5
| |
Very disappointed with this lens. I had the version with the aspherical glass, really nice piece of engineering. Probably a great lens on film cameras, but when tested on a K-5 or K-20 results were disappointing.
Color rendition and contrast was really nice but it was lacking of sharpness. Even at F8 it couldn't match my DA 16-45. Besides, sharpness was acceptable in the center but towards the sides it was already very bad, and in the edges even worse.
At the beginning I thought something was wrong with my lens. After comparing it with some test pictures from another unit I came to the same conclusions.
So forget about it in digital unless you want to have it as a colector.
| | | | | | | Forum Member Registered: March, 2010 Posts: 72
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 5, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $675.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Excellent IQ | | Cons: | Heavy | |
In terms of pedigree, it should be taken into account that the K15/3.5 came out of a collaboration with Zeiss that also produced the famous K28/2.0. Except for variations in the use of aspherical elements (see http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/15mm_Zeiss_Pentax/00_pag.htm) the optical formula of K15/3.5 is identical to that of Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/3.5, and hence also to that of Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5, which uses the Zeiss design. In other words, K15/3.5 is playing in premier league.
I have been able to compare K15 directly with Sigma 10-20, and indirectly with DA 12-24 (indirectly in the sense that I no longer own it, but can compare pictures of the same subject). My impressions are as follows.
1) K15 has the highest resolution, specifically also off-center. This holds true both with regard to Sigma 10-20 and with regard to DA 12-24.
2) Distortion is better controlled on K15 than on Sigma 10-20. (For DA 12-24, I cannot say on the basis of my pictures.)
3) Flare control is more difficult on K15 than on the younger lenses.
4) Metering on K15 is accurate on lower f-values but may need to be adjusted on higher f-values. (I am not sure whether this might have something to do with my Katz' Eye focusing screen.)
5) Colour reproduction on K15 is excellent, but like with most K series lenses, white balance will often need to be manually adjusted. Like with most older lenses, CA occurs, but I would say less so than e.g. on K20/4.0.
Overall, K15 is an outstanding lens for Slow Photography: if you don't mind carrying a tripod and a weighty lens, and spending some time to choose the optimal settings and compose your images, then K15 will reward you with top-tier image quality. But if you want to pack light and shoot fast, DA 15 or Sigma 10-20 might be more appropriate.
PS The price mentioned is a euro-dollar conversion as of early 2010. | | | | |
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 30, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $900.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Metal construction, beautyful colors and contrast | | Cons: | Poor resolution up to F8, prompt to flaire | |
Hello !
This optics is irreplaceable on a argentic camera. On a DSLR,it is different:
In the first place, the necessary resolution (80 CL/mm) is reached only at F8.
Secondly, this objective is very prompt to flaire, and the new Pentax DA wide angles make much better (but they are also expensive) !
Colors and contrast are magnificent, as almost all Pentax primes. Nevertheless, I recommend it only for a fascinated collector!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,093
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 18, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Angle of view on a film camera. Looks and build. Built-in filters. | | Cons: | Size, exposed front lens element. | | Camera Used: K Series film bodies (K1000, KM, KX, K2, K2DMD)
| |
The K15/3.5 came out of a joint collaboration between Pentax and Carl Zeiss. (The K28/2 was the other lens they created.) The original version the "K15/3.5 AL" had aspherical elements which helped reduce aberrations. The aspherical design was replaced with the more common spherical "K15/3.5" in late 1975 and this design carried on into the A series version "A15/3.5". There was also a screw mount Takumar version of this lens.
The K15/3.5 is also a rectilinear lens, so it has no distortion like a fish-eye. The angle of view of this lens on a film camera is a whopping, 111 degrees!! You can get amazing landscape shots or stand across the street from a wide object and get it all in your shot. I don’t recommend this lens for taking vertical pictures of skyscrapers, as you get too much street in the shot and the building will look like it is falling over. The K28/3.5 Shift is much better for architectural shots.
The K15/3.5 is quite sharp and is fine for daylight shooting situations. The built-in lens hood is not very good protection for the protruding front lens element and neither is the metal slip-on lens cap. (It falls off a lot) This lens has built-in filters for colour and B&W film and no filter thread. The look of this lens is second to none and the build is excellent.
A head to head comparison of the various versions of this lens would be interesting. I used to own the A15/3.5 and now have the K15/3.5AL, they are very similar so I can’t say which is better. I do prefer the K series version, as I had no use for the “A” contacts of the A15/3.5. (I only use K series film bodies)
I like this lens very much, but if I had to choose between the K15/3.5 and the K18/3.5, I would pick the K18/3.5 It is equally sharp, has built in filters and it has a proper clip-on lens hood. The K18/3.5 is also much smaller and half the weight.
Sample shots taken with the K15/3.5. Photos are medium resolution scans from original slides or negatives.
Camera: KM Film: Fuji Velvia 100 ISO: 100
Camera: KX Film: Fuji Velvia 100 ISO: 100
Camera: K2 Film: Kodak Pro Image 100 ISO: 100
Camera: KX Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100 ISO: 100
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Posts: 3,294
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 15, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build, clarity, | | Cons: | Heavy, finicky | |
One of the greats. I'm lucky enough to have the aspherical. With it's range and bowed front element....you will usually have to watch for flare.....but I shield it with my hand and seems to work...
I regret selling my copy after looking back at the pictures it took, so I just picked up a replacement. It might be an oddity, but it is worth it.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2008 Posts: 240
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 22, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Speed, built-in filters, weirdness | | Cons: | Weight, enormous exposed front element | |
If this lens were more ordinary, I would give it an 8. But it gets an extra point for its dramatic appearance, incredibly sturdy construction, built-in filters, and my general astonishment that it even exists.
The lens is fairly soft at the corners and is extremely prone to flare, but it offers better detail and contrast at the center than, say, the Sigma 10-20mm. I'm lucky to have found the aspherical version, at a price that, if I told you what it was, you would come to my house and stab me out of spite. There is some barrel distortion, but if you're shooting digital, it's a cinch to remove it in Photoshop, if it bothers you. On a small camera (like my ME Super), it feels a bit unbalanced, but if feels great on the K20D, and works well on that camera in manual/green button mode. I find it overexposes on the K20D and have been setting the EV to -1.
Mine didn't come with a front cap, and since a deep enough 80mm press-on one is a hard thing to find, let me give you some advice: if you take a cat food tin, clean it thoroughly, and line it with adhesive felt, it fits perfectly.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: London Posts: 417
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 4, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | excellent build, beautiful lens | | Cons: | mine doesn't work | |
This is a beautiful lens. Rare, excellent build quality, with convenient black and white filters built in.
Mine has experienced some problems though. Firstly its getting continually misty to the point where it is now unuseable. Not a moisture problem, i reckon a piece of glass is out of place, theres dust or something is growing in it. Also the rubber from the focus ring isnt well fixed, once the glue degrades it slips around all over the place.
Amazing lens, its a shame mine isnt in the best quality. If you can find one in good condition i really really envy you. It would be perfect for digital
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Posts: 3,309
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 18, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | superb built, integrated filter wheel, sharp and contrasty | | Cons: | very prone to flring | |
This was a lens I dreamed about for years - then I finally I found a used one at KEH, which I could afford. Built is great, as with all K-lenses. It is on the heavy side, compared even to the 15-30 mm Sigma zoom. But image quality is superb: sharp and contrasty, even wide open. What I did not expect is the heavy flaring, because I somehow thought, the smc coating would do better. In this one respect even the Sigma zoom outdoes the old Pentax lens (may be the newer A-version is better in this respect?)
Nevertheless I carry the Pentax 15 mm with me most of the time and the Sigma stays at home usually. I can only recommend it, but avoid shooting into the sun.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: October, 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 24 | | Review Date: October 30, 2007 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Tack sharp. Excellent low-light use | | Cons: | Heavy. Hard to protect lens | |
This is the A version of this lens. Extremely rare. Less than 100 were made.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2007 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 10
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 17, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Image quality is great, good flare control | | Cons: | big, easy to get scratches on front lens element | |
I read some where that this lens is not good for digital -That is not true, at least it is clearly a better performer than the kit lens at 18mm. It also performs better on digital than my other superwide the 20/4
You will get hexagonal shapes in the picture if you have the sun near the field of view.
| | | | | Administrator
Site Webmaster Registered: September, 2006 Location: Arizona Posts: 51,609
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 7, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $600.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Stunning FOV, Interesting look | | Cons: | A bit heavy | |
This lens is rare, but it surfaces on eBay from time to time. It is invaluable on film bodies, but not so useful on crop DSLR's because Pentax produced the DA 12-24 and DA 14 lenses, both of which are better optically.
I still know one thing: I'll never part with it.
| | |
;)
;)
