Canon K35 Zoom coverage?

[Clayton Burkhart]

Aree's recent post got me wondering, what kind of coverage does that old Canon K35 Zoom 25-120mm zoom have? Especially in the wide end.
Could this possibly cover FF at 18mm? 5K or 6K? Seems doubtful to me, but curious.

 

[Alan Peterson]

All the descriptions I've seen of it say that it covers full frame. I haven't used one to verify, though.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Here is a K-35 zoom test footage in FF..

http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/callboypilot/K35_ZOOMsmall.mov

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Thanks Björn, it looks like it covers, but your test seems to show that it is not parfocal. Is that really the case?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Don't know, It's shot with our epic but I only rendered out the files for them, I did not attend the test. But as I remember from years back When I used a K-35 zoom it had both macro mode and it held focus while zooming. So my guess is that the guys are pulling focus and zoom at the same in the test on the link...

 

[Björn Benckert]

This test was done to compare the K-35's next to our hawks for a pilot and the hawks won that battle, The K-35's looked flat and boring in comparison. Ignore the difference in grade, Did some extra pulls on this hawk material as they went for that choices. But with or without grade, to me it's quite clear, the anamorphics make the K35's look like old boring lenses...

http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/callboypilot/HAWK_50mmgradedsmall.mov

 

[Nick Gardner]

You can't compare anamorphic and spherical, it just isn't fair ;-)

Nick

 

[Alan Peterson]

The primes are a different story, but from all the examples I've seen, the K35 zoom has a similar look to the Canon FD L-series zooms from the 80's - low contrast (not necessarily in a good way - shadows get muddy and highlights bleed a bit), and not horribly sharp at 4K. But, since it's an old lens, quality probably varies a lot between samples that have seen different levels of use and care.