[ChopperCharles]

Manual lenses like that Hanimex are SUPPOSED to short all the contacts. My Kx freaks out a little if you replace an AF lens with a manual lens while it's turned on, maybe that was it. Turn it off before swapping lenses. I'm not surprised you can't get a sharp photo if you're using it through a teleconverter. My Tokina 500mm mirror is reasonably sharp, but as soon as you put a teleconverter on there is no possible way to get a sharp photo.

Here's a recent shot:



Charles.

[Lowell Goudge]

charles

is the shot you posted with or without TC?

also what is wrong with the shot

the back of the rim is perfectly in focus and sharp, what you are seeing is how thin the DOF of a long tele lens is.

[ChopperCharles]

That's without a teleconverter. I know I'm seeing the narrow DOF, I was using this as an example on how sharp one CAN be. The back of the rim is razor sharp, the front OOF. This is one of the more interesting images taken with the lens, and I wanted to show it off

Charles.

[Aristophanes]

The K55/2.0

It’s not really a bad lens, just a dumb idea by Pentax. To supposedly save the consumer a few dollars, Pentax reduced the speed of the great K55/1.8 by a 1/3 of a stop and made the resulting K55/2 a kit lens only available on the K1000.

I doubt many folks that were thinking of buying a K1000 in 1976-1977 would have balked at spending a few dollars more if the kit contained the K55/1.8 instead.

Phil.

Oh, but they would in those days of stagflation. Pennies difference meant sales versus no sales and eventually led to Wal-Mart.

People forget the relative value over decades.

[gofour3]

Oh, but they would in those days of stagflation. Pennies difference meant sales versus no sales and eventually led to Wal-Mart.

People forget the relative value over decades.

Yeah I agree with you for today, but in the mid 1970’s things weren’t that bad economy wise.

I just can’t see how Pentax could have saved the consumer much money by taking an existing lens (K55/1.8) and just reducing the aperture by a 1/3 of a stop. Otherwise the two lenses are identical. In fact it probably cost Pentax more to make that speed modification, than if they just reduced the price of the K55/1.8 when it was bundled with a K1000.

What Pentax really should have done in 1976 was create a new el cheapo lens only sold with the K1000, something like the M50/2.0 which arrived a few years later.

It’s the more of the concept of speed reducing a great existing lens like the K55/1.8 and only selling the resulting lens with a K1000, that makes the K55/2 a dumb idea.

Phil.

[dmeadows85]

I am not sure why two people have chosen the A 50/1.7. It's just as good as any other Pentax 50mm, whether 1.4 or 1.7 -- which is to say, pretty darned good.

I, three, am surprised to see the A50/1.7 as a "worst" lens. Granted, I only have two 50mm primes (the other being the so-so M50/2.0), but nothing about its performance has made me want to discard it--quite the contrary, it spends more time on my k-x than anything else.

Makes me wonder what a "good" lens looks like, then!

[luftfluss]

I'll pick a lens from my current top shelf( I keep a selection of lenses on my top shelf above my computer) - I have wayy too many lenses that I don't like, especially amongst the 178 50mm lenses I own.

my most hated 50mm lens from pentax:

Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 - why do you ask? it has only five aperture blades, Plastic is the dominant material in it's construction and it is softer in the corners at f/4 than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2

Why do I keep it? because it is much smaller than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2

That's weird, according to the Lens Database it has 6 aperture blades. Were there 2 versions made?

[eddie1960]

i have a couple of possibilities for worst crown that i haven't really used enough to say which is worst
Sigma Pantel 300 mm f 5.6 m42 auto (with no manual override so shoot wide open)
Rokinon 135 f3.5 - prone to flare, soft at most stops, and in my case stiff focus ring
and one i bought here that i think will improve with a hood
Lentar 21 f3.5 the lens i'm using for single in july

the first 2 came with a spotmatic in good shape and a super tak 50 f1.4 for a whopping $80 so i'll live with it
the lentar cost about the same but i'll reserve judgement until i've shot some film with it

otherwise most of my lenses for Pentax are reasonable, none that are outright bad, though the zooms i have are just ok (except the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which is better than ok but to damn heavy

[eddie1960]

Yeah I agree with you for today, but in the mid 1970’s things weren’t that bad economy wise.

I just can’t see how Pentax could have saved the consumer much money by taking an existing lens (K55/1.8) and just reducing the aperture by a 1/3 of a stop. Otherwise the two lenses are identical. In fact it probably cost Pentax more to make that speed modification, than if they just reduced the price of the K55/1.8 when it was bundled with a K1000.

What Pentax really should have done in 1976 was create a new el cheapo lens only sold with the K1000, something like the M50/2.0 which arrived a few years later.

It’s the more of the concept of speed reducing a great existing lens like the K55/1.8 and only selling the resulting lens with a K1000, that makes the K55/2 a dumb idea.

Phil.

I have it and have never used it, I use my Super tak 55 1.8 if i want 55

keep meaning to flog it on, but never do
it's a body cap on my km lol

[Ikarus]

Yeah I agree with you for today, but in the mid 1970’s things weren’t that bad economy wise.

The mid-70s were still pretty bad. The turn-around from the oil crisis just started in mid-1975 and was very sluggish.

I just can’t see how Pentax could have saved the consumer much money by taking an existing lens (K55/1.8) and just reducing the aperture by a 1/3 of a stop.

That wasn't the goal. The goal was to be able to ask more money for the 55/1.8 than they could have with it serving the purpose of the entry model. Pentax had done the same thing before with the Super-Takumar 55/2 vs. the 55/1.8 and I have to assume the strategy did the trick well enough for them to repeat it with the K series.

[gofour3]

The mid-70s were still pretty bad. The turn-around from the oil crisis just started in mid-1975 and was very sluggish.



That wasn't the goal. The goal was to be able to ask more money for the 55/1.8 than they could have with it serving the purpose of the entry model. Pentax had done the same thing before with the Super-Takumar 55/2 vs. the 55/1.8 and I have to assume the strategy did the trick well enough for them to repeat it with the K series.

Two wrongs still don’t make a right.

A 55/2 is still a dumb idea whether it’s a M42 or K mount. It still would have made more sense to create a new cheap kit lens like Pentax eventually did with the M & A50/2, which were not identical optically to the 50/1.7 lenses.

Remember you could not buy the K55/2.0 by itself; it was only available for sale with a K1000. So the K55/2 never had a price that you could compare to the faster K55/1.8. You could however just buy the K1000 body and choose the other K series primes.

As for the economy in 1975, it was fine in Canada. I was working for just over $2.00 an hour and managed to afford a KX, K28/3.5, K55/1.8 and a K135/3.5.
(Yes I was still living at home )

Phil.

[GhoSStrider]

The worst I own is actually a Canon FD lens, but I'm pretty sure they were sold for Pentax, too. It's a Phoenix (rebranded Cosina, IIRC) 28-210mm. It's not just bad, it's spectacularly bad. That's not hyperbole. This lens looks longily at Coke bottles and thinks to itself "I wish I could be that good." Honest to goodness, I've seen shots from polished Coke bottles that produce better images than this poor thing.

The lens has pretty much every optical deficiency conceivable in spades. I'm fairly certain that it can't make a sharp photo at any zoom setting or f stop. I don't know who bought these things when they were new, but they would have been better off spending money on a Holga. It would have been sharper, cheaper and the lens faults would have at least been more interesting.

Why do I have it? It came with a box of stuff I bought from a camera store that was closing. Why haven't I sold it? I don't think I could take a nickel from a fellow photographer in good faith. I'd feel that I owed them at least $200 in change for the evil that I would be unleashing on them.

[EsBee]

My worst lens is a Black SMC Pentax FA 80-319mm f4.5-5.6 AF , got it off the evil Bay a couple of years ago. When it showed up, it always shot wide open at all focal lengths.

Then I sent it in for repairs to a popular place, which cost about the same as the price I paid for the darn lens itself. When the lens came back, its aperture issue was fixed but it would no longer auto-focus at 320mm! It was fine between 80-319mm but for some reason, didn't like to AF at 320mm!

So yes, that is my worst lens and I've kept it because I know I wouldn't be able to sell it. Plus I get to use it as a door stop.

[boriscleto]

i have a couple of possibilities for worst crown that i haven't really used enough to say which is worst
Sigma Pantel 300 mm f 5.6 m42 auto (with no manual override so shoot wide open)
Rokinon 135 f3.5 - prone to flare, soft at most stops, and in my case stiff focus ring
and one i bought here that i think will improve with a hood
Lentar 21 f3.5 the lens i'm using for single in july

the first 2 came with a spotmatic in good shape and a super tak 50 f1.4 for a whopping $80 so i'll live with it

That how I ended up with the Accura Diamatic 135 and the Auto Sunset 35. $88 for an 8-element Super Tak 50 1.4 isn't too bad.

[boriscleto]

The worst I own is actually a Canon FD lens, but I'm pretty sure they were sold for Pentax, too.

The Canon FD 50 1.8 was another candidate for me too. Very soft wide open on the FD to K converter and pentagonal bokeh stopped down.