Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Laurentiu Cristofor · 10-15-2011, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

BLASPHEMY!!

Why? The OP's language is ambiguous and you are just assuming an interest in Pentax"-made" lenses only. I find it more meaningful to interpret the question as "what is the best value lens I can buy for a Pentax camera". Also, I assume the question is for lenses still in production - old lenses have no intrinsic value without a price attached to them and their prices vary too widely.

Pentax: DA 40/2.8, DA 35/2.4, DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, FA 50/1.4. Third party: Rokinon 85/1.4, Tamron SP 17-50/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8.

RioRico · 10-16-2011, 12:28 AM

@Laurentiu,
That was a tongue-in-cheek blasphemy. But the OP query is for Best Value Pentax Lens. Not, Pentaxable Lens. Not, New Pentax(able) Lens. Yes, out-of-production lenses certainly have variable prices -- but so do new and used copies of current-production glass from different dealers at any given moment. The best values in new glass are probably the DA18-55 and DA55-300 as a kit. But compare those with Taks, and M50/1.7 and F35-70, and rate their values. Sorry, older Pentax glass wins.

freewheeler · 10-16-2011, 09:15 AM

Lots of good K and m lenses for reasonable prices available on the market.
Good value depends on what you payed for it and how badly you whanted the lens.
My best value lens is my m85/2.0. I payed only 60 euro's and like the results very much.
Can't complain about my K55/2.0 for 25 euro incl. body either.

SRG01 · 10-16-2011, 03:04 PM

Best value? I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the kit lens yet

As for primes: 50/1.7. Zooms, I'd recommend the 50-300 since I got it on sale, but I may have to upgrade soon because the quality's a bit lacking on the long end. It may be photographer error though.

edit: and right as I post, someone mentions the kit and 50-300 two posts above me.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 10-16-2011, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

That was a tongue-in-cheek blasphemy.

I know that, but I was disputing the basic assumption that the request was for Pentax made lenses.

Originally posted by RioRico

But the OP query is for Best Value Pentax Lens. Not, Pentaxable Lens. Not, New Pentax(able) Lens.

Is that how you would call a lens for the Pentax system - "Pentaxable"?

A lens for system X can be called an X lens - the question of whether you used X to specify the system or the manufacturer should be answerable by context - we just don't have much of it in the laconic inquiry of this thread.

Why not just wait for the OP to clarify - that would also help us check if he is still following this thread or this was just a drive by question.

Originally posted by RioRico

Yes, out-of-production lenses certainly have variable prices -- but so do new and used copies of current-production glass from different dealers at any given moment.

Not really, the price of new lenses is fixed per country within a period of time and is not subject to the wild fluctuations you see for used lenses. Most people recommending Takumars have got theirs for $5-20 - how many would still recommend them if they'd had to pay 10 times that much? Not many - that's why people should indicate how much they paid for old lenses and should consider current prices when recommending new ones. If someone says a lens is great value because they got it at a garage sale for $7, how is that relevant to someone that can only find it at $70 or more?

Originally posted by RioRico

The best values in new glass are probably the DA18-55 and DA55-300 as a kit. But compare those with Taks, and M50/1.7 and F35-70, and rate their values. Sorry, older Pentax glass wins.

I don't agree and I think it is quite pathetic to state that - it is the equivalent of saying that Pentax is a dead brand these days and the only life they got left is in the old equipment they made once upon a time.

Plus it's not even true. Takumars require use of an adapter and like it was discussed elsewhere, Pentax hasn't done the best job they could with M42 compatibility. M lenses require stop-down metering - they are even worse than Takumars. The F35-70? I don't even know what the argument is with that lens. None of those "old Pentax glass" provides any dramatic value. The modern DA 35/2.4 on the other hand offers real value - a fully featured modern lens that is actually faster than the Takumar recommended here (35/3.5) and has full support on Pentax cameras (K-mount - i.e. no adapter needed, metering, autofocus). How are any of those old lenses providing a better value than this modern lens that is now even available for less than $200?

Mareket · 10-18-2011, 02:15 AM

The 18-55 WR has weather resistance, quick-shift focusing, auto focusing, a very good zoom range, light weight, small size, fantastic design and it's optically excellent enough for any photographer worth their salt to get incredible images out of it. Old glass may be lovely, but in terms of value there is no competition to the kit lens. I'm selling my DA 15 Limited because I recently got over my weird hatred of my kit lens and found out that it's actually an incredible lens. Plus I really need the money.

And I compare this to an A 50 /1.7 that I got for a tenner. I'd still say the kit lens is a better deal for value.

jwc77 · 10-18-2011, 06:23 AM

I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated.

**Aristophanes** · 10-18-2011, 07:14 AM

18-55 kit lens
28-105
DA 35/2.4
16-45
DA 55-300

In order price/value.

Northern Soul · 10-18-2011, 08:07 AM

I was given my 80-200. That's value.

altopiet · 10-18-2011, 08:21 AM

Mf: K 35/3.5
af: Fa 28-80/3.5-5.6

RioRico · 10-18-2011, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by jwc77

I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated.

Go for it! It's sharp and agile, my favourite for working in that focal.length range. It's longer and faster than the 18-55, and better-built. It really is like a little bag of primes. Consider that the 35-70 is a 2x zoom, while the 18-55 is 3x. That makes a difference -- fewer compromises. Take a look at the lens reviews. You won't see much hate. My deal: I bought mine on an SF-1 for US$21 shipped, then sold the SF-1 body for US$5, so the lens was damn cheap.
__________________________________________________

EDIT -- a note on value: I rate value as price:performance. The more I can do, with good results, for the least cost, means more value. My best-value inexpensive lenses are my Tomioka 55/1.4 (US$2.25), Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro (US$3), SuperTak 55/1.8 (US$8), Nikkor 85/2 (US$9), F35-70 (US$10.50), etc. These all give hella performance, especially at their costs.

Comparing new lenses is a whole 'nother thang. The not-cheap DA10-17 was a hella value when I bought it as nothing else came near. Same with the then-cheap-ish FA50/1.4, and the later Tamron 10-24 (discounted). Is that Tamron a better value than a Sigma 10-20 or DA2-24? That depends on price:performance: are they twice as good for twice the price? As noted in another thread, copy variation means that individual copies of each may be very close in performance, so cheap wins IMHO.

DaveHolmes · 10-18-2011, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by jwc77

I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated.

Good little lens... Paid very little for my copy and it regularly gets into my bag for day trips to National Trust/English Heritage venues... The close up (not quite macro) feature is very usable... Sharp, compact and better build quallity than the kit-18-55... If it's cheap I'd buy it... Deffo a good value zoom

Best value prime... Pentax-M 50mm 1.7.... This is your gateway to prime useage and a serious LBA affliction....

cali92rs · 10-18-2011, 06:29 PM

I am approaching this from a different point of view...mine would be the 35mm DA limited. It is not the cheapest lens, but in my humble opinion it is worth every penny and more. I recently went on a business trip, and I used it in a museum in horrible lighting, as a 1:1 macro shooting bugs in a nearby park, and as a normal focal length walk around lens in the same park. This was all in the same day! It's literally like 2 very sharp lenses in one small well built package.

**rbefly** · 10-18-2011, 07:37 PM

There's a lot of good recommendations so far.
My experience is mostly with M lenses on both film and digital bodies, so I'll restrict my suggestions to that group.
Right off the top I'd recommend the 100 f4.0 Macro M. This is one of the most versatile lenses I use regularly. It's a fine Macro, decent short tele (although a bit slow at f4.0), can be eye-bleedingly sharp, brilliant color rendition and a great candid/portrait/street walking-around lens.
About $100.00 on e-bay, depending on condition, of course.
The M 50mm f1.7 has been mentioned many times and I'll add my "Yea" vote.
Another good lens for my style of shooting is the M 28mm f2.8. Much less expensive than the f2.0 versions and just as sharp, from what I've seen. It has a hyper-focal "Sweet Spot" at f8.0 that lets you get everything from about 1-1/2 meters to infinity in sharp focus, great for scenics, landscapes and city-scapes with no fuss or fiddling, just compose and click. Around $60.00-$70.00.
Another favorite, if you don't do much Macro and don't want to deal with the weight and slow maximum aperture of the 100mm f4.0 Macro, is the M 100mm f2.8. It has wonderful bokeh and doesn't have to be stopped down much to be razor-sharp. Another $100.00 (or less) well-spent.
Just a few "M" ideas!
Ron

Nick Siebers · 10-18-2011, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

How are any of those old lenses providing a better value than this modern lens that is now even available for less than $200?

Well, because the old lenses are regularly available for much less than that! Pentax made thousands of M 50/1.7s, and not many people are using them on film bodies anymore. Thus they are far cheaper now than they would be if someone was making them new. $30-40 for a that lens gives you IQ as good as almost anything you can pick up for 10X the price. Even with loss of convenience figured in, that is good value.

I haven't used the DA35/2.4, but my F 35-70 gives me about 80% of what I use the DA35 macro for. At $50, it has a lot of value relative to the $450 DA lens. Plus, 36-70mm! Now, would it be a good value at $200? Probably not. I love the FA 20-35, but when B&H had a few old stock for $600+, I wasn't tempted to get a spare.

10-18-2011, 08:21 AM	#40
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307	Mf: K 35/3.5 af: Fa 28-80/3.5-5.6 Last edited by altopiet; 10-18-2011 at 08:51 AM. Reason: spelling

10-18-2011, 12:23 PM	#41
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by jwc77 I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated. Go for it! It's sharp and agile, my favourite for working in that focal.length range. It's longer and faster than the 18-55, and better-built. It really is like a little bag of primes. Consider that the 35-70 is a 2x zoom, while the 18-55 is 3x. That makes a difference -- fewer compromises. Take a look at the lens reviews. You won't see much hate. My deal: I bought mine on an SF-1 for US$21 shipped, then sold the SF-1 body for US$5, so the lens was damn cheap. __________________________________________________ EDIT -- a note on value: I rate value as price:performance. The more I can do, with good results, for the least cost, means more value. My best-value inexpensive lenses are my Tomioka 55/1.4 (US$2.25), Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro (US$3), SuperTak 55/1.8 (US$8), Nikkor 85/2 (US$9), F35-70 (US$10.50), etc. These all give hella performance, especially at their costs. Comparing new lenses is a whole 'nother thang. The not-cheap DA10-17 was a hella value when I bought it as nothing else came near. Same with the then-cheap-ish FA50/1.4, and the later Tamron 10-24 (discounted). Is that Tamron a better value than a Sigma 10-20 or DA2-24? That depends on price:performance: are they twice as good for twice the price? As noted in another thread, copy variation means that individual copies of each may be very close in performance, so cheap wins IMHO. Last edited by RioRico; 10-18-2011 at 12:50 PM.

10-18-2011, 07:37 PM	#44
rbefly Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 2,030	Some Great Choices! There's a lot of good recommendations so far. My experience is mostly with M lenses on both film and digital bodies, so I'll restrict my suggestions to that group. Right off the top I'd recommend the 100 f4.0 Macro M. This is one of the most versatile lenses I use regularly. It's a fine Macro, decent short tele (although a bit slow at f4.0), can be eye-bleedingly sharp, brilliant color rendition and a great candid/portrait/street walking-around lens. About $100.00 on e-bay, depending on condition, of course. The M 50mm f1.7 has been mentioned many times and I'll add my "Yea" vote. Another good lens for my style of shooting is the M 28mm f2.8. Much less expensive than the f2.0 versions and just as sharp, from what I've seen. It has a hyper-focal "Sweet Spot" at f8.0 that lets you get everything from about 1-1/2 meters to infinity in sharp focus, great for scenics, landscapes and city-scapes with no fuss or fiddling, just compose and click. Around $60.00-$70.00. Another favorite, if you don't do much Macro and don't want to deal with the weight and slow maximum aperture of the 100mm f4.0 Macro, is the M 100mm f2.8. It has wonderful bokeh and doesn't have to be stopped down much to be razor-sharp. Another $100.00 (or less) well-spent. Just a few "M" ideas! Ron

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax lens hood for the K 45-125mm f/4 lens, 58mm threads (Worldwide)	dgaies	Sold Items	4	02-21-2011 04:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: k100d,pentax 18-55 lens, quantary 70-300mm lens..carying bag and more	suzook	Sold Items	4	06-23-2010 09:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Rectangular Metal Lens hood for 58mm Lens (Worldwide)	oneill	Sold Items	2	03-19-2010 05:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax k-2000 + kit lens (18-55) + sigma zoom lens 70-300mm	dexmus	Sold Items	6	11-09-2009 05:25 PM

10-15-2011, 10:55 PM	#31
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by RioRico BLASPHEMY!! Why? The OP's language is ambiguous and you are just assuming an interest in Pentax"-made" lenses only. I find it more meaningful to interpret the question as "what is the best value lens I can buy for a Pentax camera". Also, I assume the question is for lenses still in production - old lenses have no intrinsic value without a price attached to them and their prices vary too widely. Pentax: DA 40/2.8, DA 35/2.4, DA 10-17/3.5-4.5, FA 50/1.4. Third party: Rokinon 85/1.4, Tamron SP 17-50/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8.

10-16-2011, 12:28 AM	#32
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	@Laurentiu, That was a tongue-in-cheek blasphemy. But the OP query is for Best Value Pentax Lens. Not, Pentaxable Lens. Not, New Pentax(able) Lens. Yes, out-of-production lenses certainly have variable prices -- but so do new and used copies of current-production glass from different dealers at any given moment. The best values in new glass are probably the DA18-55 and DA55-300 as a kit. But compare those with Taks, and M50/1.7 and F35-70, and rate their values. Sorry, older Pentax glass wins.

10-16-2011, 09:15 AM	#33
freewheeler Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: amsterdam Posts: 130	Lots of good K and m lenses for reasonable prices available on the market. Good value depends on what you payed for it and how badly you whanted the lens. My best value lens is my m85/2.0. I payed only 60 euro's and like the results very much. Can't complain about my K55/2.0 for 25 euro incl. body either.

10-16-2011, 03:04 PM	#34
SRG01 Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 29	Best value? I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the kit lens yet As for primes: 50/1.7. Zooms, I'd recommend the 50-300 since I got it on sale, but I may have to upgrade soon because the quality's a bit lacking on the long end. It may be photographer error though. edit: and right as I post, someone mentions the kit and 50-300 two posts above me.

10-16-2011, 05:27 PM	#35
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by RioRico That was a tongue-in-cheek blasphemy. I know that, but I was disputing the basic assumption that the request was for Pentax made lenses. Originally posted by RioRico But the OP query is for Best Value Pentax Lens. Not, Pentaxable Lens. Not, New Pentax(able) Lens. Is that how you would call a lens for the Pentax system - "Pentaxable"? A lens for system X can be called an X lens - the question of whether you used X to specify the system or the manufacturer should be answerable by context - we just don't have much of it in the laconic inquiry of this thread. Why not just wait for the OP to clarify - that would also help us check if he is still following this thread or this was just a drive by question. Originally posted by RioRico Yes, out-of-production lenses certainly have variable prices -- but so do new and used copies of current-production glass from different dealers at any given moment. Not really, the price of new lenses is fixed per country within a period of time and is not subject to the wild fluctuations you see for used lenses. Most people recommending Takumars have got theirs for $5-20 - how many would still recommend them if they'd had to pay 10 times that much? Not many - that's why people should indicate how much they paid for old lenses and should consider current prices when recommending new ones. If someone says a lens is great value because they got it at a garage sale for $7, how is that relevant to someone that can only find it at $70 or more? Originally posted by RioRico The best values in new glass are probably the DA18-55 and DA55-300 as a kit. But compare those with Taks, and M50/1.7 and F35-70, and rate their values. Sorry, older Pentax glass wins. I don't agree and I think it is quite pathetic to state that - it is the equivalent of saying that Pentax is a dead brand these days and the only life they got left is in the old equipment they made once upon a time. Plus it's not even true. Takumars require use of an adapter and like it was discussed elsewhere, Pentax hasn't done the best job they could with M42 compatibility. M lenses require stop-down metering - they are even worse than Takumars. The F35-70? I don't even know what the argument is with that lens. None of those "old Pentax glass" provides any dramatic value. The modern DA 35/2.4 on the other hand offers real value - a fully featured modern lens that is actually faster than the Takumar recommended here (35/3.5) and has full support on Pentax cameras (K-mount - i.e. no adapter needed, metering, autofocus). How are any of those old lenses providing a better value than this modern lens that is now even available for less than $200?

10-18-2011, 02:15 AM	#36
Mareket Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Chester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 719	The 18-55 WR has weather resistance, quick-shift focusing, auto focusing, a very good zoom range, light weight, small size, fantastic design and it's optically excellent enough for any photographer worth their salt to get incredible images out of it. Old glass may be lovely, but in terms of value there is no competition to the kit lens. I'm selling my DA 15 Limited because I recently got over my weird hatred of my kit lens and found out that it's actually an incredible lens. Plus I really need the money. And I compare this to an A 50 /1.7 that I got for a tenner. I'd still say the kit lens is a better deal for value.

10-18-2011, 06:23 AM	#37
jwc77 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 269	I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated.

10-18-2011, 07:14 AM	#38
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	18-55 kit lens 28-105 DA 35/2.4 16-45 DA 55-300 In order price/value.

10-18-2011, 08:07 AM	#39
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	I was given my 80-200. That's value.

10-18-2011, 03:23 PM	#42
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by jwc77 I am considering pulling the trigger on a really cheap F35-70mm. Would like anyone with experience to chime in....how does the 35-70 compare to my already owned 18-55mm kit lens? Is it any better...or different enough to purchase? Any advice would be appreciated. Good little lens... Paid very little for my copy and it regularly gets into my bag for day trips to National Trust/English Heritage venues... The close up (not quite macro) feature is very usable... Sharp, compact and better build quallity than the kit-18-55... If it's cheap I'd buy it... Deffo a good value zoom Best value prime... Pentax-M 50mm 1.7.... This is your gateway to prime useage and a serious LBA affliction....

10-18-2011, 06:29 PM	#43
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	I am approaching this from a different point of view...mine would be the 35mm DA limited. It is not the cheapest lens, but in my humble opinion it is worth every penny and more. I recently went on a business trip, and I used it in a museum in horrible lighting, as a 1:1 macro shooting bugs in a nearby park, and as a normal focal length walk around lens in the same park. This was all in the same day! It's literally like 2 very sharp lenses in one small well built package.

10-18-2011, 09:38 PM	#45
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor How are any of those old lenses providing a better value than this modern lens that is now even available for less than $200? Well, because the old lenses are regularly available for much less than that! Pentax made thousands of M 50/1.7s, and not many people are using them on film bodies anymore. Thus they are far cheaper now than they would be if someone was making them new. $30-40 for a that lens gives you IQ as good as almost anything you can pick up for 10X the price. Even with loss of convenience figured in, that is good value. I haven't used the DA35/2.4, but my F 35-70 gives me about 80% of what I use the DA35 macro for. At $50, it has a lot of value relative to the $450 DA lens. Plus, 36-70mm! Now, would it be a good value at $200? Probably not. I love the FA 20-35, but when B&H had a few old stock for $600+, I wasn't tempted to get a spare.