Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-09-2012, 06:50 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
Cheap mirror lenses. I've tried several, and they have all been without fail, abysmal.

The Tair 3M-5CA on the other hand is excellent. Night & day difference. My wife's Tokina isn't the equal of the Tair, but it's miles ahead of the cheap ones.

04-09-2012, 08:14 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,959
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
The M 28mm f/2.8 was one of those lenses that is sharp enough, but totally lacks any character to the shots taken with it, they were really dull.
I have found the exact same thing. I liked the M 28/2.8 well enough when I used it on film. But then I only had the M 50/2 to compare it with. Neither of those two lenses, although they have plenty of resolution and are hardly bad or even mediocre, can measure up to most other Pentax SMC primes.

I've also been disappointed by the DA 18-55 II. I was led to believe it would be a significant improvement over the DA 18-55 I, but did not find it so. Like the M 28/2.8, it produces flat, uninspiring images. The lens suffers from poor light transmission, particularly at the blue end of the light spectrum.

Other disappointments:

FA 100-300/4.7-5.8: I expected this lens to be a bit resolution challenged at the long end; what surprised me was how poorly it performed at the wide end. Otherwise a nice lens, with very good color rendition.

A 35-80/f4-5.6: A lens fit only for bad photographers, the stuff of nightmares for the rest of us.

Tamron 75-300: worst rendering lens I've ever used. Not terrible in terms of resolution, but what resolution that the lens features is rendered in an ugly fashion. Images from this lens almost look like they have been over-sharpened in post. It also loses contrast and color luminance toward the long end of the lens.

FA 28-105/3.2-4.5: This is a bit of Jekel and Hyde lens: really very good between 50-105, but very problematic between 28-40, with nasty, hard-to-fix CA and very poor borders. Unfortunately, I tend to shoot more at 28-40 than 50-105, so it has been a frustrating lens to use. If a zoom doesn't perform well in a given range, I would prefer it not to zoom in that range at all.
04-09-2012, 08:30 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
I am dissatisfied with the lenses that I do not owned.
04-09-2012, 08:53 AM   #34
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Other disappointments:

FA 100-300/4.7-5.8: I expected this lens to be a bit resolution challenged at the long end; what surprised me was how poorly it performed at the wide end. Otherwise a nice lens, with very good color rendition.

A 35-80/f4-5.6: A lens fit only for bad photographers, the stuff of nightmares for the rest of us.
Maybe your FA100-300 was a bad copy. I have no such problem with mine.

I can't say I was *disappointed* by the A35-80 -- more like *APPALLED*!! I've said many times that it's arguably the worst lens Pentax ever produced. However... reverse it and use it as a macro-zoom, and it's a decent lens. Be sure to put a piece of macro tube on the end to act as a lens hood. But for 'normal' usage it sucks big-time.

04-09-2012, 09:32 AM   #35
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
I found the FA 31 to be a bit too big for me, and not quite as "good" as I imagined it would be. Of course, now when I look back at my pictures with it, they do look quite nice. Also the FA 28-70 f/4 had a quality to it wide open that I didn't like, although I could see how some might. And I have tried both versions of the Sigma 28/1.8; the aspherical II had sometimes funny IQ, and the EX DG was just too big. The asperical II had terrible back focus that Sigma couldn't fix, but they sent me a 105 macro in its place, which was okay with me.
04-09-2012, 09:34 AM   #36
Pentaxian
rvannatta's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Apiary, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,176
well, the lenses that have disappointment the most have been the 1 lens serves all solutions. such as the 28 to 200 or 300 from the film days...
too many compromises all the way around.... I prefer usually faster lenses....
04-09-2012, 09:45 AM   #37
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,692
My first kit lens: Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6 DC. Memorably ordinary.

Same story with the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 'macro'. Wasn't impressed in any way.

But also the DA 14. I've seen little use in its f/2.8 capability (its IQ isn't flash at f2.8-4 anyway), and both the DA 15 and DA 12-24 are that much better I find that it has a very limited place in the lens lineup.

Last edited by Ash; 04-09-2012 at 09:55 AM.
04-09-2012, 09:54 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
I found the DA 35/2.8 Macro a bit of a disappointment. Not any huge obvious flaws, just sort of....meh. Not wonderful, like I was hoping.

To be fair, I sent it back rather quickly, and I have experienced other lenses that I didn't like immediately, but grew to love later. I really believe you have to spend a LOT of time with a good lens before you get to know it, and can decide if it's for you. I wasn't ultra-impressed with the 43 when I first got my hands on it for a short time. But I kept seeing great pics from it, and recently had another chance to use it. I bought one shortly after, and have no regrets.

04-09-2012, 10:05 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,724
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I have found the exact same thing. I liked the M 28/2.8 well enough when I used it on film. But then I only had the M 50/2 to compare it with. Neither of those two lenses, although they have plenty of resolution and are hardly bad or even mediocre, can measure up to most other Pentax SMC primes.
Greg, which version of the M28/2.8 did you have?
04-09-2012, 02:39 PM   #40
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
DA 18-135 for us. We found its image quality at 55mm worse than the DA 18-55II, DA *55, and DA 55-300.
04-09-2012, 03:02 PM   #41
Veteran Member
RickyFromVegas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 366
My biggest disappointment was FA50mm 1.4
04-09-2012, 03:02 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
1. DA17-70 was soft focusing at infinity near the long end. Pentax repair told me that it was performing within specifications, which was not good enough for me, so I sold it.

2. DA*55/1.4 exhibited very erratic focusing on two camera bodies. I tested 5 copies before giving up and getting an FA43. Bad luck turned into good luck, as the FA43 is now one of my all-time favorite lenses. Dpreview also had focusing difficulties with the copies of the DA*55 that they tested. They attributed the problem to misalignment of the focus plane. I realize that there are owners of the DA*55 who love it, but my advice to all prospective buyers is to test it very carefully.

Rob
04-09-2012, 03:33 PM   #43
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,636
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
My disappointment: Lil'Bigma DG 170-500, mainly because it cost so much and I use it so little. That's because of me more than it. I just don't find myself in that many places where it would be useful.
I had the 170-500mm for a while, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was definitely cumbersome compared to my other lenses, but it wasn't too bad. I remember one afternoon where I was in the backyard watching the kids, cousins, and pets play, and it was a lot of fun being able to sit off to the side and get pictures like I was just a few feet in front of them, with very nice bokeh in the background. It was also a lot of fun at kids' sporting events.

I now have the Sigma 150-500mm, and while it is optically superior, it's just not as fun to shoot with since it is significantly bigger and heavier.
04-09-2012, 03:56 PM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,959
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Greg, which version of the M28/2.8 did you have?
It's the first version.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Maybe your FA100-300 was a bad copy. I have no such problem with mine.
That's possible. But to tell the truth, none of the photos I've seen from the lens online seem all that sharp. My copy also suffered from poor borders, which I was surprised to find in an FF lens.
04-09-2012, 05:34 PM   #45
Site Supporter
rbefly's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,030
Bad Lenses?

Well, I've owned a few bad lenses over time, the worst period seemed to be the span between auto-focus film and digital, particularly the FA 28-80mm (not AL), the FA 80-200mm and the F 35-80mm (the worst of the bunch!).
I gave away my DA 18-55mm as soon as I got a DA 16-45mm. A world of difference at every comparable focal length.
Another DA I never warmed up to was the DA 50-200mm. I keep reading how it's a good or better-than-average consumer zoom, but I never did impress me. Seemed soft at all FL's and PF' ed a lot.
Eventually I got a medium tele zoom I like, the Tokina AT-X SD 80-200mm f/2.8, it's the old MF version, big and as heavy as a Cadillac with fins, one-touch focus/zoom, it's got a lot working against it. But it's SHARP at all fl's, easy to focus and the colors are nearly Pentax-like in clarity and rendition. OK, so I have to bring my monopod if I plan to use it, hey, nothing's perfect!
Ron
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do m42 lenses measure up to todays lenses? Vantage-Point Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 05-14-2011 07:51 AM
Huge test on the influence of fungus in lenses (on 9 lenses) CarbonR Photographic Technique 18 03-14-2011 10:34 PM
For Sale - Sold: (3) Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm lenses + 3 Pentax lenses JP_Seattle Sold Items 13 04-23-2010 03:10 PM
For Sale - Sold: Yard sale: M lenses, K 300mm, DA 14mm, ME film body, Nikkor lenses and more Nachodog Sold Items 24 12-26-2009 12:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top