What lenses were you dissatisfied with?

**MSL** · 04-09-2012, 06:11 PM

I haven't owned or used enough lenses to really hate any of them. But I'm glad to see folks mention the M 28/2.8. I have an A 28/2.8 but I find myself not using it because so far the images have a blah quality about them. It is a little reassuring to know that the blah factor may not just be due to the photographer

. I'm also debating whether to keep my A70-210/4 for similar reasons, and also because the reverse nature of the push-pull (the 70mm is at the extreme push end) is bugging me - but only because I love using my A 35-105/3.5.

Jonathan Mac · 04-10-2012, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by MSL

I haven't owned or used enough lenses to really hate any of them. But I'm glad to see folks mention the M 28/2.8. I have an A 28/2.8 but I find myself not using it because so far the images have a blah quality about them. It is a little reassuring to know that the blah factor may not just be due to the photographer

. I'm also debating whether to keep my A70-210/4 for similar reasons, and also because the reverse nature of the push-pull (the 70mm is at the extreme push end) is bugging me - but only because I love using my A 35-105/3.5.

I understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens.

Col · 04-10-2012, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens.

Kick away a man's crutch why don't you

**RobA_Oz** · 04-10-2012, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by GibbyTheMole

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.

Not only cheap ones - my 400-600 Pentax isn't a stellar performer either (the F*300/4.5 cropped out-performs it by a wide margin, for example) but it is an interesting conversation piece.

Verglace · 04-10-2012, 03:27 AM

I was disappointed with my DA70 Ltd. It was my first limited and I thought it was too normal (just didn't feel the magic) and the barel wobbled a bit. I thought the DA 35 2.4 was better. The 2nd limited I obtained the DA15 was much tighter and I felt it was a true limited lens.

**MSL** · 04-10-2012, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm certainly not rushing to get rid of the lens, and hopefully will find more occasions to play with it once I get past my current desire to try to shoot macro.

yusuf · 04-10-2012, 05:04 AM

Pentax SMC 105mm

**jopenmx** · 04-10-2012, 11:11 AM

My biggest disappointment was the FA 28-80 f/3,5-4,7 , adcquired second hand to test the Power zoom function of my Z-1p in 2001 . The build quality was bad , the optical quality nothing special and therefore, after 6 months , I decided to sell it and get a second hand wonderful K 28 f/3,5 . What a change !

Eagle_Friends · 04-10-2012, 11:46 AM

The DA 21mm f3.2 Limited. Used it sparsely for a month or so and sold it. I think the biggest issue for me was the slow aperature, f3.2 is just not quick enough for dimly lit situations, but then again I absolutely loved the DA 15mm f4. I think I just had a different mind set about the lens than the 15mm. I was hoping the 21mm would become my go-to walk around lens, but it just didn't happen... Had some wonderful shots with it, but I just couldn't grow to love it.

**Ash** · 04-10-2012, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Eagle_Friends

The DA 21mm f3.2 Limited.

Sounds like it just wasn't the right focal length for your walkabout purposes rather than it being a 'disappointing' lens.

Eagle_Friends · 04-10-2012, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Sounds like it just wasn't the right focal length for your walkabout purposes rather than it being a 'disappointing' lens.

No, I thoroughly enjoy the focal length, it was wide enough where I didn't feel like I was far away, but I can still capture the whole image. I still think my biggest problem with the lens was that the aperture is too slow. I tend to walk around during the day and night times; the day times were mostly great, but if I try to blur the background, the f3.2 aperture just wasn’t cutting it. And if I use it at night, I would have to bump up the iso, which I don’t like to do. Again, I have taken some wonderful images with this lens, but it was not worth keeping due to some of my personal preference. I realize that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the FA 31mm f1.8 would serve me better. In the end, it was a lens that I was dissatisfied with.

**NaClH2O** · 04-10-2012, 01:56 PM

I've had several over the years but have gotten rid of them. Two that I still have but NEVER use are the original Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-F/4.5. My copy has horrible CA, soft everywhere but dead center and is prone to flare. I still hold on to it thinking "but it's a good travel lens". But I don't do all that much traveling. Go figure. The other lens I own but never use is the FA 35mm F/2.0. It's sharp enough, but I've never been able to warm to it. I've got the DA 35mm F/2.4 that I like MUCH better. Theoretically they have the same optical formula, But one I think is great and the other is meh. I should sell the FA 35.

NaCl(if I turn a profit on it, no matter how bad it is, it's not a disappointment)H2O

RioRico · 04-10-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Eagle_Friends

I tend to walk around during the day and night times; the day times were mostly great, but if I try to blur the background, the f3.2 aperture just wasn’t cutting it. And if I use it at night, I would have to bump up the iso, which I don’t like to do.

This gave me yet another wicked idea.

PROBLEM: Fast wide lenses are hard to find.
SOLUTION: Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto K50/1.2 giving 12/1.2 optic.
RESULT: Umm, well, the images are rather, umm, impressionistic...

OK, let's rethink that. Maybe a longer lens...

RETRY; Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto Nikkor 85/2 giving 21/2 optic.
RESULT: Shall I lie, and say that the results look better? Whatever...

OK, where's that 20/1.4 we've been waiting for?

GibbyTheMole · 04-10-2012, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

my 400-600 Pentax isn't a stellar performer either

Wow! A mirror zoom, eh? First time I've heard of one of those. Sounds like a rare bird.

okcameradude · 04-10-2012, 03:42 PM

For me, it is the DA* 16-50. It's the only thing Pentax that has ever broken on me - ever (knock on wood). Good lens, bad SDM.

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

04-09-2012, 06:11 PM	#46
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,749	I haven't owned or used enough lenses to really hate any of them. But I'm glad to see folks mention the M 28/2.8. I have an A 28/2.8 but I find myself not using it because so far the images have a blah quality about them. It is a little reassuring to know that the blah factor may not just be due to the photographer . I'm also debating whether to keep my A70-210/4 for similar reasons, and also because the reverse nature of the push-pull (the 70mm is at the extreme push end) is bugging me - but only because I love using my A 35-105/3.5.

04-10-2012, 12:24 AM	#47
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	Originally posted by MSL I haven't owned or used enough lenses to really hate any of them. But I'm glad to see folks mention the M 28/2.8. I have an A 28/2.8 but I find myself not using it because so far the images have a blah quality about them. It is a little reassuring to know that the blah factor may not just be due to the photographer . I'm also debating whether to keep my A70-210/4 for similar reasons, and also because the reverse nature of the push-pull (the 70mm is at the extreme push end) is bugging me - but only because I love using my A 35-105/3.5. I understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens.

04-10-2012, 01:49 AM	#48
Col Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Stansted Essex Photos: Gallery Posts: 614	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens. Kick away a man's crutch why don't you

04-10-2012, 02:13 AM	#49
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,196	Originally posted by GibbyTheMole 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. Not only cheap ones - my 400-600 Pentax isn't a stellar performer either (the F*300/4.5 cropped out-performs it by a wide margin, for example) but it is an interesting conversation piece.

04-10-2012, 03:27 AM	#50
Verglace Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 468	I was disappointed with my DA70 Ltd. It was my first limited and I thought it was too normal (just didn't feel the magic) and the barel wobbled a bit. I thought the DA 35 2.4 was better. The 2nd limited I obtained the DA15 was much tighter and I felt it was a true limited lens.

04-10-2012, 05:01 AM	#51
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,749	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac understand that the A version is a different, and improved, optical formula. This is why a previous poster asked if the M was a version 1 or 2. The version 2 is rarer and has the same optics as the A, but in the M body. Most are the version 1 (as mine was). I would pick up a version 2 if I saw one for a reasonable price, so don't dismiss your A version based on this thread, it's not the same lens. Thank you for the clarification. I'm certainly not rushing to get rid of the lens, and hopefully will find more occasions to play with it once I get past my current desire to try to shoot macro.

04-10-2012, 05:04 AM	#52
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	Pentax SMC 105mm

04-10-2012, 11:11 AM	#53
jopenmx Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: vigo Photos: Gallery Posts: 137	My biggest disappointment was the FA 28-80 f/3,5-4,7 , adcquired second hand to test the Power zoom function of my Z-1p in 2001 . The build quality was bad , the optical quality nothing special and therefore, after 6 months , I decided to sell it and get a second hand wonderful K 28 f/3,5 . What a change !

04-10-2012, 11:46 AM	#54
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	The DA 21mm f3.2 Limited. Used it sparsely for a month or so and sold it. I think the biggest issue for me was the slow aperature, f3.2 is just not quick enough for dimly lit situations, but then again I absolutely loved the DA 15mm f4. I think I just had a different mind set about the lens than the 15mm. I was hoping the 21mm would become my go-to walk around lens, but it just didn't happen... Had some wonderful shots with it, but I just couldn't grow to love it.

04-10-2012, 12:45 PM	#55
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Eagle_Friends The DA 21mm f3.2 Limited. Sounds like it just wasn't the right focal length for your walkabout purposes rather than it being a 'disappointing' lens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2012, 01:00 PM	#56
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	Originally posted by Ash Sounds like it just wasn't the right focal length for your walkabout purposes rather than it being a 'disappointing' lens. No, I thoroughly enjoy the focal length, it was wide enough where I didn't feel like I was far away, but I can still capture the whole image. I still think my biggest problem with the lens was that the aperture is too slow. I tend to walk around during the day and night times; the day times were mostly great, but if I try to blur the background, the f3.2 aperture just wasn’t cutting it. And if I use it at night, I would have to bump up the iso, which I don’t like to do. Again, I have taken some wonderful images with this lens, but it was not worth keeping due to some of my personal preference. I realize that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the FA 31mm f1.8 would serve me better. In the end, it was a lens that I was dissatisfied with.

04-10-2012, 01:56 PM	#57
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I've had several over the years but have gotten rid of them. Two that I still have but NEVER use are the original Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-F/4.5. My copy has horrible CA, soft everywhere but dead center and is prone to flare. I still hold on to it thinking "but it's a good travel lens". But I don't do all that much traveling. Go figure. The other lens I own but never use is the FA 35mm F/2.0. It's sharp enough, but I've never been able to warm to it. I've got the DA 35mm F/2.4 that I like MUCH better. Theoretically they have the same optical formula, But one I think is great and the other is meh. I should sell the FA 35. NaCl(if I turn a profit on it, no matter how bad it is, it's not a disappointment)H2O

04-10-2012, 02:22 PM	#58
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Eagle_Friends I tend to walk around during the day and night times; the day times were mostly great, but if I try to blur the background, the f3.2 aperture just wasn’t cutting it. And if I use it at night, I would have to bump up the iso, which I don’t like to do. This gave me yet another wicked idea. PROBLEM: Fast wide lenses are hard to find. SOLUTION: Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto K50/1.2 giving 12/1.2 optic. RESULT: Umm, well, the images are rather, umm, impressionistic... OK, let's rethink that. Maybe a longer lens... RETRY; Stack 0.25x FE adapter onto Nikkor 85/2 giving 21/2 optic. RESULT: Shall I lie, and say that the results look better? Whatever... OK, where's that 20/1.4 we've been waiting for?

04-10-2012, 03:00 PM	#59
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	Originally posted by RobA_Oz my 400-600 Pentax isn't a stellar performer either Wow! A mirror zoom, eh? First time I've heard of one of those. Sounds like a rare bird.

04-10-2012, 03:42 PM	#60
okcameradude Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 8	For me, it is the DA* 16-50. It's the only thing Pentax that has ever broken on me - ever (knock on wood). Good lens, bad SDM.