[8540tomg]

I wasn’t too impressed with a bayonet Takumar 80~200/4.5 zoom. It didn’t have the SMC coatings and it showed. I dumped it fast and got the SMC Pentax M 80~200/4.5 zoom. Like every other time I tried to save a few bucks I was disappointed and ended up paying more to correct the problem.

Tom G

---

Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-15-2012 at 08:56 AM.

[jwc77]

I was really disappointed in the DA 50-200. I wasn't expecting outstanding performance from it...but I couldn't even get decent performance out of it. It always took really soft pictures for me.

[Nick Siebers]

I guess everything can disappoint, but then what can we learn from an enumeration of everything? I think it is more useful to only list lenses that are unusable, or unreliable, or just unremarkable. The above mentioned lenses don't fit such description.

FA 31 may not feel like a great value but it is one of the best lenses that Pentax still has in production. If that is disappointing, what Pentax optics are satisfying?

FA 50 may not be a top lens, but it's not a bottom one either.

As for the DA 70, I have no direct experience with it, but as far as I can tell from the samples I've seen, it is one of the better DA Limiteds.

But the title of the thread is "What lenses were you dissatisfied with?" That isn't asking what lenses are unusable or unreliable. True my dissatisfaction with the FA 31 was more a product of my sky-high expectations than the actual quality. But my expectations came from reading the forums... so it may be helpful to others to temper theirs. Even in the 31mm Limited class there is some sample variation, I am sure, so why expect everyone's reactions to be the same? I can't imagine disliking the FA 43, but several people have mentioned it in the thread.

What lenses are total crap, now that is a thread that could get long and impassioned. :-)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

But the title of the thread is "What lenses were you dissatisfied with?"

And what is the purpose of that question? How are answers that interpret it literally being useful to anyone? Sample variation issues are useful to mention, but you didn't mention that about the FA 31, just the fact that it wasn't as good as you expected. How can that help someone else evaluate the FA 31.

That's all I had to say on this subject anyway.

[Nick Siebers]

And what is the purpose of that question? How are answers that interpret it literally being useful to anyone? Sample variation issues are useful to mention, but you didn't mention that about the FA 31, just the fact that it wasn't as good as you expected. How can that help someone else evaluate the FA 31.

That's all I had to say on this subject anyway.

Now that you mention it, I think the best use is to show that someone can be dissatisfied with anything. Abandon LBA, all who enter here!

Anyway, I wasn't trying to argue, and I found your point quite a good one. But I drew from it the opposite conclusion. :-)

[Glen]

The least liked is the DA 17-70. I disliked it because it was expensive, heavy, slow, had to go to Pentax twice for repairs (including once outside of warranty) and it had low resale value.

I replaced it with the DA 18-135 and am generally happy with it. Unlike the DA 17-70 it is light, slow aperture but fast to focus, and has never given a hint of the problems that plagued my 17-70.

I was a little disappointed with my Tamron 90. Not the glass so much as the build quality - or lack thereof. On the other hand, I do like my DA - 15 but then everybody seems to like their DA-15. My FA 43 has been occasionally temperamental but no more so than a fine Italian car.

[hcarvalhoalves]

All Pentax-F that I tried (35-80 and 80-200) were simply crap and moved on for cheap to new owners. Nothing good in particular: all soft, boring colors, depressing build quality and too slow (aperture).

Whoever complained about FA 100-300: you might be crazy. The build quality is crap but, optically, its a gem - sharp enough for its price at wide open and produces beautiful colors. One of the few "plastic fantastic" worth a dime.

[Swift1]

I've never been very satisfied with all the DA kit zooms I've used. I've used both the original and II versions of the 18-55mm as well as the 50-200mm and was never that thrilled with the results. I think I got decent copies of each as well but I never really liked the results.

[RioRico]

All Pentax-F that I tried (35-80 and 80-200) were simply crap and moved on for cheap to new owners. Nothing good in particular: all soft, boring colors, depressing build quality and too slow (aperture).

Get the cheap little F35-70. Smallest zoom that Pentax ever made; very agile (fast AF); sharp as a bag of primes. It's what I used today whilst walking around town.

Whoever complained about FA 100-300: you might be crazy. The build quality is crap but, optically, its a gem - sharp enough for its price at wide open and produces beautiful colors. One of the few "plastic fantastic" worth a dime.

I wouldn't call the build 'crap', just 'non-metallic'. Mine has apparently seen some hard use over the decades and still functions perfectly. Polycarbonates are tough.

[paperbag846]

I recall an old rule-of-thumb of designing-engineering-building lenses: each additional 1/2 f-stop about doubles the cost. Is going from f/3.2 to f/2.8 worth that much to you?

Put that way, no . But I stand by my DA 40 analysis, I suppose, considering my purposes were not fulfilled by the lens, which is not to say it is a bad lens. I was, however, disappointed.

[Jonathan Mac]

I've never been very satisfied with all the DA kit zooms I've used. I've used both the original and II versions of the 18-55mm as well as the 50-200mm and was never that thrilled with the results. I think I got decent copies of each as well but I never really liked the results.

I had the mkII version that came with my K200D and for ages it was my main lens. I was very pleased at what it did that I hadn't been able to do before with my compact, but that was more the camera than the lens. I sold it when I upgraded to the WR version for a trip to Asia last year, and I have to say I'm much happier with the WR. The optics are the same but the build quality is significantly better. I use it in A mode at f/8 and that's it. If need be, I crank the ISO up.

Of course, when the weather is good it sees no use, but it's fantastic to be able to keep using the camera in rain & humid environments.

[WPRESTO]

Here's an exotic one: the 1000 f11 reflex Takumar. Had one of these for about a year and absolutely could not get a single "keeper" slide. Mounted it on a massive wooden tripod - much heavier than the lens - used high-speed chrome film, cable release, and took it out on a bright sunny day, but every pictures was unacceptably soft. Not a matter of poor focus on the primary subject (a heron), absolutely nothing in front or behind the bird was sharp. Needless to say, I got rid of the monster. I also had a Korean-made Pentax zoom (think it was 28-85) that was a total dud both optically and mechanically.

[WPRESTO]

AND on the other side for SURPRISINGLY GOOD lenses: a 135 f3.5 preset Takumar I had for my Asahi Pentax S, and my Tokina 90mm f2.5 macro, but everyone seems to agree that the Tokina is an exceptionally good lens. I've been very pleased with many, many images taken with the current 55-300. Perhaps I got a particularly good example.

[twitch]

FA31, that I hadn't bought it earlier.

[selar]

M 135/3.5, was my first ever Pentax lens and then a M50/1.4. I just find green button metering a pain to use and unreliable I'd rather use a Takumar.