[Zav]

I am shocked at how little love there seems to be for the K135/2.5.

Don't be shocked, the number of people ready to take it from me on this thread proove quite the contrary. It's just me, my Voigtlander and my down to earth friends.

[LaurenOE]

Oh, I just forgot. Lenses I could part with in a heartbeat? All the Nikon ones I bought and still have as I no longer have a D7000.

[timh]

I picked up a Takumar Bayonet 135mm (non-SMC) when I was inexperienced and soon realised why I got it for a seemingly good price.. Finally getting around to selling that now!

I'd also part with my original 18-55 kit lens with no regrets at all, I'll get rid of it as soon as I pick up a WR version (which at least has a use in my collection).

I haven't used my A 50mm f1.7 since I got the M 50mm f1.4. A is useful, but I really only want them for the DOF so the M gets used and the A doesn't. My DA40 works better as a general purpose lens.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over ditching the M 28mm f2.8 either. I used it for 'single in april' and every shot needed work in lightroom to make it presentable, matched with the K-5 it's kinda murky.

I could only pack one lens on the excursion

That's quite confusing to read, from a Pentax user! You may need a DA21 or DA40 to keep in your pocket at all times.

[magkelly]

I am shocked at how little love there seems to be for the K135/2.5.

I like my copy just fine. I think it's a pretty decent lens, but my 135MM's from Ricoh are actually a bit better. I have a K mount and a M42 mount. The color rendition on the Ricoh lenses seems just a bit nicer to me. Sharpness, they're all about the same. Maybe the one Ricoh K mount is just a tad less sharp than the Pentax but not by much and it makes it up by being nicer in color.

[magkelly]

Old slow zooms rarely focus well in low light I find-my tamron 28-200 ( equivalent to the pentax mode which I also had for a while)) struggles in low light but does pretty well within it's limitations in daylight stopped down to f8 it actually has given me some good results. It is going to go up for sale though as i don't use it much now

That balcony pic is just beautiful. Makes me look for Juliet....

[wombat2go]

I just tested the TAKUMAR BAYONET 1:2.5 135mm wide open and into the sun with the hood out
https://www.box.com/s/4e91ed5c1331f5a05ec9

Compared to the SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 100mm wide open, with a hood
https://www.box.com/s/8f5ebb334d5b81e41e4c

What a difference the SMC coating makes!
But this is a too harsh test, the Bayonet works OK mostly.
Don't take it to the beach late in the afternoon.
Looks like I gotta cut the grass too.

[eddie1960]

That balcony pic is just beautiful. Makes me look for Juliet....

LOL, She was standing beside me (at leas my Juliet - my wife) that is the balcony of the apartment we rented in Venice for 8 days. we would sit on it drinking prosecco and japanese tourists in gondola passing under the window would point up and take photos of the locals lmao, there must be at least a hundred shots of us on various japanese hard drives :

[DaveHolmes]

M-50mm-f2...
It's not horrible... Just not very good...
The first prime I ever bought... I actually wondered what all the fuss about primes was about!! (deffo one to skip if you're after a first prime... Go for the MorA50-1.7 or 1.4 instead!)
I've now sold 3 or 4 of them as they keep appearing on film bodies I've picked up...

[excanonfd]

Oh, I just forgot. Lenses I could part with in a heartbeat? All the Nikon ones I bought and still have as I no longer have a D7000.

Really, if you have a Nikkor F 180/2.8 ED lens lying about, I'd be very interested. Quite possibly the easiest mount to permanently convert to a K mount and highly desirable (for some of us).

[ChopperCharles]

Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro. It's an A lens (well, Ricoh with pin removed), but it's junk. Not even remotely close to sharp, and the "macro" rotating element acts like a soft filter. I just hate the lens with a passion.

Charles.

[magkelly]

I have one Rikenon lens, a 135mm M42 that's actually supposed to be a good lens but that I've never been able to take a decent pic with. There's another, Cambron I think it is called. a 35-75mm that just sits in my junk pile because the thing might as well be a coke bottle for all it's worth. I actually like most of my Ricoh and other off brand type lenses but there are some that I have that are not quite as decent as others. As for the Takumar Bayonet 135mm maybe I just have a particularly good copy but I've found mine to be surprisingly sharp and I wouldn't give it up. Cost me all of $6 as I recall and it's well worth every penny of what I paid for it. Most lenses I have I've not paid a whole lot for.

With the $10 and under lenses quality isn't something I particularly worry about. If I get one for $5, $10 and it's stellar, great. If not I use it sometimes if it's decent or throw it in the junk box to trade off it's it's really mediocre. I don't mislead people I trade with though that a not stellar lens is. I don't think that's ethical but then again some people aren't quite as picky as I am about what goes on their camera. My niece for instance is just grateful for any lens I throw her way. The kid is having a ball with her P3 and learning to use it and doesn't really care if the lens is truly worthy. Probably that will change in time but for now she's pretty happy with my rejects.

With lenses above that $10 I'm a bit more picky and I tend not to get them unless I can look them up first or know the brand is likely to mean it's a good lens. If we're talking $20 and up then I'm darned picky and I know exactly what I am looking at. I don't waste my money. I can't afford to. If a lens is going to cost me a real chunk of change, and for me that's anything above that $20, then I'm definitely doing my homework first. I have a strict budget though when it comes to lenses. $55 is about the most I've ever paid for one lens and that one was a digital one in the range I most use the 70-300 and I thought about it for months before I went there.

I probably would not have half the really stellar lenses I own if I didn't have the luck of the Irish as it were when it comes to finding them online and in the thrifts here. Most of my Taks and Vivs, I either got them with cameras I bought for less than $20, got them given to me with gear that someone didn't want, got them via some excellent auction deal, or found them in some other situation where someone was practically giving them away. I know what they are worth but in every case I did not pay anything near that. My whole camera/lens kit practically is the results of one big scavenger hunt/swap fest. Even my lights which are pretty much new were bought via the Amazon Warehouse and are technically used. I think about the only thing in my kit that isn't is my backdrops.

I really want a K-30 and the WR 18-135mm and I'm saving up like mad, every bit of spare change I get is going into the kitty bank for that camera/lens combo, but it's very likely I won't buy new when it's time. My finances probably won't let me afford that not unless I start getting a lot more paid work anyhow. But that's an unusual thing me getting gear that expensive. My usual big splurge is a $5-20 bargain lens at Goodwilll, laugh.

But yeah, there are a couple of lenses in my kit that are real clunkers I think. But I can't complain. At most they cost me $5, $10 and for that I'm not really expecting miracles, shrug.

[Nick Siebers]

I am excited to get rid of my 18-55 WR, a lens that has never wowed my, when my 18-135 gets here, assuming it works ok.

[msatlas]

I've got an old Albinar 135/2.8 that's actually pretty decent and produced some good shots for me, but I haven't used it since I got an F 135/2.8. The Albinar cost me $15 so it's hardly worth the effort to sell it.

I had a Sigma 28/1.8 Aspherical II that I replaced with a DA 35/2.4 and then FA 35/2. The Sigma was noticeably less sharp than my Tamron 17-50 at similar apertures, and very soft wide open. It seemed good on paper but didn't do anything for me. Luckily I sold it for the same as I bought it.

[cali92rs]

This one is easy...Sears 28mm macro with the Ricoh pin. I now have the K28mm which makes the sears totally expendable. I also have an M42 SMC Super Takumar 135/3.5 which is ok i guess...i just never ever use it.

[jakeblues]

I'd part with my Super Takumar 105 2.8 in a heartbeat. Bought it two years ago. Might have taken 10 pics total with it.