[PALADIN85020]

I found the thread on lenses you would never part with interesting. It got me to thinking about lenses I have that I would almost give away if I didn't have to go to the trouble of packing and shipping them. These would be lenses that either have been superseded by other, better lenses, or are such turkeys as far as quality is concerned that you wouldn't be caught dead with them in the presence of another Pentaxian.

I'll start this off with two. I bought them cheap on eBay when I didn't have enough coin for better lenses, and thought they'd serve until I could.

The first is the SMC Pentax-F 35-80mm, f/4 - 5.6. Ridiculous wide open f/stop range, far outclassed in versatility by the 18-135mm. IQ is really subpar.

Next is the SMC Pentax-F 80-200mm, f/4.7 - 5.6. Same song, different verse, outclassed easily by the (now unavailable new) 18-250mm.

Both of these turkeys were built cheaply, have small 49mm objective lenses, don't offer much in IQ, and don't allow effective picture-taking in low light. I bought the second one to take pictures of a granddaughter's high school graduation, thinking the 200mm setting would allow some good pictures from the stands, but with the limited ISO capability of the K200D I had at the time, fuzzy, grainy pictures that did not allow any stop-action shots were all I could do. This would have been helped somewhat if I had my current K5, but the lenses are still limited in their usefulness.

You may have other lenses that you could only damn with faint praise - what are they?

John

[Lowell Goudge]

i have shopped carefully and the only lens out of the 50 I own that I would sell in a heartbeat are a Rikenon 135F2.8 which had bad internal reflecions off the rear lens retaining ring, plus a color cast I didnt like and is 1 full stop slower at any aperture than my other 3 135mm lenses. the other is a sigma mini wide II 28/2.8 that has really bad lateral CA. the only saving grace is it is an A lens and the lateral ca can be geometrically reduced using pentax photo lab 4 to offer sharp results, at the expense of post processing every shot,

[boriscleto]

The Quantaray 28-90/3.5-5.6 and Quantaray 28-70/3.5-4.5. I bought the MF 28-70 by mistake, and the AF 28-90 because I thought I needed a longer kit lens.

Promaster 100-400/4.5-6.7. First long zoom I bought. Should have gone for the DA L 55-300 from the start.

I am going to be selling 2 A50/1.7s in the near future. I have the A50/1.4 so I don't really need them.

[blackcloudbrew]

Takumar Bayonet 135 that and any FAJ lens.

[northcoastgreg]

The first is the SMC Pentax-F 35-80mm, f/4 - 5.6.

I have the A version of this lens, which was released at the same time (in the mid-nineties). A lens I would feel guilty even giving it to someone else.

Other lenses that I have but aren't worth the trouble of selling:

Pentax M 50/2: Not a bad lens, but rather uninspiring, with mediocre contrast and lacking the vivid Pentax colors that are usually found in most SMC primes.
Pentax DA 18-55 I: Better than the A 35-80, but outclassed by nearly every other lens that I own, and badly outclassed by the lenses I normally use.
Vivitar 80-200/4.5: Not as bad as one would expect considering the price it goes for nowadays. But it suffers from severe zoom creep (always has, and I'm the original owner), and is difficult to attain focus with (and you really have to nail the focus even to get average results from it).

[LaurenOE]

I have so many lenses that I wish people would buy. Alas, they will be forever in my collection as they are good lenses, but too obscure for people to want.

[paulh]

The only lens I've owned that didn't really have any saving graces was the A35-80 kit lens that I got with a ZX-M. Cheap build & anything but sharp at any aperture.

However, two lenses mentioned in this thread are ones I've found to be quite nice. I used an F80-200 for awhile and found it very acceptable in good light. Light, fast-focusing, & sharp with nice bokeh. I ended up selling it after I got a DA50-200. The other is the Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90 macro, which is probably my most-used daytime walkaround lens. I've found the IQ to be more than acceptable, plus it's light & fast focusing. The 1:2.3 "macro" feature is very usable, IMO. I guess it shows that one man's turkeys are another man's treasures

---

Last edited by paulh; 05-01-2012 at 03:41 PM.

[EdwardConde]

The ones i have listed in the marketplace.. and a few other manuals i am not using Sigma 24 Superwide & Consul 135 f2.8... i am so happy with just my 85mm f1.4 and my da 40mm...

[Zav]

K135 f2.5. I don't use it. I have even tried to give it away, my friends would not take it.

[pezmaker]

this: Makinon 28mm f2.8 Auto Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

It was a rebranded Makinon, as Kitstar. I don't mind most rebranded lenses, in fact, I can usually find some redeeming quality in them. If I hadn't given it to my ex, and promptly broken up with her, I'd still have it.

I only wish I still had the Eric CLA'd ME Super I gave her with it....

[jatrax]

If it is a good lens I don't want to part with it. If it is bad no one will pay me anything for it anyway so why sell?

[magkelly]

The first is the SMC Pentax-F 35-80mm, f/4 - 5.6. Ridiculous wide open f/stop range, far outclassed in versatility by the 18-135mm. IQ is really subpar.John

I think I had one of these? Got it out at the flea market on a 90's plastic wonder of a ZX Pentax film camera. I was rather ticked that it had a royal case of fungi growing in it. I rather liked it and I'd have likely kept it. I've been looking for something that hits that 70-90 range that isn't quite so long (or expensive) actually. The camera was a dog, but the lens didn't look too bad to me. Worst lens I own is this Haminex M42, 135MM. It was free so whatever, but it's got all the usefulness of a coke bottle bottom from what I can tell.

[eddie1960]

I have a couple of mediocre m42 lenses both with aperture issues (as in the ring is disconnected) i'd let go in a heartbeat (sigma pantel 300mm and Rokunar 135 2.8) other that i'm reasonably happy with all my lenses

[magkelly]

K135 f2.5. I don't use it. I have even tried to give it away, my friends would not take it.

You have weird friends. Free lenses, even nasty free lenses are free lenses. Some people are just way too picky, I guess. Find your local junior college and make that offer in the photo dept. Trust me the kids will practically kiss your feet and take it from you.

[wombat2go]

Well...
I have old off brand lenses and I test them.
It is one thing to have a lens with FL/aperture/range not suitable to support your needs.
For those condemning a lens as no good inherently, how about some reasonable res images so we can see?
https://www.box.com/s/e784b418037950336975