Lenses you would part with in a heartbeat...

Quicksand · 05-01-2012, 05:12 PM

I would, and did, part gladly with a Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro.

It was nicknamed the "purple monster" for very, very good reason. Yes, you can process the purple away, but gray fringes aren't that wonderful either.

Julie · 05-01-2012, 05:35 PM

All the FAs that I've owned (all cheap zooms) with the exception of FA 50 1.4.

I'm not liking this Tamron 28-200 I just purchased with a cheap ZX-10, either.

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-01-2012, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Zav

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

the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address

jimr-pdx · 05-01-2012, 05:55 PM

I mistakenly picked up a promaster 100-300 f/5.6-6.7 through keh for a cheap price, thinking the 'off brand' was a quantaray 100-300 f/4.5-6.7

One must read those aperture details more closely! Too much hassle to send back at the time so it's still here, but off to the thrift store soon. I almost feel guilty doing that, but for $5 maybe someone will enjoy it.

Julie · 05-01-2012, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address

That's not fair, you should share with me! Surely you don't need two?

hcarvalhoalves · 05-01-2012, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by PALADIN85020

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.

Had the exact same lenses come with a MZ-50. I took 3 test shots with each and sold to someone on the internet. I couldn't believe how bad the 35-80 was. The "F" series might be the worst Pentax ever released, now I just disregard those lenses completely.

With the money I bought some macro tubes instead, and saved a little to buy a wide prime. Way better use of my money.

lguckert79 · 05-01-2012, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by paulh

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

i do agree with you the two lenses that you have listed are pretty good lenses i have both and the only reason i dont use the pentax 80-200mm anymore is that i got a quantaray 70-300mm LD macro switch one made by tamaron but i do love the 28-90 that you said i use that one for my walk around lens if you are interested i got the 70-300 on ebay very cheap and it is a great lens so

northcoastgreg · 05-01-2012, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it.

Well, not quite the best 135; that honor would go to the A 135/1.8. But unlike the various iterations of the 35-80/4-5.6, definitely worth selling.

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

The "F" series might be the worst Pentax ever released

The original F series released in the late 80s is actually pretty good, with some excellent glass. It's only a few of the F series lenses released in the mid 90s that are among the worst lens ever made by Pentax. Some of the FA zooms released around the same time weren't much better.

riff · 05-01-2012, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address

me too, I've been hunting for one of these for sometime now.

**bpv_UW** · 05-01-2012, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Zav

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

I'll take it.

alstauffer · 05-01-2012, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

The Quantaray 28-90/3.5-5.6

^That one. And I did. Also the Quantaray 70-210 manual focus f/something or another.

Other than that, I am having a real hard time selling lenses, despite having DA 40 Ltd, FA 43 Ltd and F 50/1.7.. That 40-50mm range is pretty crowded in my camera bag

wombat2go · 05-01-2012, 10:03 PM

The 1:2.5 135mm is often criticized, in this thread the K is mentioned as a bad b*st*rd.
I have 2 of the even more maligned "Takumar Bayonet" versions and a Sears version.
I think the criticism may stem from users who don't understand the limited depth of field, so don't focus them properly in the correct plane.

here i did a test with the b*st*rd against the much praised SMC Pentax-M 1:1:4 100mm Macro , both at f/8 in deliberately difficult low tungsten light, manually focussed.
The DOF shows, along with my focus planes.

The 135mm
https://www.box.com/s/e8a00bcbf13764cb3da8

The 100mm
https://www.box.com/s/6fa59fddfd3cbbd1ea44

I will try some tests in bright sun tomorrow and wide open in the evening, also I have the much praised -M 1:2.8 100mm to compare.

I think the old Pentax 135 mm generally are sharp lenses and beautifully tight mechanically with metal body works, if users know how to use them.
Better shots, perhaps, than the average loosey goosey old nylon roller zoom with blurred corners etc.

Zav · 05-01-2012, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by wombat2go

The 1:2.5 135mm is often criticized, in this thread the K is mentioned as a bad b*st*rd.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, English is not my native language, but I don't think anyone is saying the K135 is a bad lens.

Originally posted by magkelly

You have weird friends. Free lenses, even nasty free lenses are free lenses. Some people are just way too picky, I guess.

No, they are quite down to Earth. For example one of them has a FA 135 f2.8 and told me he would not used the K. Another clearly said that he would not use a fully manual lens as it's simply not his thing.

Originally posted by magkelly

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.

Young girls kissing my feet...huuuum let's stop here...

Next stop is probably fleabay.

hoanpham · 05-01-2012, 11:48 PM

Zav,
Your copy of the K135/2.5 must be something wrong with it or you have never used it.
I have many other 135mm, but the K135/2.5 still in my keeper's list. and I don't think I let it go if i got 135/2 or 135/1.8...

TOUGEFC · 05-01-2012, 11:53 PM

The K135 2.5 is a very good lens but its nothing special, personally I think its over rated by the way some people carry on about it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Losing Sight, Losing Lenses..... Part 2	raymeedc	Sold Items	8	03-09-2012 01:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: Part out-k20d,DA* lenses and 360 flash.	happygui	Sold Items	15	09-17-2009 07:38 AM
Noob learns lessons with K100D -- Part II: Lenses (with questions)	bjsmith	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	06-18-2007 09:13 PM

05-01-2012, 05:12 PM	#16
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	I would, and did, part gladly with a Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro. It was nicknamed the "purple monster" for very, very good reason. Yes, you can process the purple away, but gray fringes aren't that wonderful either.

05-01-2012, 05:35 PM	#17
Julie Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,069	All the FAs that I've owned (all cheap zooms) with the exception of FA 50 1.4. I'm not liking this Tamron 28-200 I just purchased with a cheap ZX-10, either.

05-01-2012, 05:47 PM	#18
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by Zav K135 f2.5. I don't use it. I have even tried to give it away, my friends would not take it. the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address

05-01-2012, 05:55 PM	#19
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	I mistakenly picked up a promaster 100-300 f/5.6-6.7 through keh for a cheap price, thinking the 'off brand' was a quantaray 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 One must read those aperture details more closely! Too much hassle to send back at the time so it's still here, but off to the thrift store soon. I almost feel guilty doing that, but for $5 maybe someone will enjoy it.

05-01-2012, 06:20 PM	#20
Julie Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,069	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address That's not fair, you should share with me! Surely you don't need two?

05-01-2012, 06:29 PM	#21
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by PALADIN85020 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. Had the exact same lenses come with a MZ-50. I took 3 test shots with each and sold to someone on the internet. I couldn't believe how bad the 35-80 was. The "F" series might be the worst Pentax ever released, now I just disregard those lenses completely. With the money I bought some macro tubes instead, and saved a little to buy a wide prime. Way better use of my money.

05-01-2012, 06:50 PM	#22
lguckert79 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 601	Originally posted by paulh 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 i do agree with you the two lenses that you have listed are pretty good lenses i have both and the only reason i dont use the pentax 80-200mm anymore is that i got a quantaray 70-300mm LD macro switch one made by tamaron but i do love the 28-90 that you said i use that one for my walk around lens if you are interested i got the 70-300 on ebay very cheap and it is a great lens so

05-01-2012, 07:25 PM	#23
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. Well, not quite the best 135; that honor would go to the A 135/1.8. But unlike the various iterations of the 35-80/4-5.6, definitely worth selling. Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves The "F" series might be the worst Pentax ever released The original F series released in the late 80s is actually pretty good, with some excellent glass. It's only a few of the F series lenses released in the mid 90s that are among the worst lens ever made by Pentax. Some of the FA zooms released around the same time weren't much better.

05-01-2012, 08:20 PM	#24
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge the best 135 ever made and your friends won't take it. I will even though I already have one, just PM me to get th emailing address me too, I've been hunting for one of these for sometime now.

05-01-2012, 08:34 PM	#25
bpv_UW Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 765	Originally posted by Zav K135 f2.5. I don't use it. I have even tried to give it away, my friends would not take it. I'll take it.

05-01-2012, 08:41 PM	#26
alstauffer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 131	Originally posted by boriscleto The Quantaray 28-90/3.5-5.6 ^That one. And I did. Also the Quantaray 70-210 manual focus f/something or another. Other than that, I am having a real hard time selling lenses, despite having DA 40 Ltd, FA 43 Ltd and F 50/1.7.. That 40-50mm range is pretty crowded in my camera bag

05-01-2012, 10:03 PM	#27
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	The 1:2.5 135mm is often criticized, in this thread the K is mentioned as a bad bstrd. I have 2 of the even more maligned "Takumar Bayonet" versions and a Sears version. I think the criticism may stem from users who don't understand the limited depth of field, so don't focus them properly in the correct plane. here i did a test with the bstrd against the much praised SMC Pentax-M 1:1:4 100mm Macro , both at f/8 in deliberately difficult low tungsten light, manually focussed. The DOF shows, along with my focus planes. The 135mm https://www.box.com/s/e8a00bcbf13764cb3da8 The 100mm https://www.box.com/s/6fa59fddfd3cbbd1ea44 I will try some tests in bright sun tomorrow and wide open in the evening, also I have the much praised -M 1:2.8 100mm to compare. I think the old Pentax 135 mm generally are sharp lenses and beautifully tight mechanically with metal body works, if users know how to use them. Better shots, perhaps, than the average loosey goosey old nylon roller zoom with blurred corners etc.

05-01-2012, 11:34 PM	#28
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Originally posted by wombat2go The 1:2.5 135mm is often criticized, in this thread the K is mentioned as a bad bstrd. Maybe I am misunderstanding, English is not my native language, but I don't think anyone is saying the K135 is a bad lens. Originally posted by magkelly You have weird friends. Free lenses, even nasty free lenses are free lenses. Some people are just way too picky, I guess. No, they are quite down to Earth. For example one of them has a FA 135 f2.8 and told me he would not used the K. Another clearly said that he would not use a fully manual lens as it's simply not his thing. Originally posted by magkelly 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. Young girls kissing my feet...huuuum let's stop here... Next stop is probably fleabay.

05-01-2012, 11:48 PM	#29
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	Zav, Your copy of the K135/2.5 must be something wrong with it or you have never used it. I have many other 135mm, but the K135/2.5 still in my keeper's list. and I don't think I let it go if i got 135/2 or 135/1.8...

05-01-2012, 11:53 PM	#30
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	The K135 2.5 is a very good lens but its nothing special, personally I think its over rated by the way some people carry on about it.