[Sagitta]

I don't understand the negative feedback for manual lenses... I work with nothing but manual lenses and don't have any complains.
Manual lenses are very fast to use if you know what you are doing.

Also, remember, just because you can't work with a manual lens, it doesn't mean is bad and it should be avoided...

I doubt there is a lens that you should avoid... each can have a purpose and don't forget... best lens is the one you have with you.

In the end is a matter of how willing you are to learn a specific lens and to know when to use it.

Even the worst quality glass can still be useful in more creative images or for a beginner that just wants to learn and image quality is not an issue yet.

I love my clunky old manuals. That said, when I hit a dog of a lens, I *know* its a dog. When I picked up my Pentax-M50 1.4, it had two tagalongs - a Soligor 28-80 C/D and a Promaster 85-210. Maybe those two lenses were nice at one time, but by the time they landed in my mailbox they basically are at what I'd consider 'junk' status. The Promaster actually crunches when I try focusing, probably due to parts from the completely sloppy aperture ring being ground up somehow or something.

The Soligor has potential, but its so awkward to do anything with its not worth the effort IMHO. It does have some really bizarroland bokeh though.

[mrNewt]

I didn't get the vibe that manual lenses ought to be avoided by reading the thread. In any case, I agree they are fine, just like most lenses...

Reading the thread I slightly got that vibe... but it could be just me I guess .

I love my clunky old manuals. That said, when I hit a dog of a lens, I *know* its a dog. When I picked up my Pentax-M50 1.4, it had two tagalongs - a Soligor 28-80 C/D and a Promaster 85-210. Maybe those two lenses were nice at one time, but by the time they landed in my mailbox they basically are at what I'd consider 'junk' status. The Promaster actually crunches when I try focusing, probably due to parts from the completely sloppy aperture ring being ground up somehow or something.

The Soligor has potential, but its so awkward to do anything with its not worth the effort IMHO. It does have some really bizarroland bokeh though.

Sort of a like that bokeh in the violet color - is frosty .

When something is damaged, you can't do much about it.
The only down side I would see with older lenses is that time might of got to them... and some might need some servicing. This usually depends a lot on previous owners.
Some could be saved for almost nothing especially if you have a little bit of knowledge on how to. Some can only become organ donors or hit/miss experiments.

That's why I usually recommend to buy old lenses only if they are in good condition from respectable sellers OR only if you can inspect them in person.
An old lens for $100-$200 vs a new lens for double the amount (or triple sometimes) that give the same results (sometimes even worse)... I would go old school anytime of the day .

But in the end, each has their own needs and that can never be argued - I respect that.
I guess my final message would be: "Don't discard something and call it bad just because you can't, don't need or don't want to use it."

[StevePrime]

The 2 worst lenses I've ever used were the Pentax-F 80-200mm f4.7-5.6 and a Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6. The Pentax was definitely a beat up, bargain-condition lens, but there was nothing to indicate it was ever a good performer. The Sigma was crap straight out of the box. I sold them as soon as I could. I'm really happy with the assortment I have now!

[stevebrot]

In addition, if the problem is limited to the 50 f1,7

It isn't. The design is common in A-series lenses and is not related to age per se. Poor materials choice + poor design ==> failure.

I would not (and did not) say that all lenses made after the M-series are poor choices for purchase. What I did say is that most of the current product is not particularly well-made. I will go further in saying that things are worse in the land of the Canikonians.


Steve

[stevebrot]

That is a statement not a question.

And your point is?

I guess this nixes my marks for the quarter, eh?


Steve

(Oops! Did it again!)

[Rob22315]

Pentax made a non-SMC zoom in the 80's that bit the big one. It was a 28-80mm zoom sold under "Cosmicar" or "Takumar-A". Unpleasantly soft throughout. Here's a link to the lens' page -

MC Cosmicar 28-80/3.5-4.5

Note the photo in the link is mine.

I gave the lens away along with my old film camera bodies - I couldn't, in good conscience, sell the lens to anyone.

[Jean Poitiers]

Pentax made a non-SMC zoom in the 80's that bit the big one. It was a 28-80mm zoom sold under "Cosmicar" or "Takumar-A". Here's a link to the lens' page ... I couldn't, in good conscience, sell the lens to anyone.

Yep, this one is no good unless you need a paperweight as a discussion piece ... J

[Rob22315]

My pleasure. Many of the A-series lenses, the 50/1.7 in particular, suffer from a weakness in a plastic part in the aperture ring mechanism. This small part breaks resulting in a partial or total freeze of the aperture ring. This is not a huge issue if you always use it on a camera with dial-controlled aperture for Av mode and never take the lens off the "A" setting. It can be a problem if you use it on, say, a Pentax Super Program in Av mode where you have to use the aperture ring and can't get it back to the "A" setting for use on the dSLR. Probably at least half the A 50/1.7 lenses out there have this problem. I read a comment some years back on this site that even if your A 50/1.7 is good, it is only a matter of time before this part gives out. Fortunately I have the optically equivalent and much better built Pentax-M 50/1.7 to use instead on my film cameras.


Steve

I own this lens and it's still fully functional so this is a great tip - I'm never taking it off 'A'. Same for all my other 'A' lenses. Fortunately, both my DSLR and my K-01 give me aperture control in the camera so i don't need it on the lens. Thanks

[gofour3]

That's interesting, but it relates to a lens line that's quite old. Newer lines don't appear to have this problem, I believe. In addition, if the problem is limited to the 50 f1,7, it's much more likely to be a design flaw than anything else. Deciding that all lens lines newer than the M are rubbish that won't last based on the impression that 50 f1,7 lenses are less reliable is quite a stretch.

The newer AF lenses were built to a different standard.

The cost of using an all metal design was too expensive, so more plastic was used. Same goes for the Pentax cameras, less metal parts and more plastic.

The earlier MF lenses have proven they can last 40 years and that’s why so many are still in use.

The newer AF lenses do not have that track record. There are more things that can go wrong with a newer AF lens, so in 2050 we’ll see how many DA’s are still working. I’ll bet you there are more Taks, K’s and M’s still in use in 2050 than DA's.

Phil.

[Digitalis]

The sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DG springs to mind. There are also certain Pentax FA 28-80mm cheap zoom lenses lenses that should be avoided.

[Old Man]

I have an offer for everyone who has these so called "useless" len's. Just PM me and you all can send them to me. I will proudly use them and post the results. Provided I keep all useless and not wanted lens. I may even pay the postage.

Just don't send broken or junk non working ones, I got enough of those.

Who knows, I may even get my first photo in the PPG with a lens no one wants.

[bdery]

The newer AF lenses were built to a different standard.

Likely better

The cost of using an all metal design was too expensive, so more plastic was used. Same goes for the Pentax cameras, less metal parts and more plastic.

As I said before, that doesn't mean they are more cheaply made.

The earlier MF lenses have proven they can last 40 years and that’s why so many are still in use.

The newer AF lenses do not have that track record. There are more things that can go wrong with a newer AF lens, so in 2050 we’ll see how many DA’s are still working. I’ll bet you there are more Taks, K’s and M’s still in use in 2050 than DA's.

1-you cannot blame a newer lenses for not yet having lasted a long time...

2-It's clear, and we agree, that more components increase the likeliness of failure. However, what's been added is the PCB (not likely to fail), AF gear (not likely to fail) and aperture control (somewhat more likely to fail). If you add SDM, then we'll see, the newer versions are just that, really new. I'm willing to bet that if you exclude the aperture ring, everything that "works" on a K or M will still work with a DA Which is zoom, focus and let light through.

[Jean Poitiers]

My worst "fast fifty" ...

[wombat2go]

The ap rings on all the -A lenses here are all rough feeling and not as smooth as the -M lenses which are consistently good
All except the SMC Pentax -A 1:1.4 50mm which has a better feel, smoother and tighter than all the other -A lenses
I don't have many zooms but all the -A ones have loose focus mechanisms and the ends wobble. the looseness is a worry for holding focus but the end wobble does not seem to affect the image.
On the other hand the only -M zoom here is the SMC Pentax -M 1:2.8~4 40~80mm which is smooth and tight. Actually I like this lens on the MX, it is brighter for focus with the split ring than the slower -A zooms.
So I much prefer the -M lenses over the -A.

Incidentally I have a SMC Pentax -M 1:2.8 24mm which had heavy use before i got it. It has some cosmetic wear, White spots are visible on one of the inner elements in front group, and it shows in the images as loss of sharpness and contrast. The diaphragm is sluggish, not snappy, so it does not stop down below about f/8 and the filter thread is slightly distorted.
Is it worth trying to get this one repaired?

[stevebrot]

...Likely better...


...As I said before, that doesn't mean they are more cheaply made.

Whatever...I guess I am old school. If it looks cheaply made and feels cheaply made, chances are it is cheaply made.


Steve