[cxdoo]

Most lens discussions here are about what to buy, or what to choose given the budget and goals. I'd like to hear about something different; what lenses have you considered (maybe over and over again ) and yet every time you decided not to go for them? What are the reasons?
I'd like to exclude lenses you didn't buy for financial reasons only as that's rather trivial. I'd also like to exclude lenses you had hands-on experience with; we're trying to explore our prejudices here, not informed opinions.


So here comes.


DA 35 F2.4 AL
Before I got Tamrons, I didn't want to buy primes. I wanted a comprehensive solution for kit drawbacks and that wouldn't be cheap if I went to primes. I also didn't want to spend however small amount on a lens I felt was nothing special.
After upgrading my zooms I had the feeling, based on discussions read, that DA35 is not significantly better than Tamron 17-50, except for the size.
After getting FA43 I lost interest for anything in 28-50 range as either not particularly good or too expensive.
Here and there I think of getting it for my father who got my old gear.... but then I conclude he'd be better served by a Tamron zoom.
So however attractive this lens looks on paper, it just wasn't meant to be.


Various Pentax 28 2.8 lenses, Sigma 30/1.4
Every time I see one of these at a tempting price and think how it would complement FA43 and be much easier to walk around with than with Tamron, I reset myself by saying I'll get FA31 eventually. That does it. FA77 does the same for primes in 70-90 range.

---

Last edited by cxdoo; 11-21-2014 at 08:23 AM. Reason: typo

[Conqueror]

This is kinda an LBA thread.

FA 31mm, I often think about it... but I have the FA35mm which must be at least 80-90% quality of the FA 31mm (?) ... but its that question mark. However the 35mm is smaller... which helps maintain its stay of execution or perhaps a permanent stay.

FA 77mm, I already own the DA* 55mm and 100mm WR ... so although it would slot right in and is an awesome lens... those other two aren't exactly bad and can be used for landscape/portrait and have WR... I do realise the FA 77mm has that extra rendering magic though...

The DA 40mm looks great.. but then why get the DA 40 when the FA 43mm isn't physically huge either

DA* 300mm... an absolute beast but would I use it enough?

[MetteHHH]

Oh! I've got one! I keep considering the Sigma 500mm f4.5 APO. In fact, I consider it regularly, awake and dreaming...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/81-expired-listings/253976-wanted-expired...x-dg-lens.html

Why haven't I got one then? Well, mostly because I didn't find a ridiculously underpriced copy yet. Or anyone willing to sell it for a partial payment in karma. Let me know if you come across either of those!

Other than that, I did not yet buy a proper macro. I would have this autumn, but I am currently in the process of punishing myself for breaking too much photo gear in 2014. When I recover from that urge, I think I will get this one:
SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
whenever a copy turns up on the marketplace. It does from time to time, but never when my bank account was ready for it...

[c.a.m]

Because I had a gap in focal lengths between 15mm and 28mm, and no WR lens wider than 50mm, I seriously considered the HD DA 20-40mm Ltd. However, I felt that it's price was too steep for my budget (CAD $1000 in July-August this year), and opted for the DA 18-135. I consider the 18-135 to be very good optically between 20-50mm, which fills my gap nicely, and the wider/longer FLs are a bonus. I think that the 18-135's performance-to-price is very good.

- Craig

[lytrytyr]

what lenses have you considered (maybe over and over again ) and yet every time you decided not to go for them? What are the reasons?

FA lenses. They're great lenses for film, but I'm shooting APS-C digital now.

At various times, and for various photographic tasks,
I've pondered the FA 31, FA 24-90, FA* 24, FA* 85, and FA 20-35.

The FA 31: I went for the DA 35 Ltd Macro instead.
Less PF, less coma, has quick-shift and macro,
and doesn't have the goofy rabbit ears that are too wide for APS-C.

The FA 24-90: Finally decided it was too plasticky, and went for the slightly less plasticky Tamron 17-50 A16.

The FA* 24: I was tempted by the colors, but ultimately found the rendering too waxy and cadaverous.

The FA* 85: Too expensive, not so good towards infinity, and I prefer MF anyway, so ended up with a Planar 85/1.4.

The FA 20-35: Once its successor, the DA 20-40, appeared, I went for that instead.

[VoiceOfReason]

FA* 250-600, because I am not rich, therefore can't afford that, so I got a Sigma 150-500 instead!

The FA Limited trio, because I couldn't see the point of being limited to a prime at those costs when I have zooms that do 90% of what they do, and a cheaper cost, with more flexibility, and in the case of one of the zooms I have it is actually better according to tests than the 31!

DA 55-300 because I already have stuff covering that range. Same for the 12-24. With what I already have I couldn't see paying for those and not really gaining anything.

[bdery]

DA70 : I'd love to own it, but I really wouldn't use it enough

DA20-40 : it's still tempting me, but I would lose the starburst effect if I replaced the DA21 with it, and I don't want that. I still might get it sometime though.

50s : I actually had 4 over time, but I'm much happier with a DA40. The focal length works better for me.

[Na Horuk]

I've thought a lot about the FA 20-35mm, but its difficult to find and I read some reviews its not so great on digital (slow aperture, some CA, flare resistance not as good as modern coating lenses).. But its the focal range that I really enjoy. Maybe if someone offered a good deal I would go for one, but I gave up "looking".
I won't even list the many lenses I lusted after, but are just too expensive to justify

[monochrome]

Actually, finally, none.

[ChristianRock]

I've been ready to pull the trigger on the DA 50 1.8 a couple times, but ended up not doing that because my manual 50s look at me and cry "you don't love us anymore?". I can't justify a new 50, optically, especially now that I've re-discovered the Auto Sears 50 f2 (unbelievable microcontrast at f5.6).

Also been on the verge of buying an M 200 f4 a couple times, but decided my SMC-A 70-210 is good enough.

[petermolnar]

Tair 11a; it's one of the legendary bokeh lenses, but I still believe it's too pricey to have it just as an exotic, collection-ish piece.

[northcoastgreg]

There was a time a few years back when I seriously considered buying one of the old Pentax 500mm f4.5 lenses, either in the m42 or K-Mount versions. Back in 2010 you could still find one of these lenses for under $300. The weight of the lens, and the fact that it was manual focus, ended up dissuading me from tracking one down.

A couple years ago I also seriously considered getting either K or A version of the 24 f2.8. But when I learned that they had contrast/flare issues, I gave up no them. Ended up getting the FA 20-35 instead.

Off and on I've toyed with the idea of updating my old M 20 f4 with the DA 21. The real question, however, has always been: how much of an upgrade would that really be? After all, the M 20/4 is a very nice lens on its own accord. Recently, I look at all the images of the older (and, in the used market, cheaper) SMC DA 21 and newer HD DA 21 over at pentaxphotogallery.com, and I have to admit that the images from the HD version of the lens just look better: they have more contrast, vibrancy, and snap. But if I decide I want the HD version, I'll have to sell off some lenses to pay for it.

More recently I've considered getting the Samyang 10mm f2.8, but I've never been able to bring myself to pull the trigger on it, mostly on account that it's a rather large heavy specialty lens, and I rather doubt it would see much use.

I've thought a lot about the FA 20-35mm, but its difficult to find and I read some reviews its not so great on digital (slow aperture, some CA, flare resistance not as good as modern coating lenses)

The FA 20-35 may be difficult to find (although there's one at keh.com [+10% sale on Pentax] right now), but it performs quite well on digital. CAs are no worse than other zoom lenses in its range (like the DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50) and it features Pentax's ghostless coatings which, until Pentax introduced its aerobright coatings (used only in the DA* 55 and DFA 645 glass) in 2008, was Pentax's top-of-the-line "modern" coating.

[Bagga_Txips]

DA15. A while back I was looking at my list of threads I have posted in, and the 'controls my mind' thread was on the list. I was shocked at how long ago I had posted my belief that I would buy one soon. Since then I have bought a few zooms, and 2 more primes. I still yearn for the 15, but the places I visit, and the pollution here in China, work together to dissuade me from buying. Every 2 months I hold the lens at my dealer's (the exact right word) and yearn, but still never buy.

Sadly the 60-250 and the 12-24 are starting to stimulate similar symptoms in me lately. And a local second hand shop has a 43 I have looked at once a year for the last 4 years...

[drypenn]

DA21: I would really want to have one, but I have my 15 already, and 21 is not FF

DA*55: SDM, and I have my K55/1.8. Still, I'm being tempted.

As for the 50/1.2, I'm working on it...

[nono]

I don't have a 85 prime, so I look at them now and again; I have mostly (and repeatedly) looked at the M 85 f/2 and Jupiter 9, because they probably are the only ones in my price range. I do have a DA 70 and a S-M-C Tak 105 f/2.8 so I'm afraid the 85 would be redundant.

I also had a good look at the FA* 24 a few months ago; I couldn't find any in France when I was looking for it, so I got myself a (used) DA 21 instead.