[Fenwoodian]

In the last couple of years, I've set up a little lens repair shop in my basement, and have been tinkering with lots of different Pentax and Third Party Lenses.

Overall, I have been very impressed with the overall build of most of the Pentax, Zeiss and Voightlander lenses that I've taken apart.

This last weekend I took apart my first Rokinon lens (85mm f/1.4 aspherical IF). It's a modern lens that's still made and is relatively inexpensive. It's hard for me to give you any great detail, but overall, my impression was that this Rokinon lens' internal parts were flimsy and of lesser quality than what I've generally found in Pentax/Zeiss/Voightlander lenses. The lower quality internals of the Rokinon made it harder for me to work on this lens. I also suspect that this Rokinon lens would likely not be as rugged or last a long as these other lenses. Pity, because Rokinon/Samyang/Bower makes some modern lenses that are pretty good optically.

I guess that one really does get what they pay for when it comes to lenses.

Have any of you taken apart lenses? What have been your observations? Are they similar to mine?

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 11-14-2016 at 08:49 PM.

[mattb123]

I've done some minor surgery and have been thinking about converting my 60-250 to FF.
What did you replace the original baffle with?

[biz-engineer]

I guess the cheap plastic build around high quality glass is pretty much for all new lenses, except maybe from Zeiss. What newly designed lenses are still full metal built? I have the impression that new lenses are designed to last no more than a decade. While some of the 30 years old legacy lenses if treated well are still working fine.

[fb_penpho]

Of the 30 year old lens I have a few feel as if they were new. One common feeling I get from the others is that the grease lubricating the focus threads has got very sticky. Have you found the same, especially of the budget price lens of their day. I wonder what these lens would feel like they were relubricated. I shy away from doing it as I have taken some apart and ..... think you know the rest.

[Fenwoodian]

Great comments all! Thanks.

Another title that I could have used for this post is "they don't make them like they used to".

Me thinks that at some point in the distant future, people might just look back and say the high point of camera lens manufacture was the period from the 1960's - 2000ish.

[shootfreeordiehard]

I agree, especially with the tendency to make lenses with exceptionally complex/convoluted methods of operating - from electromagnetic apertures to focus-by-wire.

My garbage SMC Pentax FA 28-200 F3.8-5.6 feels better in operation than most new kit lenses.

Even things like infinity focus hard stops have disappeared.

[victormeldrew]

I think this is the case for nearly all products. In a world where price is more important than quality to a lot of people and volume sales are crucial to a manufacturer's survival, building a product that lasts much past its warranty is of no benefit to shareholders. Planned obsolescence (or rather planned failure) is rife. When was the last time you saw a coat or some shoes that would last a lifetime, or carpentry tools you could hand down to your grandkids or a new house that would stand for centuries? Those days are gone, because they are not compatible with long term fiscal growth and because consumers are conditioned to desire continous upgrades.

[lesmore49]

Great comments. I've never taken a lens apart, but I have often wondered about the quality of internal parts. I have a few Limited lenses (3) and I'm impressed with the external metal parts...I hope that the internal parts are as good as those outside on this series.

My old Takumars from the 1960's, early '70's seem to be very well built. In fact I have read that Taks from this era were regarded to having similar quality to Zeiss lenses, I wouldn't know about that, but I do know that my older Takumars are very good.

I have a Pentax 35-105 'A' lens I bought new in 1984 and I have no intent to relinquish ownership of this very fine lens. It cost me a bundle new, but was was my go to lens from '84 to 2006. Some wonderfully sharp pix from this solidly constructed lens. I would assume this is very well made...inside.

I have modern Pentax zoom lenses...such as my 12-24. Seems very good, but is plastic. I read somewhere that the plastic is of high content...could be, but I'm an old guy and would prefer metal.

Other lenses such as my Pentax 55-300, 18-135...don't seem as well built. I know they are not considered at the same level as say the 12-24. But on the other hand, I've used the 55-300 for more than 8 years and it has survived and performs very well.

BTW, please continue with your observations on the innards of lenses...I find your comments interesting on the inside view of camera equipment.

[grahame]

Tokina probably the best constructed overall

Tokina used to use better material for most parts, but mix with some crappy ones. For example, the little rolling thing (what do you call this?) that fits into the zoom rail gives up quite often because in some lenses they are small plastic piece. The better building on the rest parts only makes thing worse because the heavy parts worn the plastic thing faster.

A camera was built to survive decays, now 3-5 years? A takumar can live longer than me; and lens makers now a days probably don't want to make lenses that durable.

[grahame]

Those plastic helical bushings are used on the zoom and focus rails of nearly all modern zoom and telephoto lenses since they provide greater lubricity than metal versions so as not to put extra strain on the focus motor and to make zoom action easier. Except for some very high end lenses, the only place you will still see metal on metal is on small primes where the strain isn't an issue.

I see.
Maybe because Tokina's barrel is to heavy for the plastic helical bushing, I experience more zoom stuck or wobbly issue than other models. Well, Pentax DA 16-50 is the worst in my experience. I had 3 of them had to go repair.

[darylk]

Overall, I've been impressed with the apparent/perceived build quality/durability of Pentax lenses (excluding the infamous SDM issue). However, I think there was a time when quality may have waned...I'm thinking of the F35-70 lens I own. It's reasonably good optically but sure has a cheap feel compared to more modern as well as older Pentax glass (IMHO). Of course, it was originally a cheap kit lens if I'm not mistaken, so you're point of "you get what you pay for" is still valid.

[Zafar Iqbal]

Something large and heavy became lose inside my Samyang 85mm and I blame the cheapo quality/poor QA for it.

If I rotated the lens along its axis, I could hear the thing turn. I gave it a hard turn/twist and the thingy inside became tight again. Is it perfect? Probably not but I'm not going to do anything more about it.

[lesmore49]

Something large and heavy became lose inside my Samyang 85mm and I blame the cheapo quality/poor QA for it.

If I rotated the lens along its axis, I could hear the thing turn. I gave it a hard turn/twist and the thingy inside became tight again. Is it perfect? Probably not but I'm not going to do anything more about it.

Notice any difference in it's ability to produce photographs...similar to those photographs it produced before the issue developed ?

[Zafar Iqbal]

Notice any difference in it's ability to produce photographs...similar to those photographs it produced before the issue developed ?

I think it's the same as before: frekin hard to use @ f1.4 :P

It focuses accurately when using LV and I haven't noticed odd softness in some corners/edges on the frame.

[house]

My da21 and da70 both show a bit of wobble. The 21 I have to deal with soon as it will come apart it's that bad.

The 35mm plastic fantastic is in much better shape despite *much* rougher handling and significantly more use as I've had it for longer.

Metal doesn't matter if it comes apart. The "great build" thing is largely cosmetic with the da limiteds. Still love em though but would prefer plastic.