what has been your most "disappointing" lens?

gfurm · 12-12-2016, 05:46 PM

DA15mm for me. Bought it for landscape but them soft corners killed it for me. Maybe I had a proper lemon but it looked softer in corners than Sigma 10-20 I had before. Sold it after 3 months. Starburst were excellent though.

**UncleVanya** · 12-12-2016, 06:01 PM

I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable. One of many disappointing greedBay buys... but the seller told me to keep it and refunded my money. So I used it as a paper weight.

**BigMackCam** · 12-13-2016, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable.

Although I previously said I hadn't been truly disappointed by any lens, like you I've had a few ebay finds that weren't in the condition described... The most disappointing of those were cosmetically good at first glance, but optically beyond my current abilities (or, at the very least, confidence level) to clean - and even then there may have been damage to the elements. Refunds were given, though, so no biggie

**Alex645** · 12-13-2016, 12:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens

I run a school darkroom with 21 enlargers. You make an excellent point about disappointing enlarging lenses. If there ever was a lens that should be humidity sealed, itʻs an enlarging lens. When Nikon switched production of their 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses from Japan to China, my main problem was the new lenses would develop fungus and mold at an alarming speed.

The 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor enlarging lens was a good balance between price and quality or the Beslar branded lenses and the German glass. Our darkroom also uses Rodenstock and Schneider enlarging lenses, and they too have had disappointing optics; not all, but some.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · 12-13-2016, 01:43 AM

That would have to be the DA* 16-50 2.8

surfar · 12-13-2016, 01:45 AM

I commented that the A 35-105 wasn't near a stack of primes but that was using it on the K50....Yesterday I put it on the K1, its a lot better.Still may not be prime quality but it appears not far off...Also tried the square crop on K1 with 18-135, almost eliminates the bad vignetting.

frogfoot · 12-13-2016, 05:54 AM - **1 Like**

FA 31 lim for me. Good, but nothing special that would justify it's high price. Doesn't have the pixie dust of 77 lim that I hoped for.

GeneV · 12-13-2016, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable. One of many disappointing greedBay buys... but the seller told me to keep it and refunded my money. So I used it as a paper weight.

That's too bad. I had one of those in the '80s and was quite happy. Maybe I can dig mine out of storage and you can use it.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2016, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

That's too bad. I had one of those in the '80s and was quite happy. Maybe I can dig mine out of storage and you can use it.

That is very kind of you. Please see my pm.

emalvick · 12-13-2016, 03:01 PM

For me it would be either an earlier (pre-ART) Sigma 30/1.4 or a Tamron 10-24. Neither was as sharp as I would have hoped. I had always blamed the Sigma on the f/1.4, but once I got a the Pentax 31 (which I know is only 1.8), I realized that the Sigma just wasn't that great while the 31-mm is my favorite lens of all.

The Tamron 10-24, I had gotten to supplement my Tamron 17-50, for landscape shots while hiking as well as some northern lights shots I took in Iceland. Compared to the 17-50, the wide angled zoom was not very good at all. It was better for landscape shots (e.g. ~f/8 shots), but it was not very sharp at all when shooting more open. It also had a bit of a vignetting problem at the wide end, but I can't complain month when dealing with a 10-14 mm shot. As for moving onward, I got the DA 15, and it has been fantastic for my wider landscape needs, and I've not actually missed having the 10-15 mm. I've not shot much night photography, so I can't comment on whether I miss the speed, but I do like the compact size of the Pentax primes. My kit is generally all primes now because of the nice sizes of them.

Jonathan Mac · 12-13-2016, 03:16 PM

I remember when I was going to get a standard prime for my K200D I had to choose between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Pentax DA limited 35mm f/2.8. In the end I went with the limited and I don't regret it one bit, it's a stellar lens, the best I've ever owned, but I still lusted for the f/1.4. A few years later I got one for a good price (€200) and used it for a while but photos at anything less than f/2.8 were soft and the AF was very dodgy (that could be partly down to the K200D though). The extra stops were no good if they couldn't give a sharp image, so I sold it. It was disappointing but as I sold it for a bit more than I bought it for, I'm not bitter and I don't regret trying it, otherwise I'd still be lusting for that f/1.4.

**BigMackCam** · 12-13-2016, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I remember when I was going to get a standard prime for my K200D I had to choose between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Pentax DA limited 35mm f/2.8. In the end I went with the limited and I don't regret it one bit, it's a stellar lens, the best I've ever owned, but I still lusted for the f/1.4. A few years later I got one for a good price (€200) and used it for a while but photos at anything less than f/2.8 were soft and the AF was very dodgy (that could be partly down to the K200D though). The extra stops were no good if they couldn't give a sharp image, so I sold it. It was disappointing but as I sold it for a bit more than I bought it for, I'm not bitter and I don't regret trying it, otherwise I'd still be lusting for that f/1.4.

That Sigma 30/1.4 is known for poor AF on Pentax DSLRs including more recent bodies. It's also known for poor sharpness except in the centre...

redrockcoulee · 12-13-2016, 07:09 PM

Another vote for the Sigma AF 400. At least the size was n8ce.

reh321 · 12-14-2016, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Topsy

Not a pentax lens, but my MIR-1 is an absolute lemon. It's nice for video work if you need lens flare and not much resolution. But the flares aren't the issue.
It's resolution wide open is so bad that you have a hard time in live view figuring out if that what you're now seeing is 'in focus' or not and it doesn't get that much better when stopping it down. It mainly cleans the corners up.
it's usually sitting on the shelf now. I might take the plunge and buy a second one sometime because I don't think they all are that bad. I guess I'll find out.

I tend not to use lenses wide open. I've found the Mir-1 to be a perfectly fine lens.

**BigMackCam** · 12-14-2016, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by reh321

I tend not to use lenses wide open. I've found the Mir-1 to be a perfectly fine lens.

I *love* the Mir-1. Stopped down, it's very capable (well, mine is - I'm sure there's sample variation), and I even like it wide open - although it really needs a hood for this. In fact, most of the Soviet lenses I own tend to benefit from a hood, or flare can be an issue.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2199	3 Days Ago 10:28 AM
What are your "Hidden Gems" in your lens inventory?	Dewman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	67	03-15-2016 07:47 AM
NBC hacked: "Breaking News! Ground Zero has just been attacked"	jogiba	General Talk	2	09-10-2011 01:14 AM
What is your "Walking Around Lens?"	DebLewis	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	132	07-10-2011 12:53 PM
What is difference "APO" and "ED" glass in a lens?	kathyk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	03-06-2008 08:59 AM

12-12-2016, 05:46 PM	#121
gfurm Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 53	DA15mm for me. Bought it for landscape but them soft corners killed it for me. Maybe I had a proper lemon but it looked softer in corners than Sigma 10-20 I had before. Sold it after 3 months. Starburst were excellent though.

12-12-2016, 06:01 PM	#122
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable. One of many disappointing greedBay buys... but the seller told me to keep it and refunded my money. So I used it as a paper weight.

12-13-2016, 12:45 AM	#123
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Originally posted by UncleVanya I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable. Although I previously said I hadn't been truly disappointed by any lens, like you I've had a few ebay finds that weren't in the condition described... The most disappointing of those were cosmetically good at first glance, but optically beyond my current abilities (or, at the very least, confidence level) to clean - and even then there may have been damage to the elements. Refunds were given, though, so no biggie

12-13-2016, 12:57 AM - 1 Like	#124
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by UncleVanya My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens I run a school darkroom with 21 enlargers. You make an excellent point about disappointing enlarging lenses. If there ever was a lens that should be humidity sealed, itʻs an enlarging lens. When Nikon switched production of their 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses from Japan to China, my main problem was the new lenses would develop fungus and mold at an alarming speed. The 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor enlarging lens was a good balance between price and quality or the Beslar branded lenses and the German glass. Our darkroom also uses Rodenstock and Schneider enlarging lenses, and they too have had disappointing optics; not all, but some.

12-13-2016, 01:43 AM	#125
Ian Stuart Forsyth Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,531	That would have to be the DA* 16-50 2.8

12-13-2016, 01:45 AM	#126
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	I commented that the A 35-105 wasn't near a stack of primes but that was using it on the K50....Yesterday I put it on the K1, its a lot better.Still may not be prime quality but it appears not far off...Also tried the square crop on K1 with 18-135, almost eliminates the bad vignetting.

12-13-2016, 05:54 AM - 1 Like	#127
frogfoot Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow Posts: 70	FA 31 lim for me. Good, but nothing special that would justify it's high price. Doesn't have the pixie dust of 77 lim that I hoped for.

12-13-2016, 05:57 AM	#128
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by UncleVanya I finally thought of one. It is not on theme however as the disappointment isn't the lens design or lens output just condition. My most disappointing lens was a Nikkor 50mm Enlarging lens that was supposed to have clean glass. It was scratched so badly that the scratches all had scratches and the thing was unusable. One of many disappointing greedBay buys... but the seller told me to keep it and refunded my money. So I used it as a paper weight. That's too bad. I had one of those in the '80s and was quite happy. Maybe I can dig mine out of storage and you can use it.

12-13-2016, 07:10 AM	#129
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by GeneV That's too bad. I had one of those in the '80s and was quite happy. Maybe I can dig mine out of storage and you can use it. That is very kind of you. Please see my pm.

12-13-2016, 03:01 PM	#130
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	For me it would be either an earlier (pre-ART) Sigma 30/1.4 or a Tamron 10-24. Neither was as sharp as I would have hoped. I had always blamed the Sigma on the f/1.4, but once I got a the Pentax 31 (which I know is only 1.8), I realized that the Sigma just wasn't that great while the 31-mm is my favorite lens of all. The Tamron 10-24, I had gotten to supplement my Tamron 17-50, for landscape shots while hiking as well as some northern lights shots I took in Iceland. Compared to the 17-50, the wide angled zoom was not very good at all. It was better for landscape shots (e.g. ~f/8 shots), but it was not very sharp at all when shooting more open. It also had a bit of a vignetting problem at the wide end, but I can't complain month when dealing with a 10-14 mm shot. As for moving onward, I got the DA 15, and it has been fantastic for my wider landscape needs, and I've not actually missed having the 10-15 mm. I've not shot much night photography, so I can't comment on whether I miss the speed, but I do like the compact size of the Pentax primes. My kit is generally all primes now because of the nice sizes of them.

12-13-2016, 03:16 PM	#131
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	I remember when I was going to get a standard prime for my K200D I had to choose between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Pentax DA limited 35mm f/2.8. In the end I went with the limited and I don't regret it one bit, it's a stellar lens, the best I've ever owned, but I still lusted for the f/1.4. A few years later I got one for a good price (€200) and used it for a while but photos at anything less than f/2.8 were soft and the AF was very dodgy (that could be partly down to the K200D though). The extra stops were no good if they couldn't give a sharp image, so I sold it. It was disappointing but as I sold it for a bit more than I bought it for, I'm not bitter and I don't regret trying it, otherwise I'd still be lusting for that f/1.4.

12-13-2016, 03:27 PM	#132
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I remember when I was going to get a standard prime for my K200D I had to choose between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Pentax DA limited 35mm f/2.8. In the end I went with the limited and I don't regret it one bit, it's a stellar lens, the best I've ever owned, but I still lusted for the f/1.4. A few years later I got one for a good price (€200) and used it for a while but photos at anything less than f/2.8 were soft and the AF was very dodgy (that could be partly down to the K200D though). The extra stops were no good if they couldn't give a sharp image, so I sold it. It was disappointing but as I sold it for a bit more than I bought it for, I'm not bitter and I don't regret trying it, otherwise I'd still be lusting for that f/1.4. That Sigma 30/1.4 is known for poor AF on Pentax DSLRs including more recent bodies. It's also known for poor sharpness except in the centre...

12-13-2016, 07:09 PM	#133
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Another vote for the Sigma AF 400. At least the size was n8ce.

12-14-2016, 09:09 AM	#134
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,179	Originally posted by Topsy Not a pentax lens, but my MIR-1 is an absolute lemon. It's nice for video work if you need lens flare and not much resolution. But the flares aren't the issue. It's resolution wide open is so bad that you have a hard time in live view figuring out if that what you're now seeing is 'in focus' or not and it doesn't get that much better when stopping it down. It mainly cleans the corners up. it's usually sitting on the shelf now. I might take the plunge and buy a second one sometime because I don't think they all are that bad. I guess I'll find out. I tend not to use lenses wide open. I've found the Mir-1 to be a perfectly fine lens.

12-14-2016, 10:01 AM	#135
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Originally posted by reh321 I tend not to use lenses wide open. I've found the Mir-1 to be a perfectly fine lens. I love the Mir-1. Stopped down, it's very capable (well, mine is - I'm sure there's sample variation), and I even like it wide open - although it really needs a hood for this. In fact, most of the Soviet lenses I own tend to benefit from a hood, or flare can be an issue.