[monochrome]

That's the third of my four macro lenses...(52BB version)

Also paid a little more for it than the AF Phoenix...I don't use it very much so I should probably sell it, but I just can't bring myself to do so

Mine has been on the FS table for a year, presuming the Vivitar and the FA50/2.8 are enough, but I only have the one 'A' adapter . . . . .

Every so often I look at the 180. . . . But, wife.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 11-29-2016 at 06:25 PM.

[Scorpio71GR]

I think the lens I have been the least disappointed with would be my Tokina 400mm AF. It fringes like crazy in high contrast situations and sharpness does not peak until f11. However if you are willing to accept these limitations you can not really complain for a $300 autofocus 400mm f5.6 lens. I have plenty of lenses that I have been extremely pleased with, the Tokina is the one I have surprised with not expecting much. It does not have the quality of the high end primes but I did not have to save for five years to buy it either.

[Des]

I was pleasantly surprised by the 18-135mm.

This lens gets disparaged so much because of its soft corners (and maybe because we can be a bit snobbish about wide-ranging zooms) that it's almost a guilty pleasure.

[ivanvernon]

My Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro, which bears the nickname Bokina, has turned out to be my greatest positive surprise. I bought it just for its 1:2 macro capability, and it works fine for flowers and other small items. However, its greatest delight is its unexpected capability and sharp image quality as a short telephoto landscape and portraiture lens, The lens operates like a Pentax-A and is manual focus. I do not miss AF on this lens in part because it is easy to focus, but because as a macro lens I generally focus by setting minimum distance focus and simply moving the lens to attain focus, and the opposite infinity focus for landscape. A part of the unexpected surprise is that the 90mm FL is considerably more useful on the full-frame K-1 than anticipated, and it is nice to be able to use aperture priority mode. It is becoming quite the sticky lens on the K-1, and I keep finding myself turning toward it for general use rather than macro photography.

[kh1234567890]

DA18-55 WR - still surprises me : Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1855mmf3556alwr
DA16-45 - got it effectively free, did not expect much : Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal
M135/3.5 - for the price of a pint and a sandwich : Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpm135mmf35

[ivanvernon]

I find it hard to be surprised by any lens I've bought. But value for money has to go to the F 35-70 or Phoenix (Cosina) 100/3.5 macro...

I also like my Phoenix 100 macro but have not given it a fair chance because of also having the AT-X Tokina 90mm and Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro lenses. I do use it when I need/want AF with macro capability.

[photoptimist]

My FA 35-80 is like that. I'd like more range, but the FA 35-80 will do just fine until I get it. It cost me $50.

Same here. I have the older black F 35-80 (same optical formula as the FA according to PF Reviews) and it's a sweet little lens that outperforms it's market price. It's a nice compact lens for hiking, street, and parties. And it's definitely sharper than my copy of the FA 28-90.

People get so obsessed with bigger apertures, constant-apertures, and wider zoom ranges that they miss the simple functionality of little zooms like this one.

[reh321]

Come to think of it, I would have to nominate the DA 18-135 for the award next to the 28-105. This last week in Florida, those two covered the mount on the K3 and K1 most of the time, with the DA*300 x 1.4 and the 70-200 making appearances for birding trips. The 18-135 in good light is as handy and effective as a well sharpened Swiss Army knife.

There is no substitute for having a camera and versatile lens when you pass by something interesting.

I was pleasantly surprised by the 18-135mm. I bought it because it came with my K-3, but I've ended up using that lens for nearly everything I shoot that doesn't need a fast aperture. It's plenty sharp for anything I need.

This lens gets disparaged so much because of its soft corners (and maybe because we can be a bit snobbish about wide-ranging zooms) that it's almost a guilty pleasure.

This lens also received several mentions in the "disappointed" thread. Corner softness doesn't bother me, because I keep important stuff away from the corners - I want it near the center ring so attention will automatically be drawn to it.

[brofkand]

This lens also received several mentions in the "disappointed" thread. Corner softness doesn't bother me, because I keep important stuff away from the corners - I want it near the center ring so attention will automatically be drawn to it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The corner softness doesn't really bother me much. Typically what is in the corners is not the focus of my photograph.

Example from this lens attached.

[stevebrot]

My most pleasant surprise to date is a fairly sad looking Tamron 70-210 (158A) that I bought just to get the PKA Adaptall-2 mount. The plastic barrel grips are oxidized and the zoom/focus is a little tight, but the lens is quite compact (a little smaller than the DA 18-55 kit) and is very light. The big surprise is that despite the mixed reviews, it is capable of taking decent photos as long one stays away from the extreme long end and shoots stopped down a little. I suppose I should take it out and do something more than just test shots.


Steve

[TaoMaas]

My FA 35-80 is like that. I'd like more range, but the FA 35-80 will do just fine until I get it. It cost me $50.

I like the FA 35-80, too. I have several of the FA zooms and as you say, they all do really well for the money. They might get my vote as my pleasant surprise if it weren't for my A 35-105. I bought my copy back in the film days, but I never could warm up to it. It was too big, too heavy, didn't balance well at all on my LX...and the zoom range didn't suit my eye. It wasn't quite wide enough for how I like to shoot wide and not quite tight enough for how I like to shoot detail shots. I put it aside and didn't use it much for many years. Then I went digital and bought a K10D. In making the transition to digital, I started going back through my lenses and using those with an "A" setting because I liked the metering better. For me, putting the A 35-105 on my K10D transformed it. Even though it's a bit of a heavy combination, it balanced MUCH better on the K10D than the LX. And the crop factor moved the zoom range from a "meh..." category into something far better suited to my eye and it's now my most used lens. The change was totally unexpected for me. I'm hoping to upgrade to a K1 in the next year or so and I'm curious to see if I stop using the 35-105 again.

[clickclick]

I don't think I would say it was a surprise as much as it didn't let me down and was everything I was hoping for, and that is my D FA 150-450. I had always wanted a lens of this type, and when B&H had a nice sale this past summer, I went for it - it took a bit to convince myself to spend that much on a single lens, even on sale, but I haven't been disappointed yet.

[GeneV]

This lens also received several mentions in the "disappointed" thread. Corner softness doesn't bother me, because I keep important stuff away from the corners - I want it near the center ring so attention will automatically be drawn to it.

Agreed. In general, if I do anything to the background of a shot with a walk around lens in PP, it is usually to blur it more.

The 18-135 also vignettes the sky a bit when I shoot a BIF, but it's DC AF seems to catch the bird in focus more readily than some of the higher end primes. When you really need corner sharpness, you need something more specialized, but the vast majority of the time, I find its other attributes to be far more important.

[BrianR]

I was surprised by how much I've used my DFA100mm. I was pretty sure I'd be all over macros and close-ups, but I have a few friends who spent the bucks on expensive macros only to have them sit in a cupboard unused, so I was very hesitant to spend that much. After over 7 years, it's easily my most used lens and what I paid for it now seems like peanuts spread out over time.

Optically, I'd say my da14mm was a pleasant surprise. It's not widely regarded as terrific so I wasn't expecting anything awesome (it has a few vocal supporters, but not a large fan club like many other lenses). I found a used copy for a decent price, and have to say it exceeded my low expectations especially when it came to sharpness.

[wildman]

"Your pleasant surprise lens" - this fits this lens perfectly for me.

Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM.
An extremely versatile lens for 300 bucks that gets the job done as a general purpose walkaround.
Better optical performance than I had hoped for. (first two pics at 250mm)

But, If I may be permitted to put in a plug for non-pentax stuff the inexpensive (50 bucks apiece new) kit lens' that came with my Oly E-M10.
Far better than I have a right to expect given the price and I will use them for any purpose within their FL without any concerns about their optical performance. (last three pics).