[ChristianRock]

To balance out the thread about the lens that you love that everybody else doesn't seem to care much about, how about that one lens that everyone seems to love, but you never really felt tempted to buy?

To me it's the DA 16-85... of course it's a sharp lens, and I have seen great landscape pictures taken with it... but I don't think it would suit my style. Something about the colors and rendering seems a bit un-Pentax to me... I don't know what it is but I can't seem to look at any of the pictures that have been taken by it and go "wow, I need to have that lens!". Instead, they look almost too clean and with not much character...

How about everybody else?

[c.a.m]

I've never acquired a DA 55-300 in any of its variants, despite the many positive comments from many satisfied users. I think the reason is that I've got a wide focal-length range covered with other good glass -- e.g., HD 20-40mm Limited, DA* 50-135, DA* 300/4, and several DA Limited primes. Most of my shooting seems to be in the 20-135mm range, and if I need to go longer, it's typically all the way to 300mm.

I might consider getting a Pentax HD 1.4x teleconverter to get me close to 200mm with my 50-135, but it's not on my 'must buy' list yet.

I have carried several lenses on vacation and local photo outings including the DA* 300, and don't mind changing lenses when required in the field.

I had an opportunity to try the 55-300 PLM at a camera show, and was very impressed by its AF speed on a K-3 II.

- Craig

[thazooo]

The Da 35 f2.4, the Plastic Fantastic. I couldn't get rid of it soon enough. I found it to be not as sharp as reviews said and didn't like the focal length on APS-C.
Live and Learn.

[luftfluss]

DA 55-300. I owned 2 copies, the original DA and DA L. Unremarkable sharpness (similar to Tamron 70-300), good color and contrast, meh bokeh and AF... just couldn't get enthused about it. At least the Tamron had beaucoup close focus capability, which I found very useful.

[blackcloudbrew]

For me it's the Pentax A 35-105. I have read great things about this lens dubbed 'the stack of primes.' I've even owned two copies of it. I have tried many times on my APS-c cameras to find the love for this lens and honestly, it's just never done it for me. It's not wide enough and not long enough. I suppose I should try it on my K-1 but I'm just over this lens.

[stevebrot]

Any of the Asahi or Pentax f/1.4 fast 50s. No explanation will be given.


Steve

[ChristianRock]

Any of the Asahi or Pentax f/1.4 fast 50s. No explanation will be given.


Steve

Oh what's the fun in that

I do like my Rikenon P 50 1.4 better than the M 50 1.4 I had in the past, but that lens had issues so I didn't really give it a chance before I gave it away to an A7II shooter where the slow iris wasn't an issue. I recently acquired another M 50 1.4 as part of a film camera lot, but haven't really given it much of a chance either because the K 50 1.2 was there too... and that lens tends to make you forget the others...

Soon I'll finally have an assessment of a Pentax 50 1.4 lens.

[brewmaster15]

To balance out the thread about the lens that you love that everybody else doesn't seem to care much about, how about that one lens that everyone seems to love, but you never really felt tempted to buy?

To me it's the DA 16-85... of course it's a sharp lens, and I have seen great landscape pictures taken with it... but I don't think it would suit my style. Something about the colors and rendering seems a bit un-Pentax to me... I don't know what it is but I can't seem to look at any of the pictures that have been taken by it and go "wow, I need to have that lens!". Instead, they look almost too clean and with not much character...

How about everybody else?

Lmao.. What a great idea I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone comes up with.

For me its the sigma 10-20 3.5 It gets great reviews but honestly I have never taken a picture with it I really liked. I keep it hoping that one day I will finally understand how to coax greatness from it in my hands..until then its shoot and delete....shoot and delete.
Al

[Bertrand3000]

For me Sigma 10-20 F3.5. Lack of contrast is really underwhelming despite the good reviews.

[gofour3]

FA20-35/4 AL zoom.

Every time I use it I have to bite my tongue and try to be nice to it.......

Phil.

[jgnfld]

To balance out the thread about the lens that you love that everybody else doesn't seem to care much about, how about that one lens that everyone seems to love, but you never really felt tempted to buy?

To me it's the DA 16-85... of course it's a sharp lens, and I have seen great landscape pictures taken with it... but I don't think it would suit my style. Something about the colors and rendering seems a bit un-Pentax to me... I don't know what it is but I can't seem to look at any of the pictures that have been taken by it and go "wow, I need to have that lens!". Instead, they look almost too clean and with not much character...

How about everybody else?

Oddly, the main reason I got the 16-85 was because I was totally dissatisfied with the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 which many others seem to like a lot. My copy of the Sigma lens is fine for closeups and indoor shots but renders landscapes very poorly for me. No fiddling with my technique ever seemed to help. I am much more satisfied with the Pentax 16-85 for landscapes.

[swip]

I love the DA* 50-135 especially for portraits. However, it is not FF. It has been sitting idle since I acquired the K-1.
The DA* 300 is also a very good lens. Worked on the K-1 certainly. It is in my bag with the K-1 always.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Specifically, the SMCA/70-210. I really hated the trombone slide zoom design.

More generically, virtually all zooms. Zoom lenses are all about convenience. I have compacts and a smart phone for convenience.
If the image really is >that< important that I chose to use the 'serious' cameras, then my mindset is task focused and I know the FL
I want to use. I will make allowance for the DA20-40 even though I don't own it; compact, almost assuredly because of its elegant
design and modest goals. Super zooms on the other hand are like the minivans of photography.

[jimr-pdx]

The 18-135. I tried several copies but its limitations on the long end weren't worth the extra bulk.

[photoptimist]

None of the "big lenses" (300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 560/5.6 etc.) have tempted me for two reasons:

First, although getting shots of small distant things is nice, the telephoto look doesn't really appeal to me. In thinking about buying the K-1, I worried about losing "reach" but then I noticed that none of my telephoto shots on the K10D or K-5 were my favorites. Instead, I prefer wider angle to short telephoto shots for their abilities to bring in more of the background and enable stronger perspectives. Telephoto is just too flat.

Second, the advancement of digital sensors has reduced the value of big fast lenses, The big ones are only a stop or two faster that the slow ones but today's camera bodies are easily 4 or 5 stops faster than film cameras or early-model digital cameras were. Add IBIS and the value of fast lenses drops more. Why spend $$$$ and carry all those extra kilograms to get a stop or two of light when a modern body like the K-1 gets great shots with a smaller lens?

I have tried these style of lenses. I did get a Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 at a garage sale many years ago. It's huge and heavy and not as good as the Vivitar 70-210/3.5 that I got this summer.