[pukipuki]

May I ask what went wrong with your copies? Same issue for both?

+1 curious as well. 20-40 is my go-to for years, but I was thinking selling to get a silver version later along with silver k3iii. Maybe they got issues now?

[luftfluss]

May I ask what went wrong with your copies? Same issue for both?

+1 curious as well. 20-40 is my go-to for years, but I was thinking selling to get a silver version later along with silver k3iii. Maybe they got issues now?

1st copy bought used from Lens Authority (the sales arm of Lens Rentals) had two issues, both at 40mm: badly decentered, the right side was soft even stopped down to f/11, and focusing accuracy at infinity was hit-and-miss.

2nd copy, bought new from Adorama, was excellent optically, but past 30mm would not focusing accurately at infinity with my K-70. It was better with my K-3 II, but even then only 75% or so. All my other lenses - screwdrive, SDM, PLM - behave consistently with both bodies.

Frustrating, because the image quality produced by the lens is very, very good, maybe my favorite of any lens I've owned.

[tranq78]

I change my mind. The worst is not the FAJ 75-300. It's the FAJ 18-35.

[clackers]

Surprised to see the Sigma 8-16 on a list of "miserable" lenses.

Yes, I say 'FWIW' for exactly that reason.

These websites and self-important YouTube vloggers borrow one copy of a lens and make a judgment of it. Ridiculous methodology. The real judgement is that poorly resourced amateurs shouldn't be trusted to speak on behalf of a product. That includes us with our own purchases, of course!

Lens Rentals attempts to measure ten copies.

---

Last edited by clackers; 04-25-2021 at 09:06 PM.

[luftfluss]

The worst Pentax lens I ever owned, that was actually functioning correctly and seemed to perform as intended, was the FA 28-80. Just... not good in any way.

[UncleVanya]

1st copy bought used from Lens Authority (the sales arm of Lens Rentals) had two issues, both at 40mm: badly decentered, the right side was soft even stopped down to f/11, and focusing accuracy at infinity was hit-and-miss.

2nd copy, bought new from Adorama, was excellent optically, but past 30mm would not focusing accurately at infinity with my K-70. It was better with my K-3 II, but even then only 75% or so. All my other lenses - screwdrive, SDM, PLM - behave consistently with both bodies.

Frustrating, because the image quality produced by the lens is very, very good, maybe my favorite of any lens I've owned.

What a drag! My DA 20-40 has always been a reliable companion as far as I can tell. But I'm not always on the ball on seeing problems with lenses as my vision is so so and my brain does a lot of editing.

[luftfluss]

What a drag! My DA 20-40 has always been a reliable companion as far as I can tell. But I'm not always on the ball on seeing problems with lenses as my vision is so so and my brain does a lot of editing.

I bet your copy is just fine. Years ago it took 3 copies of the DA21 for me to get a good one, so perhaps 3 will be the charm whenever I decide to try another 20-40.

I assuaged my disappointment by buying a Tamron SP 180/2.5...

[zzaletel]

80-200 Takumar Bayonet

[FozzFoster]

I also found the 135mm f/2.5 Takumar a bit disappointingly soft compared to my f/3.5

[bdery]

DA 18-270.

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the pricing of this lens?

Please clarify.

In any case, pricing doesn't make it bad optically.

[northcoastgreg]

I change my mind. The worst is not the FAJ 75-300. It's the FAJ 18-35.

With cheap zoom lenses, performance depends on focal length and aperture. At 300mm wide open, the FA-J 75-300 is the worst lens I've ever used. But at 100mm f16, it's actually sharp edge to edge on a full-frame camera --- not terrible at all. I have no hands on experience with the FA-J 18-35, but every image I've ever seen shot at 18mm on FF has serious sharpness issues away from the center --- which is obviously a problem as most people buy that lens precisely for what it can do at the ultra-wide end.

I'm not sure I would nominate a zoom for worst lens ever, because every zoom I've ever used, no mater how wretched in performance, had a sweet spot that was decent. So instead I'll nominate a prime lens: the M 135/3.5. Superficially, it seems sharp and contrasty, but in my experience it doesn't hold up over time. The contrast and sharpness seem to have no depth to them, and there's something off and meretricious colors. And it renders very flat, with no sense of tactility or presence. Images that I've shot with it on FF just give me the sense that there's something not quite right about them, which is rather annoying.

[ZombieArmy]

I bet your copy is just fine. Years ago it took 3 copies of the DA21 for me to get a good one, so perhaps 3 will be the charm whenever I decide to try another 20-40.

I assuaged my disappointment by buying a Tamron SP 180/2.5...

It's probably the most frustrating part of lens purchases. It's why I try to buy used from a known result ;p

[jct us101]

When I used to have the F 70-200mm I thought it was great, but looking back at the photos years later, yikes!

[Waffles]

Id definitely hafta agree with the old 28-80s. Not sure which one I had but it just never seemed to produce images with any clarity. Not sharpness, just....I dunno. My photos from the 28-80 I had always seemed muddy, though that couldve been just my copy. And the autofocus hit so hard after locking on I felt as if my camera would break. Didn't really care for that lens

[3by2]

I think I got a two kit zoom with my mz10 which weren't particularly good but it was on film so they served me up until I got the *ist D. I can't recall what they were, one was the 28-80 I think, it was a Jessops deal in case any UK members have a better memory than me.

I must apologise for fingering Pentax here, my two kit zooms were both Sigmas. Finally found my handwritten film notes. Explains why I offloaded them when I got *ist D. A 28-80 and my notes say an 80-210 but I can't seem to even find that lens in the database, so I'm not sure of their veracity now