What is the worst Pentax lens ever made?

Jonathan Mac · 09-02-2021, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Gary H Perth

The two Pentax lenses that have disappointed me compared to others in the same series are the M 135mm/f3.5 and the Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5. I leave the M135 on the shelf and take the A 100mm f2.8. On my Takumar outings, I take the Super Multi Coated 150mm f4.

I've had those two lenses and also found them quite disappointing. The M was better than the Tak but needed stopped down more than I'd like to get a sharp image. The K 135/2.5 is far superior, as are the Tokina RMC 135/2.8 and the M 120/2.8, the latter of those two also being nice and light and compact.

Ronald Oakes · 09-02-2021, 11:37 AM

For me it is the SMC-A 35-80 Zoom lens. I never could justify its existence and the copy I had was a complete crap shoot ready for the garbage heap image-wise.

---------- Post added 09-02-21 at 11:40 ----------

Originally posted by beholder3

I think all of the following are utter crap and not worth $10:

DA 16-45
F 28-80

What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!!

Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ???

StephenHampshire · 09-02-2021, 11:48 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Ronald Oakes

For me it is the SMC-A 35-80 Zoom lens. I never could justify its existence and the copy I had was a complete crap shoot ready for the garbage heap image-wise.

---------- Post added 09-02-21 at 11:40 ----------

What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!!

Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ???

I had a picture taken with a K5 and the DA16-45 published in a national magazine and got paid £40, so it is clearly worth more than $10 Q.E.D!

beholder3 · 09-15-2021, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Ronald Oakes

What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!!

Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ???

The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly.
I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR.
Doorstop material.

poseidonstouch · 09-15-2021, 09:42 AM

What an interesting thread!

I think my answer might be a little controversial! For me...the worst Pentax lens I own is my K 135/2.5.

It's not a bad lens necessarily, but it's just not as impressive as I had hoped it would be. There is quite a bit of hype around this lens but it just never did it for me!

**newmikey** · 09-15-2021, 10:23 AM

My worst ever Pentax as the FAJ75-300mm. Blurry, messy, slow to focus, a disaster mechanically, crappy hood. I don't think I got many keepers with that one.

**TwoUptons** · 09-15-2021, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by beholder3

The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly.
I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR.
Doorstop material.

I had a F35-70 that literally came apart in my hands when I tried to zoom it.
That was pretty awful...
Its cousin that I still have is a fine lens, though...

-Eric

ZombieArmy · 09-15-2021, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by beholder3

The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly.
I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR.
Doorstop material.

To be honest I think the 18-55 gets unfairly slammed. I actually think the performance is pretty good on it, especially given the price.

To me from what I've seen (not handling the 16-45 myself) the benefit of the lens is getting that extra bit on the wide end for a low price.

---------- Post added 09-15-21 at 08:57 PM ----------

Originally posted by poseidonstouch

What an interesting thread!

I think my answer might be a little controversial! For me...the worst Pentax lens I own is my K 135/2.5.

It's not a bad lens necessarily, but it's just not as impressive as I had hoped it would be. There is quite a bit of hype around this lens but it just never did it for me!

Perhaps there needs to be a thread for the most overhyped/under rated pentax lens eh? I agree though to some extent, I really think 135mm designs improved a lot over the following decades.

beholder3 · 09-15-2021, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by ZombieArmy

To be honest I think the 18-55 gets unfairly slammed. I actually think the performance is pretty good on it, especially given the price.

I agree. For the price and non-pixelpeeping it (the WR version) is ok.

aldo taddia · 09-16-2021, 01:01 AM

I don't remember ever having a bad Pentax lens. My first lenses date back to the late '70s, but I've never considered extreme lenses or Zoom with so much excursion. The only one that, despite having a very good definition, was slightly soft was the Zoom A 70-210 f.4

ChristianRock · 09-16-2021, 09:02 PM

For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end.

**tonyzoc** · 09-18-2021, 05:27 PM

I have a hard time picking a lens here because I can't say any were horrible. (Horrible would be defined as a Mosler 35mm I once had and tossed in the garbage.) If I were throwing a lens on a body to sell... I'd probably say a 50/2 M for manual focus even thought it actually a decent lens. I'd gotten rid of them because I have several 1.7 and 1.4 M and A versions. For autofocus my looser is the 28-80 Takumar-F and the 35-80 F.

**steamloco76** · 09-22-2021, 06:09 AM - **1 Like**

The F 28-80/3.5~4.5 I owned was absolutely terrible. Poor contrast, very soft until stopped down to f8~11, and massive chromatic aberration. Yuck. The lens wasn’t cheap either.

---------- Post added 09-22-21 at 09:11 AM ----------

Originally posted by ChristianRock

For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end.

The 16-45 I owned became wobbly and worthless at the wide end too. It was a great lens on my *ist D, K-10D and K-20D.

---------- Post added 09-22-21 at 09:24 AM ----------

Originally posted by ChristianRock

For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end.

The 16-45 I owned became wobbly and worthless at the wide end too. It was a great lens on my *ist D, K-10D and K-20D.

ChristianRock · 09-22-2021, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by steamloco76

The F 28-80/3.5~4.5 I owned was absolutely terrible. Poor contrast, very soft until stopped down to f8~11, and massive chromatic aberration. Yuck. The lens wasn’t cheap either.[COLOR="Silver"]

Was it the non-SMC version? That is the exact same optics as the infamous Takumar-A and Takumar-F 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5. What a way to drag the Takumar name to the mud, by the way...

If it 's the SMC I'll be surprised as this lens is actually liked by quite a few people in our reviews database - but I have no experience with it.

**steamloco76** · 09-22-2021, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Was it the non-SMC version? That is the exact same optics as the infamous Takumar-A and Takumar-F 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5. What a way to drag the Takumar name to the mud, by the way...

If it 's the SMC I'll be surprised as this lens is actually liked by quite a few people in our reviews database - but I have no experience with it.

Mine was the SMC-F version.
I was so dissatisfied with that lens after having great luck with the F 24-50/4. The 24-50 was good enough that I quit carrying my A 28, 35 and 50mm primes. As for the K and KA mount Takumars, I had two and quickly gave up on both. The Takumar 70-210/4 and 135/2.5. Both were okay in the middle apertures but flare was a real issue.

09-02-2021, 11:37 AM	#152
Ronald Oakes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,582	For me it is the SMC-A 35-80 Zoom lens. I never could justify its existence and the copy I had was a complete crap shoot ready for the garbage heap image-wise. ---------- Post added 09-02-21 at 11:40 ---------- Originally posted by beholder3 I think all of the following are utter crap and not worth $10: DA 16-45 F 28-80 What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!! Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ???

09-15-2021, 05:55 PM	#158
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Originally posted by beholder3 The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly. I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR. Doorstop material. To be honest I think the 18-55 gets unfairly slammed. I actually think the performance is pretty good on it, especially given the price. To me from what I've seen (not handling the 16-45 myself) the benefit of the lens is getting that extra bit on the wide end for a low price. ---------- Post added 09-15-21 at 08:57 PM ---------- Originally posted by poseidonstouch What an interesting thread! I think my answer might be a little controversial! For me...the worst Pentax lens I own is my K 135/2.5. It's not a bad lens necessarily, but it's just not as impressive as I had hoped it would be. There is quite a bit of hype around this lens but it just never did it for me! Perhaps there needs to be a thread for the most overhyped/under rated pentax lens eh? I agree though to some extent, I really think 135mm designs improved a lot over the following decades. Last edited by ZombieArmy; 09-15-2021 at 06:02 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post pictures made with your worst lens!	LensBeginner	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	08-02-2018 10:27 AM
What's the worst lens ever made?	joefru	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	07-21-2008 08:18 AM
Pentax Fisheye Worst Lens EVER!	J.Scott	Post Your Photos!	19	02-09-2008 11:49 AM
Worst lens ever for your DSLR.....Very funny. You must read this!	ebooks4pentax	General Talk	3	06-15-2007 05:16 AM
LOL. worst lens ever!	skaktuss	General Talk	11	06-07-2007 03:10 PM

09-02-2021, 08:10 AM	#151
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	Originally posted by Gary H Perth The two Pentax lenses that have disappointed me compared to others in the same series are the M 135mm/f3.5 and the Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5. I leave the M135 on the shelf and take the A 100mm f2.8. On my Takumar outings, I take the Super Multi Coated 150mm f4. I've had those two lenses and also found them quite disappointing. The M was better than the Tak but needed stopped down more than I'd like to get a sharp image. The K 135/2.5 is far superior, as are the Tokina RMC 135/2.8 and the M 120/2.8, the latter of those two also being nice and light and compact.

09-02-2021, 11:48 AM - 3 Likes	#153
StephenHampshire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Winchester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,523	Originally posted by Ronald Oakes For me it is the SMC-A 35-80 Zoom lens. I never could justify its existence and the copy I had was a complete crap shoot ready for the garbage heap image-wise. ---------- Post added 09-02-21 at 11:40 ---------- What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!! Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ??? I had a picture taken with a K5 and the DA16-45 published in a national magazine and got paid £40, so it is clearly worth more than $10 Q.E.D!

09-15-2021, 08:10 AM	#154
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by Ronald Oakes What ??? What ??? Not the DA 16-45 !!! Are you sure this isn't a mis-print ??? The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly. I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR. Doorstop material.

09-15-2021, 09:42 AM	#155
poseidonstouch New Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Posts: 8	What an interesting thread! I think my answer might be a little controversial! For me...the worst Pentax lens I own is my K 135/2.5. It's not a bad lens necessarily, but it's just not as impressive as I had hoped it would be. There is quite a bit of hype around this lens but it just never did it for me!

09-15-2021, 10:23 AM	#156
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287	My worst ever Pentax as the FAJ75-300mm. Blurry, messy, slow to focus, a disaster mechanically, crappy hood. I don't think I got many keepers with that one.

09-15-2021, 02:11 PM	#157
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,210	Originally posted by beholder3 The DA 16-45 that I had was physically crap and wobbly. I made a direct shootout on 16 MPx versus my 18-55 kit lens and at all focal lengths it was either same or clearly worse, while lacking all WR. Doorstop material. I had a F35-70 that literally came apart in my hands when I tried to zoom it. That was pretty awful... Its cousin that I still have is a fine lens, though... -Eric

09-15-2021, 11:55 PM	#159
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by ZombieArmy To be honest I think the 18-55 gets unfairly slammed. I actually think the performance is pretty good on it, especially given the price. I agree. For the price and non-pixelpeeping it (the WR version) is ok.

09-16-2021, 01:01 AM	#160
aldo taddia Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: Ferrara Italia Posts: 139	I don't remember ever having a bad Pentax lens. My first lenses date back to the late '70s, but I've never considered extreme lenses or Zoom with so much excursion. The only one that, despite having a very good definition, was slightly soft was the Zoom A 70-210 f.4

09-16-2021, 09:02 PM	#161
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end.

09-18-2021, 05:27 PM	#162
tonyzoc Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 992	I have a hard time picking a lens here because I can't say any were horrible. (Horrible would be defined as a Mosler 35mm I once had and tossed in the garbage.) If I were throwing a lens on a body to sell... I'd probably say a 50/2 M for manual focus even thought it actually a decent lens. I'd gotten rid of them because I have several 1.7 and 1.4 M and A versions. For autofocus my looser is the 28-80 Takumar-F and the 35-80 F.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2021, 06:09 AM - 1 Like	#163
steamloco76 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,710	The F 28-80/3.5~4.5 I owned was absolutely terrible. Poor contrast, very soft until stopped down to f8~11, and massive chromatic aberration. Yuck. The lens wasn’t cheap either. ---------- Post added 09-22-21 at 09:11 AM ---------- Originally posted by ChristianRock For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end. The 16-45 I owned became wobbly and worthless at the wide end too. It was a great lens on my ist D, K-10D and K-20D. ---------- Post added 09-22-21 at 09:24 AM ---------- Originally posted by ChristianRock For what is worth, I had the DA 16-45 f4 and the DA 18-55 AL II and the 16-45 ra circles around the kit lens. No comparison. That is, until the 16-45 became very wobbly. Then it was so bad it was unusable at the wide end. The 16-45 I owned became wobbly and worthless at the wide end too. It was a great lens on my ist D, K-10D and K-20D.

09-22-2021, 06:30 AM	#164
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by steamloco76 The F 28-80/3.5~4.5 I owned was absolutely terrible. Poor contrast, very soft until stopped down to f8~11, and massive chromatic aberration. Yuck. The lens wasn’t cheap either.[COLOR="Silver"] Was it the non-SMC version? That is the exact same optics as the infamous Takumar-A and Takumar-F 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5. What a way to drag the Takumar name to the mud, by the way... If it 's the SMC I'll be surprised as this lens is actually liked by quite a few people in our reviews database - but I have no experience with it.

09-22-2021, 09:05 AM	#165
steamloco76 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,710	Originally posted by ChristianRock Was it the non-SMC version? That is the exact same optics as the infamous Takumar-A and Takumar-F 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5. What a way to drag the Takumar name to the mud, by the way... If it 's the SMC I'll be surprised as this lens is actually liked by quite a few people in our reviews database - but I have no experience with it. Mine was the SMC-F version. I was so dissatisfied with that lens after having great luck with the F 24-50/4. The 24-50 was good enough that I quit carrying my A 28, 35 and 50mm primes. As for the K and KA mount Takumars, I had two and quickly gave up on both. The Takumar 70-210/4 and 135/2.5. Both were okay in the middle apertures but flare was a real issue.