[arpaagent]

Another underwhelming lens I own is my A 50mm f1.4 which puts in really good results but the build quality is lacking in my opinion. I don't understand why a supposedly good lens like that has more plastic on it than my 28mm f2.8. The 28mm has a metal aperture ring that moves smoothly, while the 50mm has a plastic aperture ring that is sticky and less than pleasant to use. My 50mm also has the focusing wobble that causes the entire image to move when looking the the viewfinder. The 28mm is solid as a rock. And I definitely haven't baby'd it over the years.

I believe that most of the A-Series lenses came in a few different versions, with either metal or plastic aperture rings. I have seen A50/2s and A50/1.7s both with and without metal aperture rings. The metal definitely feels better and more solid. Of all the A50/1.4s I've come across (~3 or so), all of them have had metal aperture rings. It seems that the lower SNs (older, i suppose) tend to have the sturdier, heavier build. I've also noticed it with other A series lenses as well, not just the 50s. Regardless, the A50/1.4 lenses that I have seen have not left anything for me to desire in the build quality department.

[axl]

I don't get the huge price difference between lenses in US and UK!!! It drives me nuts, when many of members here post a thread or reply, this and that lens is worth under $100. The same thing in UK would be over £100 and I really think that value of $100 & £100 compared to actual salaries differ A LOT!!!
to OP:
quite a few lenses I don't get:
50/1.4 I'm with dazmann and igiligan on this one. There is such a hype around this lens, but frankly, why? On APS-C I pick 50 up only for portraits, and only if my 40ltd can't cope with low light, but other than that I don't see reason of having FA50/1.4. And I definitely don't think it's a must have lens in Pentax camp. Maybe on film or FF but not on APS-C.
135mm again, I have one lens of this lenght and frankly it's a paperweight for me. Too long for portraits, too short for wildlife....
Price of 31ltd. I know it's supposed to be one of the best Pentax lenses ever, but for that price... no thank you!
superzooms, why would you want to pay for lens that won't be wide enough, fast enough, long enough, won't magnify enough etc.... here I'm 100% with wheatfield, I change my lenses all the time, no matter where, never had problems with it
...
BR

[axl]

Here you go: --> Link.


:0


.

LOL

[séamuis]

Another underwhelming lens I own is my A 50mm f1.4 which puts in really good results but the build quality is lacking in my opinion. I don't understand why a supposedly good lens like that has more plastic on it than my 28mm f2.8. The 28mm has a metal aperture ring that moves smoothly, while the 50mm has a plastic aperture ring that is sticky and less than pleasant to use. My 50mm also has the focusing wobble that causes the entire image to move when looking the the viewfinder. The 28mm is solid as a rock. And I definitely haven't baby'd it over the years.

as arpaagent suggested, it all comes down to when in the series the lens was produced. I have seen A 50mm 1.7's with both metal and plastic aperture rings. I have also seen both A and M series lenses made in Japan & Taiwan. it will come down to the lens being an early example or later. it also helps to keep in mind that when a new series was introduced the old series didn't just halt production. it usually kept going for a while, but using cost cutting measures like adopting parts from the new series. ie: more plastic.

[ShadZee]

FA50/1.4 - I don't understand why people say it's a must have ?

For a few dollars more you can get the amazing FA43, which is much sharper at F/2.0 (comparing my own copies) and has much better color and rendering. AND it would last for ever!

[Wheatfield]

As for me... I don't get the 50 on a crop body either. I keep seeing the same suggestions being made to Canon/Nikon crop body users, but the whole point of a fast 50 is for low light shooting which is often indoors, and it's just not wide enough for most indoor shooting.

It's a little short as a portrait lens, but is about the best option we have at the moment, and does allow for very good DOF control if you want to blur the background.
I use the 58/1.4 more than the 50 now for portraits.

[Ron Boggs]

Shift lenses like the 28mm or the 75mm for 67. Add tilt movement to these lenses and they become instant successes with movements that work for me. Of course tilt works with the DOF which is primary in my shooting situations. Shift is for perspective which is less an issue in my shooting. With shift only, I just don't get it--proof I'm no architecture photog...And yes, I did purchase and try the 75 shift, but without skyscrapers to point towards, it just didn't do much for me.

It's a little short as a portrait lens, but is about the best option we have at the moment, and does allow for very good DOF control if you want to blur the background.
I use the 58/1.4 more than the 50 now for portraits.

I guess that is my point... It is a little short for a portrait lens, and too long for most low light indoor shots, and has Pf in outdoor contrasty scenes...

P.s. My 58mm lens has become a portrait fave of mine too. A nice length for sure. That one and my tamy 28-75 at 75mm are the two that really work for my 'in your face' portrait shots.

Someday the 77

[axl]

I guess that is my point... It is a little short for a portrait lens, and too long for most low light indoor shots, and has Pf in outdoor contrasty scenes...

P.s. My 58mm lens has become a portrait fave of mine too. A nice length for sure. That one and my tamy 28-75 at 75mm are the two that really work for my 'in your face' portrait shots.

Someday the 77

I don't own any 58 nor 24(28)-70(75) fast zooms. So for now I'm stuck with 50/1.7 and Sigma 105. I'm wishing for 70ltd for portraits and trawel...
BR

[ryan s]

Smooth being subjective. Some consider outside lit highlights to be obtrusive. Some might consider the Helios propensity for 'swirl' bokeh to be an aberration. Otoh, just as many will appreciate these traits as differential and unique. I should know, the Helios is the clone to the Biotar, which I own and love! (Its the lens in my avatar)

Exactly...that's what I don't get. To me, and in my personal opinion, bokeh tends to distract me from the "heart" of the image when it's strange.

It performs wide open just like the Helios-44 58/2 I had for awhile. But like you say, that's subjective. I just don't get it

One thing I do get is most of the lenses you have. Expensive or not, there are some solid performers. I have to get me one someday

I mean I do get why it is recommended to almost everyone when the get their first pentax dslr, partly because it is the cheapest I guess. And it really does spank the kit lens in IQ, and teach you why you want faster glass.


In fact the Helios 44m kit lens will almost always win the battle, with the SMC tak 50 1.4 taking it's place in real low light.

You said the reasons why people get it, in my opinion. Don't worry, the Canon people always recommend the 50/1.8 II lens for ~$60. For me, the fast aperture is worth the downsides. And remember...Pentax is trying to wean us of 85mm's for portraits *cough*DA55*ahem

Helios-44 over the FA 50, huh? Now that's an interesting choice

I understand why Pentax put them out, some people just couldn't justify the price of the SMC lenses. however what I cannot understand is why they chose to put such a revered name on the el-cheapo lens line... this bothers me every time I see a Takumar Bayonet.

Dodge Charger:


Dodge Charger:


Just ask American car companies about that (And I hate Chrysler, just for flamebait.)

I have both. The FA31 makes noticeably better pictures, though this isn't always obvious when viewing 800 pixel images that have been oversharpend for viewing on computer monitors.
You could also beat an FA35 to death with a 31LTD and then use the 31 to take pictures of the corpse.
Whether it is worth the extra money really depends on the individual photographer.

woot...my lenses have to win bar fights. The 80-320 will hopefully be on the way out one of these days...

.

Pentax 50mm f/1.2 (K, A, any)

It just costs too much. I know this lens won scarpents 'normal lens shootout', but I think that's because he wanted it to win - it was already his favorite lens, IQ aside.

He made the test when he was still a Pentaxian...he has since become a Nikonian

[Finn]

10-17 fisheye. I know people love fisheyes, but I just don't get them. At all.

[jsherman999]

.....
Frankly, I don't get MOST lenses. I wouldn't waste any of the effort I spend working
to afford a lens that I didn't research to be at the top of its class at _something_
otherwise, really, whats the point? Its just going to pass light as generically as the
last thing. My phone can take pictures like that these days. But, we research.
We learn. Knowledge is power, and the kingdom is ours. What we make of it is
another thing

Kelly, I don't know if you've summarized the above elsewhere before, but this is
what I've gleaned about you already, from the summation of your lens reviews
and musings - You have LBA, it's just very focused, and slow-burning.

You are the Clovis-point hunter who has sighted the huge elk, and tracks it across
new fields, through new landscapes, down river banks and across mountain
ranges, across the Bering straight to new worlds....

I'm the more the guy who says "hey, has anyone ever actually tried these
shellfish? They're excellent! And I think those Reindeer will be coming back soon...
I think I'll stick around Kamchatka for a while longer..."

1980's Bayonet Takumars.

(Not to say these are necessarily bad lenses. . . I just don't understand
why Pentax ever produced them. . .)

Ryan S's image juxtaposition above says it all.

Here I can chime in. Why buy lenses with inferior
coating, when one can have the smc versions?

In some cases, Super Takumars (vs S-M-C or SMC) actually do have nice
coatings, but just were not marketed as such. I still think I get better images
from the Super Takumar 135 3.5 vs. S-M-C Tak 135 3.5.

But I have a long list of lenses, I won't buy - or won't use, even if I had
bought one:

...
- FA 20-35/4 - the same as the 28-135 for me, never liked it and sold
it a couple of months ago
....
Ben

I actually tried one of these in a store last week - it was pretty great, except
for 1) bit soft at 35mm. and 2) bad shooting-into-the-sun flare compared to
the 12-24.

But it was excellent otherwise.

Personally, I just don't get the 135mm focal length.
I mean, intellectually, yea, but using one, I've never become comfortable. I
suppose that's why I have 3 of them now, to try to learn.

It's the same FOV as about 200mm that film was - so the FL does have it's
uses. personally, I love the FL - it's perfect for shooting people out in the back
yard, or shooting the little guy's swimming class from the pool edge. Lotsa
other uses like that.

For me, I was completely underwhelmed by the
DA 35mm limited. I still "get" the lens and the results I got were good, but it
just doesn't fit me as well as I thought it would. After a little while it was
replaced by my A 28mm f2.8 as my standard walk around prime and will be
sold relatively soon to finance my purchase of a used FA 100mm f2.8 macro.
...

Lotta people feel that way. I think its one of those lenses that fits in the
middle just perfectly. That, and the colors just blow up in your brain. To me,
it's a paradigm of modern lens design, and is a good example for the
"they're making them better now" argument.



.

[heatherslightbox]

To add my 2¢...

First--I just don't get the Zeiss lenses. To spend that much money on a lens and it not even be autofocus, never mind HSM. I figure that there are plenty of less expensive AF lenses that have excellent IQ--some even with HSM, that why should I bother spending more on a lens that has neither?

Secondly--I'm not targeting the DA35, specifically, as it's a great lens in it's own right, but I never could quite get the FL; I found it to be too wide for some things and not wide enough for others. I know some people are crazy about it, so I guess it's different stroke for different folks.

Heather

[maxwell1295]

I'm not targeting the DA35, specifically, as it's a great lens in it's own right, but I never could quite get the FL; I found it to be too wide for some things and not wide enough for others. I know some people are crazy about it, so I guess it's different stroke for different folks.

Heather

Interesting that you mention the DA35.....a lens with which you've gotten excellent results, but just didn't find a fit for. I'm in the same boat. I LOVE the results I've gotten with this lens, but really can't see using it much, other than for flowers and product shots.

More and more I'm starting to think that I'm more of a zoom lens type of guy. I do have the need for a macro, I just don't need one that isn't faster or sharper than the zoom I have that covers the same range (Sigma 24-60mm/2.8). The only benefit is the 1:1 macro which I really don't need at that particular focal length.

Now that I have a recently acquired Vivitar 55mm/2.8 macro and my eyes on the Tamron SP 90mm/2.5, I'm not sure I have a need for the DA35 anymore.....even though i've taken some stunning images with it. I'll probably keep it because I love the IQ and small size.


You know you have LBA really bad when you "don't get" a lens you already have! And to make matters worse, you replace that lens with TWO lenses and still don't want to get rid of it even though you really don't need it.

[Ben_Edict]

Here I can chime in. Why buy lenses with inferior coating, when one can have the smc versions?
Ben

In some cases, Super Takumars (vs S-M-C or SMC) actually do have nice
coatings, but just were not marketed as such. I still think I get better images
from the Super Takumar 135 3.5 vs. S-M-C Tak 135 3.5.

Stop, I think, that is a misunderstanding. We talked about the later Takumar series, which was an el cheapo product line. For example you could buy the original smc-A 70-210/4 zoom lens or the cheaper Takumar 70-210/4 lens. Lens design was (to my knowledge) the same, but the coating was much inferior and at least in some of these "Takumars" (which did not live up to the quality of their famous forerunners) cheaper materials were also used.

- FA 20-35/4 - the same as the 28-135 for me, never liked it and sold it a couple of months ago
- the old 135-600mm Pentax zoom, too much of a monster lens. At least I would need an assistant to go with it...

Ben

I actually tried one of these in a store last week - it was pretty great, except
for 1) bit soft at 35mm. and 2) bad shooting-into-the-sun flare compared to
the 12-24.

But it was excellent otherwise..

I know, there are many people who do like that lens and some who don't. I simply found it to be expandable, as at least my copy of the Sigma 15-30 is quite as good and has a better wide angle capacity, which is more important for me, than the 35mm end - because it overlapps with my FA 28-75/2.8. I find the Sigma much more fun to use and the results very convincing, whereas I always found the 20-35 quite dull... And for the price I paid (bought it new at that time) the build quality really leaves a lot to be desired, much below Sigma's EX finish.

Ben