Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-16-2013, 01:26 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6
are there any inexpensive lenses that dont suck??

the only thing I can see is the 01..
but its prices have risen to over 200 now..
I'm hoping to pick up something used or discount for around 100-150 range.

basically I just want a walkaround lens that I can shoot normal shots with and have good image quality.

I had an 02 but i sold it because it was really horrible..
It's just really dissapointing to have to compare my 7 year old camera phone to my Q and have the phone give it a run...

let me know.

I'm open to adapters with old style lenses,
but I dont see myself shooting any normal shots with a 1000000x zoom lens

12-16-2013, 01:47 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,314
Maybe you can try adapting C or other mount lenses. But of course, the cheap ones will most likely suck
12-16-2013, 02:21 PM   #3
Senior Member
Oldhand's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mid North Coast NSW Australia
Posts: 176
There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of old M42 lenses that will fit the Pentax Q with an adapter.
For a start there are all the Takumars and Super-Takumars and there are some outstanding lenses in that lineup.
You can also get an adapter for Pentax K mount to Pentax Q and that opens up a whole world of Pentax lenses to you.
Plenty of high quality glass among that lot.
Cheers
OH
12-16-2013, 02:39 PM   #4
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Well pretty much any adapted SLR lens you put in front of the Q becomes a tele or super-tele lens.

Even with the 110 lenses of which the 18mm is the shortest, becomes a 100mm at a fixed 2.8 with decent quality.
Most of the C mount lenses aren't capable of resolving enough detail and thus only good for that special "look" or in other words, really soft!

If you want wide, spend $500 on the new 08 (..lol) or get a good copy of the 02 (28mm wide).

12-16-2013, 03:39 PM   #5
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,284
Generally the degree of suckiness is inversely proportional to the cost.
QuoteOriginally posted by Tad Quote
It's just really dissapointing to have to compare my 7 year old camera phone to my Q and have the phone give it a run...
Well if you can get better pictures from a 7 year old camera phone than from the Q maybe you should just get a new camera phone? Just saying, if you are happy with what your phone does then why mess with all the changeable lenses, separate camera, memory card and so on? Just get a good camera phone then it's always with you. ILC's are not for everyone, that's why they make options.
12-16-2013, 04:25 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,421
The 01 is very sharp, great lens. They shouldn't sell a Q without it IMO

The 03 is great fun, not super sharp but it is sharp enough given how wide the viewing angle is

The 06 is supposed to be pretty sharp too, but I haven't got one so can't personally comment on it.

EDIT - My Q photos on flickr are all 01 or 03 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezza323/sets/72157629651996307/

Last edited by jezza323; 12-16-2013 at 04:43 PM.
12-16-2013, 06:40 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Tad Quote
I had an 02 but i sold it because it was really horrible..
You must have gotten a bad copy. Mine's actually quite good.
12-16-2013, 09:15 PM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,221
Agree with GibbyTheMole. The 02 can be very good- especially at wide end. IQ can be just a hair short of 01.
thanks
barondla

Check out P&S contest #72 in compact camera forum. Enter #73. Shoot any brand camera. The Q is welcome. Enter now!

12-16-2013, 09:39 PM - 1 Like   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
I love my 02. I agree that it is a little better on the wide end than the long end but it is still quite good. I have some great shots of grandkids with that lens. I will never give up the 01 but I also see no reason to sell my 02.

You either had a bad copy or you've been looking at too many 100% crops.

Print a few 8x10s instead. And for crying out loud...quit reading all those silly reviews. Most of those reviewers don't have the foggiest idea what to make of the Q in the first place, so they are just itching to find anything they can.

But, if your phone really is better, stick with the phone.
12-17-2013, 07:09 AM - 1 Like   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
And for crying out loud...quit reading all those silly reviews. Most of those reviewers don't have the foggiest idea what to make of the Q in the first place, so they are just itching to find anything they can.
LOL... True dat!
12-17-2013, 07:15 AM   #11
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,246
I agree with the above, my 02 is quite good and some of the reviews state the 02 is almost as good as the 01. My 06 is a great lens and very sharp
12-17-2013, 07:21 AM   #12
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
Buy inexpensive adapters and a whole world of possibilities opens... M42 (a lot of Russian lenses), M39 (more Russian beauties), K (how many great Pentax lenses are there!?), C (go for the 12 blade Fujian)... even 110 lens. A lot of good cheap glass.

Not sure why you think 02 was "really horrible". Is a very good little stack of glass.
What I personally dislike about is that they are not very fast, but I find the IQ to be quite good/pleasing - just stay at low ISO.
Put a hood on it and things improve slightly (depending on lighting conditions).

Saying that... if you didn't like the 02, you most probably will NOT like all those lenses either... so get a better cellphone.
Note 3 gets amazing pictures... so does the new iPhone...

Btw, check this if you go adapters way: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ce-thread.html

Last edited by mrNewt; 12-17-2013 at 07:51 AM.
12-26-2013, 09:57 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 887
My 02 is likewise quite nice, but the biggest flaw for me is how slow it is. I use the 01 most often, and the fisheye is a very fun lens too.

Adapted lenses suck without the Pentax adapter. Sorry, but it's true. Impossible to hand hold anything because of the jello effect, so unless you want to be tied to a tripod, you're SOL with adapted.

Plus, adapted lenses often have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing when wide open, and don't start to look decent until stopped down quite a bit. Which brings me once again into the realm of too slow.

A 550mm f1.7 sounds great, but if it doesn't start looking good until f5.6, then it's not all that useful.

Charles.
12-26-2013, 03:41 PM   #14
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,463
A lot of opinions on this thread, and obviously we aren't all in agreement.

The Pentax adapter is great, but not necessary unless you are shooting over about 100mm depending on your steadiness (and even then it depends on which Q you are using as the original has 1/13th scan rate, and the two newer bodies are at 1/30th). I use the newer Fotodiox - with dull black painted internals (takes about 3 minutes).
Here is a typical 85mm shot: Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare
Here is a 50mm shot: http://jamesrobins.phanfare.com/5972173#imageID=181775651

I strongly disagree with the comment that all cheap video-type lenses are poor performers. Do some research on Flickr and determine the lenses that outperform their selling price, and then be patient when looking on ebay. Your best bets will be c-mounts that are designed for a 2/3rds inch image circle - still small, but unlikely to vignette. Many of these are excellent build, and fast. Generally, you have to stop them down for maximum sharpness, but they get plenty sharp in a stop or two. My preference is to mount each one on their own dedicated c-mount adapter so that correct focus is always set up - again Fotodiox is very good.

Fujian 35mm is fine: Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare
So is the Tamron 25mm (generally only available used, but very cheap and usually in great shape as they just sit on surveillance cameras): Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

These lenses assuredly are sharper than either the 02 or 03. Nothing terrible about these lenses (although the 02 certainly gets marginal past about 12mm), but they don't have the sharpness, contrast and saturation exhibited by the c-mount lenses shown above.

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 12-26-2013 at 05:50 PM.
12-27-2013, 07:10 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Adapted lenses suck without the Pentax adapter. Sorry, but it's true. Impossible to hand hold anything because of the jello effect, so unless you want to be tied to a tripod, you're SOL with adapted.
Everyone's experiences differ, but I've successfully done plenty of handheld shots with the cheap Fotodiox adapter and lenses up to 135mm. (756mm equiv. on the Q.) Upwards of that it gets a bit dodgy for me, but then again handholding a longer than 750mm lens on a DSLR probably would be tricky for me too.

QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Plus, adapted lenses often have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing when wide open, and don't start to look decent until stopped down quite a bit.
Usually, yeah. At least one exception: My M39 adapted Industar 61 2.8 / 55mm has zero fringing, even wide open. Sharpness is so-so wide open, but by f4, it's plenty sharp. It's also a very petite little lens, which makes it a great 308mm tele equivalent on the Q.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dont, lens, lenses, lenses that dont, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, phone, q10, q7, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are there any single element K-Mount lenses? TropicalMonkey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 06-28-2013 06:34 PM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Are there places that do PP for dummies? slackercruster Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 03-05-2012 10:16 PM
Are there any F2.8 Macro lenses that are STILL F2.8 at macro distances? Unsinkable II Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 58 10-03-2010 05:25 PM
are there any fast card readers that support SDHC? shadowrulz3164 General Talk 11 03-01-2007 09:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top