lenses to stay clear of

normhead · 09-01-2021, 09:05 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

I disagree - I don't know what the old days were like, as I have no film background at all ... but I do know that I enjoy a huge number of film-era lenses here and now, without film...

my point is that MF lenses can be amazing things on digital cameras...

Some of us used to modify enlarger lenses to fit on our SLRs, just to see what effects they might produce, just for fun. Others don't even want to use any lenses that aren't modern and "up to date." (meaning big and expensive). It all depends on your definition of fun.

**Grossy** · 09-01-2021, 09:48 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Some of us used to modify enlarger lenses to fit on our SLRs, just to see what effects they might produce, just for fun. Others don't even want to use any lenses that aren't modern and "up to date." (meaning big and expensive). It all depends on your definition of fun.

funny you say that... I am toying with a similar idea. I happen to work at a company that makes lenses for measuring microchips and if I can get the clearance to get one of the old outdated ones I was going to put it on a linear bearing with a bellows and see what I could do with it. Odds are low of getting my hands on one but it's been a thought.

normhead · 09-01-2021, 10:23 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Grossy

funny you say that... I am toying with a similar idea. I happen to work at a company that makes lenses for measuring microchips and if I can get the clearance to get one of the old outdated ones I was going to put it on a linear bearing with a bellows and see what I could do with it. Odds are low of getting my hands on one but it's been a thought.

When I was younger, one of my buddies and I tried all kinds of insane stuff I'm sure neither of us would bother with today. But, the final outcome is, it helped form our perspectives. You learn stuff, relevant or not is another issue. But maybe in understanding the extremes, you learn to appreciate the value of the commonplace. I'm absolutely certain people who complain about kit lenses have never mounted a magnifying glass lens to a K-mount bellows. Where as people like myself think, "Well OK, I can work with that."

AAlfano · 09-01-2021, 10:38 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by riffraffselbow

One I'd call out specifically to avoid is the 1980s Takumar 135/2.5 (and probably the entire line of 1980s bayonet Takumars, as Just1MoreDave pointed out, which were a budget range of non-SMC lenses). Despite that enticing aperture, the lens may as well be labeled a "Soft" lens at wide open, and it only really cleans up at like f/5.6, at which point it's a non-smc 135mm and surely you can do better with basically any new lens and most old ones.

I concur. I had one of these and never got any satisfactory pictures out of it. (And I'm not really a stickler for sharpness, either.)

---------- Post added 09-01-21 at 10:47 AM ----------

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2. This lens is not bad but again, it was made to be a cost-cutting lens and the price difference is not worth it. The coatings don't really look like SMC either. If you buy a lot of used stuff you might end up with one for free. There are lots of better or more interesting lenses at 50mm; you don't want to settle for this one.

I probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy a SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2, but I sure would not avoid one either. I got one with my K1000 and I am frankly stunned at how sharp it is (at least at f/5.6 and f/8; it's plenty good enough at larger apertures). It may have been a cost-cutting lens but mine is 40+ years and still looks and works like the day it left the factory. I think this five-element lens has a bit more "3D pop" than the faster 50s with more elements. (Just my opinion.) There is NOTHING wrong with the 50mm f/2.

martin42mm · 10-07-2021, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by AAlfano

I concur. I had one of these and never got any satisfactory pictures out of it. (And I'm not really a stickler for sharpness, either.)

---------- Post added 09-01-21 at 10:47 AM ----------

I probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy a SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2, but I sure would not avoid one either. I got one with my K1000 and I am frankly stunned at how sharp it is (at least at f/5.6 and f/8; it's plenty good enough at larger apertures). It may have been a cost-cutting lens but mine is 40+ years and still looks and works like the day it left the factory. I think this five-element lens has a bit more "3D pop" than the faster 50s with more elements. (Just my opinion.) There is NOTHING wrong with the 50mm f/2.

Interesting comments about the k-mount 1980s Takumars. I had many of them back in the day, used with various Pentax K mount cameras, including the MX and LX. And without exception I found them sharp under almost all conditions. Granted all sharpened up when slightly stopped-down, but I have only ever considered the maximum aperture as a focussing aid with bright screen and minimal DOF. As an aside, I have a Tomioka-designed Yashica 55mm f1.2, but only under absolute 'get a shot or lose it' conditions did I shoot it wide open!
These days most have gone because I cannot be bothered to adjust for the CA that many exhibit when used on digital, but I anticipate that if used with Pentax cameras incorporating shake-stabilisation, the numbers of reasons for shooting at maximum aperture would be vastly reduced. ( I don't discount the visual effects of shooting at shallow DOF as a reason to shoot wide-open, but that is another kettle of fish)

pentasonic49 · 10-08-2021, 09:35 AM

I sold my 28-300 Sigma superzoom on ebay in mint condition, and mentioned in the advert that it's resolution was not great at any focal length, but would be fine for pictures in an album and the buyer was very pleased with it.

09-01-2021, 10:23 AM - 2 Likes	#78
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Grossy funny you say that... I am toying with a similar idea. I happen to work at a company that makes lenses for measuring microchips and if I can get the clearance to get one of the old outdated ones I was going to put it on a linear bearing with a bellows and see what I could do with it. Odds are low of getting my hands on one but it's been a thought. When I was younger, one of my buddies and I tried all kinds of insane stuff I'm sure neither of us would bother with today. But, the final outcome is, it helped form our perspectives. You learn stuff, relevant or not is another issue. But maybe in understanding the extremes, you learn to appreciate the value of the commonplace. I'm absolutely certain people who complain about kit lenses have never mounted a magnifying glass lens to a K-mount bellows. Where as people like myself think, "Well OK, I can work with that." Last edited by normhead; 09-02-2021 at 06:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What lenses should stay, which should go?	grimmy2016	Pentax K-r	14	07-18-2012 06:11 PM
Low-cost Sigma Lenses: Stay away? Or go ahead?	alstauffer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	11-05-2011 08:50 AM
Should they stay or should they go? Some of my lenses that is.	jboyde	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-30-2009 01:21 PM
Why does sunlight clear yellowed lenses?	germar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	06-09-2008 06:45 PM

09-01-2021, 09:05 AM - 2 Likes	#76
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pepperberry farm I disagree - I don't know what the old days were like, as I have no film background at all ... but I do know that I enjoy a huge number of film-era lenses here and now, without film... my point is that MF lenses can be amazing things on digital cameras... Some of us used to modify enlarger lenses to fit on our SLRs, just to see what effects they might produce, just for fun. Others don't even want to use any lenses that aren't modern and "up to date." (meaning big and expensive). It all depends on your definition of fun.

09-01-2021, 09:48 AM - 1 Like	#77
Grossy Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2021 Location: Rochester NY Photos: Albums Posts: 31 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead Some of us used to modify enlarger lenses to fit on our SLRs, just to see what effects they might produce, just for fun. Others don't even want to use any lenses that aren't modern and "up to date." (meaning big and expensive). It all depends on your definition of fun. funny you say that... I am toying with a similar idea. I happen to work at a company that makes lenses for measuring microchips and if I can get the clearance to get one of the old outdated ones I was going to put it on a linear bearing with a bellows and see what I could do with it. Odds are low of getting my hands on one but it's been a thought.

09-01-2021, 10:38 AM - 2 Likes	#79
AAlfano Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 147	Originally posted by riffraffselbow One I'd call out specifically to avoid is the 1980s Takumar 135/2.5 (and probably the entire line of 1980s bayonet Takumars, as Just1MoreDave pointed out, which were a budget range of non-SMC lenses). Despite that enticing aperture, the lens may as well be labeled a "Soft" lens at wide open, and it only really cleans up at like f/5.6, at which point it's a non-smc 135mm and surely you can do better with basically any new lens and most old ones. I concur. I had one of these and never got any satisfactory pictures out of it. (And I'm not really a stickler for sharpness, either.) ---------- Post added 09-01-21 at 10:47 AM ---------- Originally posted by Just1MoreDave SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2. This lens is not bad but again, it was made to be a cost-cutting lens and the price difference is not worth it. The coatings don't really look like SMC either. If you buy a lot of used stuff you might end up with one for free. There are lots of better or more interesting lenses at 50mm; you don't want to settle for this one. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy a SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2, but I sure would not avoid one either. I got one with my K1000 and I am frankly stunned at how sharp it is (at least at f/5.6 and f/8; it's plenty good enough at larger apertures). It may have been a cost-cutting lens but mine is 40+ years and still looks and works like the day it left the factory. I think this five-element lens has a bit more "3D pop" than the faster 50s with more elements. (Just my opinion.) There is NOTHING wrong with the 50mm f/2.

10-07-2021, 11:45 AM	#80
martin42mm Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 408	Originally posted by AAlfano I concur. I had one of these and never got any satisfactory pictures out of it. (And I'm not really a stickler for sharpness, either.) ---------- Post added 09-01-21 at 10:47 AM ---------- I probably wouldn't go out of my way to buy a SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2, but I sure would not avoid one either. I got one with my K1000 and I am frankly stunned at how sharp it is (at least at f/5.6 and f/8; it's plenty good enough at larger apertures). It may have been a cost-cutting lens but mine is 40+ years and still looks and works like the day it left the factory. I think this five-element lens has a bit more "3D pop" than the faster 50s with more elements. (Just my opinion.) There is NOTHING wrong with the 50mm f/2. Interesting comments about the k-mount 1980s Takumars. I had many of them back in the day, used with various Pentax K mount cameras, including the MX and LX. And without exception I found them sharp under almost all conditions. Granted all sharpened up when slightly stopped-down, but I have only ever considered the maximum aperture as a focussing aid with bright screen and minimal DOF. As an aside, I have a Tomioka-designed Yashica 55mm f1.2, but only under absolute 'get a shot or lose it' conditions did I shoot it wide open! These days most have gone because I cannot be bothered to adjust for the CA that many exhibit when used on digital, but I anticipate that if used with Pentax cameras incorporating shake-stabilisation, the numbers of reasons for shooting at maximum aperture would be vastly reduced. ( I don't discount the visual effects of shooting at shallow DOF as a reason to shoot wide-open, but that is another kettle of fish)

10-08-2021, 09:35 AM	#81
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395	I sold my 28-300 Sigma superzoom on ebay in mint condition, and mentioned in the advert that it's resolution was not great at any focal length, but would be fine for pictures in an album and the buyer was very pleased with it.