Inconcistency with Pentax lenses

<p>I'm finding wide inconsistencies with Pentax lenses which makes it extremely difficult to choose a lens. Some lenses are marked with a green band, others with a red band others with a gold band, others with a gold band and star, some with WR, some with DA some not. You really have to strain your peepers to find out what you're getting. <br>

With Nikon and Canon you usually get what you pay for. Sometimes you get lucky with a consumer lens like the Canon 50mm f1.8 that acts like an L-series lens, but in most cases you get what you pay for. There is a strong delineation between what is consumer, prosumer, pro.<br>

With Pentax however you're not sure what you are getting unless you spend hours and hours scouring the online reviews and even then, its a toss of the dice. Their lens line up is not organized in any meaningful way. Some lenses are over priced but are considered duds by most professional reviewers, however users swear by them ? Some lenses are "limited" what is that suppose to mean ? Pentax has been around for at least 70 years why are they putting out limited lenses ? Some users complain about $500 lenses that produce outrageous vignetting and soft-corners, while other users give the same lens 5 stars and rave about it, I mean what is going on ? <br>

I love their cameras and just recently purchased a K5 IIs, but its becoming obvious that lenses is not one of Pentax strong points. I even went as far as considering a Tamron or Sigma lens, but that would defeat the whole purpose of having a weather resistant camera. <br>

</p>

 

<p>This<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Lenses">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Lenses</a><br>

says it better than I could. What are "limited" lenses? Theoretically limited-run high-quality - in practice, it may be that, like some people's limited print runs, production is "limited" to the number they can sell. I had a SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited, it was very good - I also bought a couple of older AF zooms which were very poor and were returned to the dealer.</p>

<p>Could it be you're sampling a very small inventory and market for Pentax lenses in comparison to the huge selection and market of Canon/Nikon lenses which will likely produce more hits than misses due to a larger user base?</p>

<p>Also can you show image quality examples of Canon/Nikon lenses that distinguish between consumer, prosumer and pro versions?</p>

<p>I'm confused by which metric you're using to base your opinion on whether what you're seeing is inconsistencies in manufacturing tolerances in image and build quality within the same lens model which pretty much applies to any lens brand from all the "Why do I get soft focus on my Canon/Nikon $xxxx lens?" PN forum postings or if you just think Pentax makes inferior lenses in general based on a small group of folks who post about them online.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love their cameras and just recently purchased a K5 IIs, but its becoming obvious that lenses is not one of Pentax strong points.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every brand has idiosyncrasies in their lens lineup. And you should always buy into a system based on what lenses it makes available to you. Sounds like you are climbing the learning curve at the usual pace.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some lenses are over priced but are considered duds by most professional reviewers, however users swear by them ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll find such examples for all brands.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some users complain about $500 lenses that produce outrageous vignetting and soft-corners, while other users give the same lens 5 stars and rave about it, I mean what is going on ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some people think $500 lenses are high end equipment when that just tends to be the starting price point for decent equipment. And some people think that vignetting or soft corners is a big deal, while others find those aspects irrelevant for their use. What is going on is that people with varied levels of experience and requirements all express their opinions. And you will have to figure out how to sort all that information out - there's no easy method, I'm afraid. If you think another brand simplifies the problem, try it out - it might, but only you can figure it out and it's expensive trying them all out without knowing what you are looking for.</p>

<p>Ah, this one sounds like a good starter lens PENTAX DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR and it's compact and outrageously cheap !</p>

<p>The Pentax forum site has a decent lens rating database, except when there are only a few rates on a lens. http://www.pentaxforums.com<br>

A few years back the * lenses were legendary. They still keep up even without the coatings for the digital sensor. Most SMC primes are fine lenses for most shooters...<br>

With all that said, the current lens lineup has gaps that need attention.</p>

Thanks Antoni this helps !

<p>Antoni, could you define what you mean by gaps that need attention?</p>

<p>Can someone in this thread provide substantive information on what makes a lens bad or good that would need attention or creates images that aren't on a pro level? What does professional results look like that is influenced by lens quality?</p>

<p>"<em>What does professional results look like that is influenced by lens quality?"</em></p>

<p>Sometimes its the 'placebo' effect after you just spent a lot of money...<br>

I would say the difference between professional and non-professional is the overall sharpness , resolution, color rendition under all apertures, focal lengths(if its a zoom) and atmospheric/lighting conditions.</p>

<p>I have been looking at the 50-135 f/2.8 for about 8 months now. It's just under $1400. I like taking portraits and a 2.8 zoom is what I need. I'm happy that it's not $1000 more like a Canon or Nikon 70-200 zoom. BUT I have been reading about SDM failure on this lens all over the place. It slowed down after 2012 when supposedly it had been fixed for a year. Maybe I could take a chance down the road - there's no way to tell which are the faulty ones unless one is privy to when the "safe" serial numbers begin. S o I'll wait until old inventory clears out. Maybe someone from B&H or Adorama could divulge that.<br>

Maybe a Canikon user can deal with a $1400 oops but this is a very big purchase for me. Reliability, consistency and quality are what make lenses worth the money we pay for them. Purchasing a lens should not be a gamble on this basic a level as focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>S o I'll wait until old inventory clears out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Howard, why don't you rent one a few times per year. That way you'll be able to schedule its use, and let the rental firm hold the risk of equipment failure. Or purchase one and grab an extended warranty. There is risk with every lens purchase, but time marches on as well.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Purchasing a lens should not be a gamble on this basic a level as focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always wondered why $1000+ lenses come in unsealed boxes whereas my $7 microfiber was shipped in a sealed package.</p>

<p>Here is a huge inconsistency <strong>vast</strong> SDM(internal AF lens motor) failures reported especially with the 16-50mm and the 50-135mm Zooms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here is a huge inconsistency <strong>vast</strong> SDM(internal AF lens motor) failures reported</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. I had a supportive retail vendor tell me that Pentax had informed him of an informal recall of unsold SDM-driven lenses. They needed to repair faulty component(s). That was six months ago. I don't use Pentax equipment anymore (besides the Q), so the relevance to me was nil, but I feel for everyone. It's not like ultrasonic motors are new-fangled or anything (my Canon 100-400mm L lens design was released in 1998) so it's worrisome that Pentax cannot get that part right.</p>

<p>That said, I had owned two DA* 50-135mm lenses at various periods and both performed excellently. I would not hesitate to purchase another if I needed to.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here is a huge inconsistency <strong>vast</strong> SDM(internal AF lens motor) failures reported especially with the 16-50mm and the 50-135mm Zooms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the inconsistency though? Aren't the failures reported consistently? :)<br>

<br>

If you do your research on Pentax, you'll find out all the problems with their products. The same goes for any other brand. The SDM issue is rather unpleasant, but it is also well documented and if you would have researched the Pentax system starting with the lenses instead of the camera body, you would have found out about this issue very fast.<br>

<br>

What Ricoh/Pentax offers these days is a DSLR system focused around an APS-C sensor and having more APS-C prime lenses than Nikon or Canon. They also offer a very good in-body image stabilization system, which again is not available from the competition. The bodies are well featured, because there is no higher end FF body for which to keep features in reserve. The lens optical quality ranges from mediocre to exceptional, as for any other manufacturer. I have never relied on their autofocus, but it seems to be fairly reliable as long as you're not trying to track moving subjects. You need to watch out for that SDM issue, but that's about it. And Ricoh seems to want to update all old lenses, so watch out for that - you might be able to pick the older ones for a discount if the newer ones are launched. That's what Pentax offers these days.</p>

<p>The thing that impressed me most about Pentax cameras is that they offered 'Real" features that were important to me as opposed to meaningless, or frequently used features. Real in-camera HDR, real double exposure, real weather sealing, Real quiet shutter and of course the price. After viewing pictures of some of their f2.8 lenses with SDM, I think I would be better off with the Kit lens (18-135mm/18-55mm) and some primes, rather than role the dice and wind up with a dud. <strong>Real compact</strong> was another reason I purchased the camera, so why pair it with a huge and heavy lens that may have issues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Real in-camera HDR, real double exposure, real weather sealing, Real quiet shutter and of course the price.<br>

<strong>Real compact</strong> was another reason I purchased the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can also get all those features from Olympus E-M1. And they're not really that necessary either:</p>

<ul>

<li>HDR - yes, it's neat - never used it in either Pentax or Olympus</li>

<li>double exposure - played with it a few times on Pentax, never did anything serious with it</li>

<li>weather sealing - used this maybe three times for rain but didn't get any amazing results either - outcast rainy weather is not fueling my inspiration</li>

<li>shutter - I mainly like it when I'm next to a Canon/Nikon camera, but other than that it doesn't really matter. There are many cameras with quiet shutters these days and some are way more quiet than a DSLR (GX7, for example)</li>

<li>price - I guess you might have got a good discount from the initial price, but the original price of this camera was not distinguishing it from others</li>

<li>real compact - not as compact these days with competition from several mirrorless systems</li>

</ul>

<p>The unique aspect of Pentax today is: APS-C DSLR.</p>

<p>I don't understand why the OP complains about inconsistency. The green ringed lenses are the consumer lenses, made to give good results at a decent price. The gold lenses are higher priced lenses that give excellent results, but at a price. The red ringed lenses are the result of Ricoh's idiotic decision to make the Pentax lenses look like Canon...<br /> <br /> The OP mentions consumer lenses that are as good as L-series lenses - how inconsistent is that? With Pentax, at least the letters that are part of the model number are meaningful. I dont know what the L of Canon's L-series actually stands for.<br /> <br /> FA = optimised for film cameras. Implication: full-frame, but take care when using on digital.<br>

D FA = suitable for digital and film cameras. Implication: full-frame, too.<br>

DA = optimised for digital. Implication: APS-C only (but some do work ok on FF).<br>

DA* = as DA but of much higher quality. Sorry, they have a gold ring .<br>

DA Limited = NOT signed copies of a lens from a smaller production run. With Pentax it means hand-assembled, high quality, with a smaller aperture but also much smaller and lighter than the norm for the focal length.<br /> <br /> The fact of the matter is that if you want to make an informed decision, you have to seek information. No lens can be labelled with all the information on its barrel, so it is necessary to do research.</p>

<p>The thing that impressed me most about Pentax cameras is that they offered 'Real" features that were important to me as opposed to meaningless, or frequently used features. Real in-camera HDR, real double exposure, real weather sealing, Real quiet shutter and of course the price. After viewing pictures of some of their f2.8 lenses with SDM, I think I would be better off with the Kit lens (18-135mm/18-55mm) and some primes, rather than role the dice and wind up with a dud. <strong>Real compact</strong> was another reason I purchased the camera, so why pair it with a huge and heavy lens that may have issues.<br>

Harry, in the real world the 18-135 is a decent lens and all of the DA Limiteds are very good.</p>