Cheep Zooms

[casualcollector]

1980s era manual focus zooms can be a bit of a crap shoot, quality wise. There were a bunch of different 80ish to 200ish f/4.5ish zooms sold for around $100 US at catalog stores and mass merchandisers. Trying to determine the origin of them can be nearly impossible. My sister gave me hers while I was visiting over Christmas. This one is labeled Albinar ADG 80-200 f/3.9. Made in Korea and takes a 55mm filter. Don't imagine there were too many Korean zoom makers!

This shot tells me that it's not terrible in favorable lighting. Then again, the contrasty late afternoon light may be masking a lack of sharpness.



Handheld exposure on Kodak 200. About 1/500 at f/5.6 - 8. Canon EF.

This next lens has earned a little respect. It's a Promaster 28-70 f/3.9-4.8. This lens was probably still current when I bought it used on E-bay for $75 in 2001. I'd seen the same lens a year earlier in Singapore, badged as Koboron made in Japan by Kobori Optical Co. Would have bought it there but couldn't find one in Canon mount! I wanted something smaller, lighter and wider than my 35-70 f/2.8-3.5 SSC Canon.



Same film and camera as above. 1/250 @ f/8.

The jury is still out on the Albinar. There's another photo from it posted in Trains, Planes & Autos. The Promaster produces satifactory results. Considering the price paid... not bad.

Bill

[Just Plain Curt]

Hi Bill,
Like yourself I've had various results from cheapo zooms. Since I've thrown collecting caution to the wind in the last couple of years, I have accumulated zooms for most every brand camera. Some no names that spring to mind: Braun-flat contrast and ho hum color rendition, Wolfpro, Magnicon, Makinon, Focal, Sears, Komura (save your cash here, I have 3 Komura lenses and all are not good),Formula 5, Five Star, Rokinon, Rokunar, Image, Albinar, Ultranar, Underground, Pro Spec, Star D, Osawa, Sun, Panagor, as well as Vivitar/Soligor/Sigma/Tamron. While the latter 4 usually give decent results, the rest can be a crap shoot.

[kiev4a]

I've never found a Kiron lens that wasn't decent--they made a lot of lenses for Vivitar including the 35-85 2.8 Series 1 lens which is outstanding. I just got a used Promaster 28-105 AF zoom to use on my Nikon digital and have been pleased with it. It's much better built than the current "plastic fantastic" entry level Nikkors.

[casualcollector]

Weird,
I've accumulated a few, also. I had a Kiron 80-200/4 that I thought was excellent, but grease kept finding its way to the front element. I sold it in a weak moment for $40. I currently use a Tokina 70-210/3.5 which may be a thinly disguised 2nd version Vivitar Series One. It seems very good, optically. The zoom/focus motion is a bit loose and infinity focus is off a bit. I just bid on an 80-210/4.5 Komura (too late!). It received good reviews from Modern Photography when it was introduced and I bought one on the strength of the review. I don't really recall its optical properties as I traded it away for a Canon zoom shortly after. It will be interesting to revisit it. I had a pair of T.O.U.-Five Star zooms to practice assembly and aperture cleaning. I got some less than good pictures from one and don't have a working Minolta to test the other. My rule of thumb is to look for a manufacturer's name on a lens, not a distributor's. Tokina, Kiron and Tamron are usually good. I'm told Sigma can be a crapshoot. Others are probably forgettable unless an importer is holding their feet to the fire in the Q.A. dept. That means there probably are some good Cosina, Kobori and Cima made lenses. Knowing the good ones is the tough part!

Wayne,
I have a soft spot for Kiron's also. My experience with them has run warm and cool, though. I'll have to learn what they used to grease their helicals with and avoid it! Of course it may have been less than ideal use and storage conditions on my part.
Those plastic fantastic Nikkors may well come from the same manufacturer as the Promaster! I've read a good bit of anecdotal evidence on the web that says the big names have been farming out a fair amount of production

[kiev4a]

The modern Promaster allegedly is made by Tamron and Quantrays by Sigma but who knows. The lower end Nikkor AF "kit" zooms seem to produce decent images but when you zoom it's plastic rubbing against plastic.

I have the Kiron 80-200 f4 macro zoom with the zoom lock. Like all Kiron stuff it's heavy--you can almost always identify a Kiron even when it has another name on it just by the build.

In their day a lot of the Kirons rivaled the zooms of the camera manufactures in build and optics. That also was their downfall. Kirons cost nearly as much as the brand name lenses so buyers usually went with the name brand.

I also like Tokina but the lower ends of their current lens lines don't have great reputations. Tamron has some of the same problems.

[Peter S.]

Hi Casualcollector,

I heared rumors, that there were quite a few good Panagor lenses. E.g. a pretty
decent 2.5/200 telephoto. I would however avoid all zooms from the manual focus
era. Except the know-good ones.

But in reality... for me it is like this: last time I used a zoom? Can't remember.
Half a year and some dozens of film ago... but this started OT and leads to...
er, should go back to work.

Peter (S.)

[kiev4a]

Zooms tend to be more important on digital SLRs because when you change lenses you run the risk of getting dust on the sensor (the Achilles Heel of digitals). One of the reasons you see 18-200mm zooms for digitals--basically tuning the camera into an expensive point and shoot.

[Just Plain Curt]

I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea here. Some cheap zooms can be very good, others not so good. I generally don't count Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Vivitar (especially Series 1), Soligor (C/D), Kiron, etc. among the el cheapo varieties. I call them aftermarket zooms, brands like Image, Montgomery Wards, Focal (Kmart) etc. being mainly importers as you say so you can never be sure who made them under the current contract. Promaster as far as I know is Tamron but I only buy the old metal bodied versions. I have one plastic Tamron and it feels as flimsy as the two Hanimex 135's I had that literally fell apart as I used them. For Korean made lenses, the only ones I know of for sure are Osawa and Kaligar. I have none of either so can't judge one way or another. For years my main two lenses in PK mount for racing photos were a 35-70 Five Star/Rokinon (bought in a store as a Rokinon, came with a Five Star cap) and a Makinon 80-200. The Makinon left a ho hum taste in my pictures but the Rokinon was actually quite good at least in colour tones/warmth and clarity. You don't always get what you pay for, but generally the bigger names are as you've all stated the better value. And then of course there's the manufacturer's brand zooms but that's a story for another day.

[John Parry]

Sigma are good - but the newer the better. I had an 'incident' where I left the skylight of my 'weekday accomodation' open during one of our gales (like a southern states hurricane, only cold!). All my Hanimex lenses are struggling now - the brass power contacts tend to seize. I'm sorry to say my 'pride & joy' Pentacon 300/4 'beast' developed a touch of fungus after that, but all the other manufacturers lenses survived the trauma!

Regards - John

[doubs43]

I own two zooms for my Pentax *ist-DS DSLR that I use frequently and a couple of Zuiko models (35~70 & 75~150) for my OM cameras. Otherwise I'm very reluctant to own a zoom. I own more than the four I mention but really don't know how many as they've come to me in package deals and I set them aside. To me, they're orphans that I don't care to have. My major objections include size and generally mediocre optical performance.

I often pass on otherwise appealing package deals because the extra lenses almost always turn out to be zooms. The additional lenses frequently cause the price to go higher than it should and I don't care to pay extra for a lens I have no interest in owning.

The two zooms I use on my *ist-DS are both Sigma and, as John observed, they are very good. Both are roughly a 12~18 months old now. The 18~50mm Sigma is relatively compact but the 15~30mm is huge. Both are auto-focus. Optically, they are more than satisfactory.

Zooms do serve a purpose for many people and I don't want anyone to take my comments as a general condemnation of them. My general distaste is for the older models and while I may be cranky in my old age, it is my preference to use prime lenses. As always, it's a matter of personal choice.

Walker

[John Parry]

Walker,

In general you are right. Axiomatic - primes are better than zooms. Just two points. My Yashica AF 35/105 is better than the original 50mm prime that came with the camera. And the second point is that the zooms are so handy - set the zoom and take the shot. You sacrifice light, definitely, and there have been occasions where I've made a great potential into a poor shot because I only had a zoom available. You can only carry so much!

Regards - John