Are Promaster SLR lenses any good?

[chip j]

Such as the 200mm 3.3?

 

[albada]

It seems that there were three tiers of lenses back in the day:
Tier 1: Lenses from camera manufacturers. These were generally the best (and costliest);
Tier 2: Major off-brands such as Vivitar, Tokina, and Tamron. Lower quality with exceptions, and lower price.
Tier 3: Minor off-brands such as Promaster, Focal (Kmart), Quansomething (Ritz?), and many others. Lowest price, and unpredictable quality.
So for your 200/3.5 lens: It's a gamble. Prime lenses are generally sharper, so it might be good. Give it a try, but I don't suggest paying over US$5 for it. Non-OEM lenses are worth little these days.

Mark Overton

 

[Paul Howell]

For what mount, AF or MF? Later AF Promatser lens were for the most part rebranded Sigma or Tamron, early MF lens could any of a number makers, the only 200 3.3 MF lens that comes to mind was made by Chinon and sold under a variety of labels, ok lens, I would not pay more than $30.

 

[chip j]

I paid $20 for a Nikon AI one, mainly because my 200mm 4.0 nikkor ai is so shoddily built.

 

[Paul Howell]

Only a guess, not many 200 3.3 out there, more common was 2.8 or 3.5., so likely a re-branded Chinon, my limited experience with Chinon has been positive, good build quality, ought to be fine stopped down. The same lens was sold in M42 and K mount as Sears.