Pentax k1000 and sears jcpenny lenses. Who made the lenses?

[GaryFlorida]

Just got a pentax k1000 and 3 lenses. 2 are sears and the other is jcpenny. Purchase date April 1984. Who made these lenses for sears and jcpenny? Thanks

 

[Paul Howell]

Made in Japan or South Korea?

 

[GaryFlorida]

Made in Japan or South Korea?

It says made in Korea

 

[GaryFlorida]

Pic

 

[GaryFlorida]

Pic

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

South Korea is Samyang, most likely.

 

[GaryFlorida]

It doesnt specifically say South but im assuming nothing was made in north korea even in 1984

 

[Paul Howell]

South Korea is Samyang, most likely.

+1

 

[GaryFlorida]

Is samyang any good?

 

[Kino]

It was my experience, having purchased my first SLR in the mid 1970's, that these aftermarket lenses were of reasonable quality for casual snap shooters. Usually, the casual shooter was not going to pay market prices for the high quality prime and zoom lenses of major manufacturers, so these lenses were offered as an option to make entry into the photo hobby more affordable to all.

Some brands were better than the others, but not consistently. However, for the vast majority of casual shooters who sent out their film and got back small, machine printed paper prints, it was perfectly fine.

Some of the lower quality lenses earned the nickname "coke bottle lenses" by myself and a small group of friends, as they performed so poorly they seemed to be made from recycled coke bottle glass.

You can pretty much make the basic assumption that the older the aftermarket lens is, the lower the quality. IMHO, as the decades progressed, the lenses overall got better with some individual lenses performing very well for their price range.

Really, all you can do is both shoot with the lens and search out reviews online as to the specific lenses you have. Chances are, unless they are incredibly dirty or full of fungus, they will do an adequate job for small prints, but might be lacking in high resolution scans of negatives.

 

[MattKing]

Another issue to consider, besides the optical quality of lenses, is the mechanical quality of lenses.
I once had a Vivitar 35mm f/2 lens in OM mount that was good optically, but systematically started to fall apart.

 

[MFstooges]

Most of them are OK at f8 and smaller

 

[wiltw]

Another issue to consider, besides the optical quality of lenses, is the mechanical quality of lenses.
I once had a Vivitar 35mm f/2 lens in OM mount that was good optically, but systematically started to fall apart.

And Vivitar merely was a US brand of Ponder & Best Co. (founded in the late 1930's here in the US), which ditsributed lenses starting in the 1960's made by mostly Japanese lens manufacturers. Lenses were mostly made by Kino, Tokina, Komine, and Cosina. Their respected Series 1 line was designed by Vivitar and manufacturing subcontracted to quite a few different companies. P&B eventually started to design and (in a limited manner) manufacture lenses. as the Vivitar Co.
Unfortunately now the name is not as representative of the reputation it once had during its heyday.

 

[MarkS]

Many of the aftermarket lenses were capable of making high-quality images, IF you got a good example. One thing that makes top-quality lenses good (and more expensive) is the extra time and money spent on quality control.
And it's also true that the less-expensive lenses were not mechanically built as well as the name-brand lenses. Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Konica et al. were very proud of their optics and did their best to make the best.
Vivitars, Soligors, (your store-brand name here), were built to a price... just like some cameras were. Your lenses are certainly worth a try!

 

[Paul Howell]

Is samyang any good?

I have a 300 5.6 sold as Sears, K mount, made in Korea and a 135 2.8 also sold by Sears in K, both are good performs, best at F8 to 11, but useable wide and at F 16 or 22. Build quality is good, although I do shoot with either very often, both seem to holding up.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Is samyang any good?

Had multiple Samyang over the time (most of them a gift or came in a lot with other lenses/items). Most of them where good enough for casual use. Nothing to write home about but nothing too bad either. None of them felled apart on me but nothing stellar about them. Like mentioned, step them f8 and lower for best results.

I remember the Samyang 500mm mirror was quite good on its time.

Probably what I want to say is that I won't throw them away but not look for them on ebay either.

 

[Paul Howell]

Looking at the Pentax Forum lens database along with few others, user reviewer give Sears K and M42 quite good reviews. Not sure when Sears move from Japan to Korea mades lens.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

It was my experience, having purchased my first SLR in the mid 1970's, that these aftermarket lenses were of reasonable quality for casual snap shooters. Usually, the casual shooter was not going to pay market prices for the high quality prime and zoom lenses of major manufacturers, so these lenses were offered as an option to make entry into the photo hobby more affordable to all.

Some brands were better than the others, but not consistently. However, for the vast majority of casual shooters who sent out their film and got back small, machine printed paper prints, it was perfectly fine.

Some of the lower quality lenses earned the nickname "coke bottle lenses" by myself and a small group of friends, as they performed so poorly they seemed to be made from recycled coke bottle glass.

You can pretty much make the basic assumption that the older the aftermarket lens is, the lower the quality. IMHO, as the decades progressed, the lenses overall got better with some individual lenses performing very well for their price range.

Really, all you can do is both shoot with the lens and search out reviews online as to the specific lenses you have. Chances are, unless they are incredibly dirty or full of fungus, they will do an adequate job for small prints, but might be lacking in high resolution scans of negatives.

One thing to keep in mind is the time context. At the time, film photography was the only kind of photography that existed (no phone or digital cameras) so these lenses were used for memories, selfies, etc. where people cared about the memory being captured, not about bokeh, extreme sharpness, etc., so this lenses where perfectly fine for that. Not pro lenses but something for common photography.