Quantaray Lens

[ronwhit]

Yesterday at a photo show, I purchased a Quantaray AF 19 - 35 mm 3.5/4.5 zoom lens (insert laughter and howls of derision here) for the princely sum of $5.00. This Canon EF mount lens appeared to be cosmetically excellent or better, and so I took a chance in purchasing it, figuring at the very least I could take it apart and learn something of lens assembly. To my pleasant surprise, both the AF and MF work fine, and it appears to "talk to" my EOS 650 in all modes. Both zoom and focus are tight, and I will be testing it soon to see how it behaves optically. In the meantime, an internet search reveals little but the "fact" that the lens was likely made by Sigma, or possibly Tokina, and not to expect stellar performance or long-lived mechanicals. Real test data seems to be lacking. So, would any of you fine folks actually admit to owning this or a similar lens, and would you share your experience with it? Thanks, ronwhit

 

[narsuitus]

So, would any of you fine folks actually admit to owning this or a similar lens...

No, but I would admit to owning Sigma and Tokina.

 

[RattyMouse]

So, would any of you fine folks actually admit to owning this or a similar lens, and would you share your experience with it? Thanks, ronwhit

I would never, ever admit to owning a Quantary. I would, however, place the lens in front of my car and crush it into tiny pieces. That would be fun.

 

[chip j]

I have a 19-35 Phoenix AF, same thing. It's got GOOD glass!

 

[Paul Howell]

Looks to be Tokina, the Phoenix Forum rated the same lens In KAF2 as 8.27 with 15 reviews and guessmated cost in good condition at $129.



Tokina AF 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (193)
Sharpness
8.7
Aberrations
8.0
Bokeh
7.5
Handling
8.7
Value
8.5
Reviews Views Date of last review
15 26,376 Sun September 21, 2014

Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
100% of reviewers $128.93 8.27


Read more at: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-af-19-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-193.html#ixzz44sToJs2e

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For $5, it's hard to lose. You can be the pioneer for us: use the lens in real-world situations (not test charts or brick walls (*)) and show us how it performs. Let us know how well it withstands normal use.

The only non-manufacturer lens I have is a Tokina ATX 35-200 in Canon FD mount; it's decent.

(*) unless photographing brick walls is the theme (this was done once on dpreview and was quite artistic actually).

 

[Kirks518]

I have found that when you get into the wider wides of off-brand/store-brand lenses (Quantaray was Wolf's Camera's store brand IIRC), they're made by the better 3rd party lens manufacturers. The Q name has a horrible (and rightly deserved) stigma that goes along with it, and because of that, the name snobs won't even look at it, which is great for you - $5 for an ultra wide, how could you go wrong?

When I was getting back into photography, I went digital Canon. I bought some L glass, and others, and then I read about the Promaster 28-70mm f/2.8 lens. Well, I already had the Canon L 28-70, but for $200 I figured I'd give the Promaster a try. I did a comparison test between the 2 lenses; same subject, same controlled lighting, tethered the camera and zoomed in 10x before each shot to ensure focus, and shot the same shot at every f/stop at all marked focal lengths on the lens. Side-by-side, zoomed in to 100%, there was no difference. Zero. Nil. Nada. Long story short, I sold the L, and bought some more glass with the money from it. The Promaster was made by Tamron, and I've been using it ever since.

There are diamonds that are labeled as turds out there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Optics are all about glass. Nothing beats a good piece of glass. If the glass does not have what it needs, the best photographer in the World will be handicapped by the optics. Get the best glass you can afford so that if the photographs fail, you only have to look in the mirror to see the problem. That should be the starting point.

 

[lxdude]

Quantaray was Wolf's Camera's store brand IIRC

I recall it as being a Ritz brand.

 

[MattKing]

Quantaray was Wolf's Camera's store brand

I recall it as being Ritz brand

And I recall it as being a (US) Kits Camera brand.

I think that all three were related at one time or another.

 

[craigclu]

I had a Quantaray 24mm ƒ2.8 (probably late 1970's) and though the brand wasn't one to command respect, I always was very impressed with the results. A camera club review had us doing some resolution testing at the time and it was at the top of the charts of the wide angles we ran through the wringer, validating my good feelings about it. I imagine there would be a great amount of sample to sample variance on value point production at this price point so I wouldn't paint with too wide a brush, though!!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Can ya really tell if a great photo was made through a bargain lens?

 

[MattKing]

Can ya really tell if a great photo was made through a bargain lens?

In my experience, "bargain" lenses most often show their lower cost in their build quality and durability.

The lens that doesn't mount properly, or set its aperture properly or hold focus once set is more likely to get in the way of that great photo, than aid in its creation.

 

[BMbikerider]

That lens was also marketed in UK under the Cosinon and Vivitar banner. As Cosinon have had their fingers in the lens manufacturing pies for quite a while I would recon that it is one of theirs. It most certainly isn't a Tokina!

I have used a Vivitar version and it wasn't at all bad if you stopped down a couple of apertures to say F5.6. For it's price it was worth it.

 

[HiHoSilver]

I really take no issue w/ caution in the bargain barrels. Mid 80's a local chain store told me the cheap ($99) Quantaray was sharper than the $400+ Nikkor in the 70-200 zoom I was looking for. At that time, you could buy 12 exp rolls of film. I took 6 frames w/ the Quantaray, 6 w/ the Nikkor. The Quantaray was sharper. I bought it. Now, I think Matt's comment about build quality is correct, so I started using the Quantaray again w/ some trepidation. When it needs repair, I expect the chances of cost effective repair will be about zero - it will have to be replaced. For now its at least as good at capturing as I am. For ref. this image has some crop from a 35mm. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[chip j]

Cheap optical glass will give no brilliance to your negs & slides. I used 2 Vivitar T4 lenses in the early 70's and the only way they will print is on matt paper--glossy (RC or FB) reveals their optical deficiency! And they were "highly rated" by Modern Photography!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cheap optical glass will give no brilliance to your negs & slides. I used 2 Vivitar T4 lenses in the early 70's and the only way they will print is on matt paper--glossy (RC or FB) reveals their optical deficiency! And they were "highly rated" by Modern Photography!!

Ditto. The pre-Series I Vivatar zoom lens never had the contrast nor the sharpness of the Minolta lenses that I had. Very disappointing.

 

[narsuitus]

Can ya really tell if a great photo was made through a bargain lens?

Conversely, can you really tell if a bad photo was made through a high-priced lens?

 

[f8&bthere]

And I recall it as being a (US) Kits Camera brand.

I think that all three were related at one time or another.

Quantaray was a trademark of Ray Enterprises LLC [the holding company for Ritz Camera Centers, Inc.] and served as the Ritz house brand going back to the 60's.

Quantaray was very much like Promaster, essentially just a marketing company with an extensive line of branded accessories but which actually made nothing. Quantaray, like Promaster, would send out RFPs every quarter, bi-annually, yearly, etc. to various OEMs asking them to submit bids to supply Ray/Ritz/Quantaray with re-branded or excess capacity versions of their lenses, filters, flashes, etc.

If Ritz sent out an RFP for a 28-80 f/3.5 in N,C,M, and PK mounts and Tokina's bid was the cheapest then Quantaray's 28-80 f/3.5 would be a re-branded Tokina. It was often the case that when a particular contract was fulfilled, a new bid would be sent out and another OEM would submit a lower price, thus that lens would now be a re-branded Kiron, Tamron, Sigma, etc.

It was pretty easy to tell who actually made a given lens as in order to lower costs the only things that Ritz had changed from the OEM design was the chapter ring and the rubber grips.

OEM suppliers for Quantaray filters for example varied mostly between Hoya and Tiffen. Various Quantaray flashes were made by Sunpak, Vivitar [Panasonic], etc.

Of course when Ritz bought Kits and then Wolf's, Quantaray-branded products were inserted into their inventories as well.

Whether or not a particular Quantaray lens was any good was dependent upon the quality of the OEM lens itself, not the Quantaray name brand. A few Quantaray lenses were excellent, some were good-to-very good, and many were crap - but not because they were "Quantaray", rather because the underlying Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, or Kiron lens was crap.

The Quantaray AF 70-210 f/2.8 of the early-to-mid 90's for example [a re-branded Sigma] was a very good lens and a smoking deal considering the lower price and the 5-Year Ritz warranty. The ubiquitous AF 35-70 f/3.5 "kit lens" of the same period however - also a Sigma - was complete crap.

 

[f8&bthere]

Wolf and Ritz were back-and-forth on who carried what.

Incorrect.

Quantaray was always a Ritz brand. It wasn't sold in Wolf stores [or Kits, Inkley's etc.] until after Ritz had acquired them.

As I understood it, this was 2 brothers-in-law in competition with each other.

Incorrect.

Ritz was founded in the early 1900's by Ben Ritz. When Ben retired/passed away, the business was run by his brother Ed and later, through both bankruptcies, by Ed's son David.

Wolf Camera was founded by Chuck Wolf in the late 1970's. David and Chuck were first cousins.

Ritz Camera acquired Wolf Camera in the early 2000s.

Quantaray and Pro could be found in either.

Incorrect.

Wolf Camera did not carry Quantaray until after they had been acquired by Ritz, by which time they were they same company in all but name only.

Before they were acquired by Ritz, Wolf carried Promaster as their "house brand".

Promaster was a marketing consortium for independent photo retailers, selling re-branded lenses, flashes, filters, tripods, memory cards, and many other accessories. Any independent photo retailer [including smaller chains] could "join" the Promaster consortium in order to be able to buy lenses and other accessories in both lower volume and at lower prices than they otherwise could get directly from Sigma, Tamron, Hoya, Sunpak, Vivitar, Slik, etc.

 

[f8&bthere]

Edited to remove bickering.

 

[f8&bthere]

Edited to remove bickering.

 

[MattKing]

Kits Cameras themselves were started in Kitsilano, in Vancouver, BC Canada. The original (I think) owner was Norm Babbs, who was a neighbour.

I believe that they expanded into Washington state, and then eventually became part of the Ritz/Wolf organizations.

 

[ronwhit]

OP here... Thank you all for your replies which both answered my original questions, and provided some insight as to what to expect from this lens - thanks especially to Mr. Paul Howell. I took some shots today at a local old house tour, and the lens/camera combo worked fine. For a $5.00 investment, I'll simply enjoy this toy, and don't plan on doing any extensive, "brick wall/newspaper" test shots, nor will I run over it with my car and crush it into tiny little pieces. (Why would anyone do that?) It may also help me to graduate from being a bit of an equipment name snob. Thanks...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Optics are all about glass. Nothing beats a good piece of glass. If the glass does not have what it needs, the best photographer in the World will be handicapped by the optics. Get the best glass you can afford so that if the photographs fail, you only have to look in the mirror to see the problem. That should be the starting point.

+1 I always find the culprit in the mirror.