Who --wouldn't-- take free glass?

[480sparky]

Had a little free time yesterday and was near the local brick-n-mortar camera store, so I stopped in to buy a couple little things.

Turns out, they were cleaning up their "Old, Used and Ancient" corner. You know, the old 'dinosaur' stuff nobody wants any more. There was a large box of old, oddball lenses they had posted on their facebook page. They wanted to clear all this old stuff out, and were either tossing it, donating it or just plain giving it away. And the lenses were part of the "come take what you want out of this box" offer.

Since I knew there were three Nikon F-mount lenses in there, I dove right in. And by pure luck, I was one of the first 3 people to dig into said box of toys.

So by pure happenstance, I ended up walking out with three old-school zoom lenses.......... for free.

Left to right, they are:
RMC Tokina 80-200 f/4 "Close Focus"
Soligor MC 70-210 f/4.5
Super Cosina 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 Macro.

All three have very clean barrels, considering they were all just tossed into a box. And the glass on them is exceptionally clean as well. This is the same box I got my Sigma MiniWide II 28/2.8 a while back for the princely sum of $10.

Later today, I'll take them into the back yard for some test drives. I'm not expecting anything fantastic (save possibly for the Cosina).
I'll probably keep just one of them, and donate the other two to a worthy cause.

If anyone here has any insight to any of them, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sparky, it must really suck to be you, but someone has to do the heavy lifting.

Sign me green with envy.

 

[480sparky]

So far, some quick-n-dirty tests show they're pretty much on par with each other.

As expected, crisp and clear in the centers, with softness and CA increasing as I get to the corners. And softness increasing with focal length as well. This is expected.

But all 3 are surprisingly sharp, considering their age.

 

[chip j]

Unless the "RMC" on the Tokina is marked in GREEN, it is junk glass.

 

[BrianShaw]

Unless the "RMC" on the Tokina is marked in GREEN, it is junk glass.

Even if...

I bought one new in the 1980s and always found it to be a marginal performing lens at best. But for free I'd say that the OP got a great deal and should have fun experimenting with them

 

[Dan Fromm]

Nothing personal, but they're functionally equivalent and not what I use.

If I'd had your opportunity -- it was a good one -- I'd have left the lenses in the box and hoped that they'd make someone else happy.

 

[480sparky]

Nothing personal, but they're functionally equivalent and not what I use.

If I'd had your opportunity -- it was a good one -- I'd have left the lenses in the box and hoped that they'd make someone else happy.

All but one ARE going to someone else.

 

[winger]

I have some junky lenses, too, but I keep them because sometimes I just don't want a good one with me. There are situations where the quality of the shot is superceded by simply getting the shot. And those tend to be the times when I don't want to risk my better glass (or likely a good camera, either).
So, yeah! Go for it when you can get free lenses like this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Free is good, even at twice the price!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

some quick-n-dirty tests

I wonder what these tests were.

If you or someone else think they are all junk, I'll happily take them from your hands so you can get your conscience in peace.

I'm poor and unemployed and I can't afford to buy the lenses I want.
Even these 3rd party lenses go for a bit on Ebay in the UK.
So, they are worth something for someone.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I wouldn't use them as is, but I wouldn't throw them away either. You can make loupes out of the front groups if you take them apart. Often the barrel will be the right distance so you can just set the "loupe" on the neg and see the whole thing with both eyes open. The rear group of the lens of that type usually makes quite a good high magnification loupe for checking negs or focusing a view camera. So in other words what you probably have there is the functional equivalent of a $1000 worth of loupes. Just my 2¢ since I wouldn't use those to take pictures. The lenses might have been free, but film isn't.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Weirdly I actually find myself cleaning, testing, and then carefully storing 3rd party zooms which turn up in a collection of gear.

Why? Well, they might not be wonderful but I absolutely refuse to throw functional hardware away. Plus they're a reminder of an area of the industry which has pretty much ceased to exist. The only lenses available new for SLRs are either OEM or one of the big 3rd parties like Sigma or Tamron, with the possible exception of the likes of Samyang. The market for cheap lenses has been obliterated by compacts and to a large extent camera phones.

 

[snapguy]

Old Elv

I took some photographs of Elvis Presley about 40 years ago with my Nikon F and an "after market zoom lens" and the photos, blown up to 11x14 inches, are still selling. Don't pay too much attention to knee jerk gear snobs. Test the darn things yourself.

 

[480sparky]

Old stuff like this still has perfectly good use.

Let's say I'm going to a family get-together. Picnic at the park, nice sunny day. I'm gonna shoot small low-res jpegs because everything I shoot will simply be emailed and posted on FaceSpace and MyBook pages by everyone. Who cares about resolution, or vignetting, or distortion, or color rendering, or sharpness, or chromatic abberation?

Hmmmm. Do I pull out the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII? Or will this little Cosina perform the task?



Hmmmmmmmmmm. A honking, 54-oz 8"-long bohemoth known for it's legendary sharpness, or a simple, nimble 18-oz, 4" unobtrusive lens.


Hmmmmm. Gee, that's a toughie. Lug around a lens that after a couple hours will cause my back to ache, or something light and simple I can carry all day long? After all, 800 pixels on the long end is the largest anyone will be need the images to be. I ain't shooting for the cover of SI or NG, fer cyin' out loud.


What to do? Oh, what to do?


Nikkor = worry about Uncle Fred spilling his beer on it, or Cousin Eddie dropping his egg salad on it. Cosina = who cares? It was free!













Or, should I drop a dime for a Ziess Otus, just for the status? With that, everyone in the family will have the sharpest damned images known to FaceSpace.

 

[BrianShaw]

When, on rare occasion, I use my Tokina zoom I use a monopod or tripod. Things improve a lot with a bit of support. Indeed, old stuff and old men still have some residual value to them

 

[j-dogg]

I shot this on a crappy Canon automatic underwater point and shoot and expired department store film.

Amateurs blame their equipment.

 

[John Koehrer]

Whenever I get a haul of photo stuff, the after-market zoom lenses all go in the garbage as the first order of things as I go through the box(s). Totally worthless.

And you're not a photo snob? Please.
This certainly isn't the first post you've made in a bunch of threads that started out
with"junk it, bin it or scrap it".

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nothing beats a good piece of glass!

 

[RattyMouse]

The market for cheap lenses has been obliterated by compacts and to a large extent camera phones.

Samyang.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not a waste of film, but waste of time most likely.

 

[480sparky]

Keep in mind, not everyone is filthy rich. I remember well the months I spent saving and scrimping, doing without other things, working extra hours after school........just to afford one lens that expanded my 50-mm only kit.

They may be junk to YOU, but is donating them to someone who would be thrilled to have them be considered a waste? Or would you rather I dismiss those who cannot afford to buy top-shelf glass and just toss them in the trash?

 

[MattKing]

In their day, those were useful lenses. But they came out at a fime when it was difficult and expensive to make high quality zoom lenses, and when the quality fixed focal length long lenses were relatively expensive as well.

If, like most, you had just a 50mm lens, a new one of those lenses really expanded your horizons.

And made you really lust for a 28mm lens too!

 

[mgb74]

I'm more of a gear snob now - since even really good stuff (MF lenses by Nikon, Minolta, Pentax) is pretty cheap. But I remember buying (new) a preset Vivitar 135mm lens in Minolta mount because I couldn't afford the "automatic" version. And if you don't remember preset lenses you're too young.

And while they have their limitations, I still think most of them outperform most of the photographers using them.

 

[film_man]

Let's say I'm going to a family get-together. Picnic at the park, nice sunny day. I'm gonna shoot small low-res jpegs because everything I shoot will simply be emailed and posted on FaceSpace and MyBook pages by everyone. Who cares about resolution, or vignetting, or distortion, or color rendering, or sharpness, or chromatic abberation?

Hmmmm. Do I pull out the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII? Or will this little Cosina perform the task?

If the shots are that worthless why waste time and money on film when you can shoot them with the phone. Fast, small, perfect for youbook and facetube. Job done.

 

[480sparky]

If the shots are that worthless why waste time and money on film when you can shoot them with the phone. Fast, small, perfect for youbook and facetube. Job done.

Um..... who said anything about film?

One best not assume much.