Old but good 70-210 or 80-200

<p>There are so many older third party, manual focus 70-210s or 80-200s in the F4-5,6 range out there. Does someone know of a good one in their midst? I'm not talking about the bigger brands, but about those nobody wants anymore. What's your experience? Thanks</p>

<p>I think Vivitar lens are underrated, I have been using a 28-210 for years on my old Nikon Fm-10. Deals can still be found on ebay, about 2 years ago I got a Sigma 18-35 Af for Nikon for $36.00. I watch auctions that end between midnight and early morning. It does help that I am retired.</p>

<p>I have the 70-210 Kiron f/4.5 Macro. Not a true Macro as it only goes to 1:4 without <br>

extension. Takes a 55mm filter. Only 1/2 stop slower than my 80-200 f/4 Nikkor.<br>

I have a lot of fun with it on a Pentax Super Program.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

<p>Another vote for the various versions of the Vivitar Series I lenses (and some others too, from them). Vivitar was responsible for the basic designs, as I understand, but had various Japanese lens makers build them to specification. See more details at http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm .</p>

<p>However, a <strong>warning</strong>. The presently marketed new Vivitar lenses have no real connection to the old classics, except that someone bought the name to use. They may or may not be serviceable, but they are not the old classics despite the similarity of names of some products.</p>

<p>Vivitar 70-210mm Series I AI f/3.5 manual focus zoom</p>

<p>Pro:<br>

Low price<br>

Fixed maximum aperture<br>

Accurate focal lengths<br>

Metal lens housing<br>

Image color and exposure are consistent with my other lenses</p>

<p>Con:<br>

Not as sharp as I need at f/3.5, f/4, and f/5.6 (my biggest con)<br>

No tripod mount<br>

Manual focus ring rotates in opposite direction as my other lenses<br>

67mm filter size is not compatible with my filters</p>

<div></div>

<p>The Vivitar Series 1 70-210 zooms are very good buys, but probably wouldn't be considered a lens that nobody wants anymore. Like the Kirons, the Vivitar Series 1 lenses have been cult classics for several years and tend to retain their value fairly well.</p>

<p>Look for one of the Tamron Adaptall zooms. I have one around here somewhere, probably in a box buried in the closet. I think it's an 80-200/3.5-4.5 or something like that. Unfortunately it's infested with fungus so it's not useful. But the Tamron Adaptalls can be used on any SLR body for which an adapter is available. I've used various Adaptalls on Canon FD, Olympus OM and Nikon bodies.</p>

<p>The Soligor CD lenses were also pretty good and usually cheaper used than the Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron lenses.</p>

<p>Some house-brand lenses - Quantaray, Ritzcam, etc. - can be acceptable. I see 'em at near giveaway prices in pawn shops.</p>

<p>Some old Tamrons are very good indeed...</p>

<p><a href="00YZ5J">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YZ5J</a></p>

<p>I'd second the Vivitar series I 70-210. Even though it's not something nobody wants anymore, it seems to turn up pretty reasonably often enough, especially in the less common mounts. I think I got my Konica version for something like ten bucks. The Minolta one was 30. I saw a Nikon mount one (passed it up) for 50 at a thrift store recently. </p>

<p>The older 85-210mm Tamron lens was a gem of a lens and I believe the later ones had Tamron's BBAR coating. These sell for almost nothing and are real sleepers. I have a Nikon mount 70-210mm f3.5 Vivitar Ser.1 lens made by Tokina (ser. no. 37XXXXXX) and I wouldn't trade it for all the tea in China. Well, maybe half the tea in China? It's the most compact of all the Vivitar Ser.1 70-210mm lenses and one of the best/sharpest 70-210mm lenses I have ever used. I use it on my Canon 5D FF and it can handle FF digital with flying colors. I've also owned both the Kiron 28-210mm and the Vivitar Ser.1 version of the same lens also made by Kiron. Both were very, very good for such a wide zoom range, but what surprised me the most was how good the contrast level was with the 28-210mm.</p>

<p>You can actually buy a brand new Tamron 70-210mm f/4-5.6 from Keh for $17.95.</p>

<p>You then need an Adaptall or Adaptall II mount for what ever camera you have. I have one and it is a nice lens.</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Tamron-Adaptall-Lenses&category=Zoom-Lenses&k=EmptyKey&s=1&bcode=TL&ccode=7&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e</p>

Second vote for Tamron 70-210 f4-5.6. Well made, good performer, and a value at $17.95 new at KEH. You can also get

a new 28-200 f3.8-5.5 for $69.95.

<p>When it comes to cheaper Tamron zooms in this range, I prefer the 70-210mm f/3.8-4, which is an exceptionally sharp optic, followed by the 80-210mm f/3.8-4. While not as short as the Tamron 70-210/4-5.6 mentioned above, they are still fairly lightweight -- nothing even close to the size of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210s that were previously mentioned. Best thing about either of the Tamrons I mention is that neither has much of a strong following so they can often be picked up for very cheap.</p>

<p>Tokina made some cheaper lenses that have the "RMC Tokina" label on the front bezel. I've found that these lenses tend to be very sharp and well made to boot. I owned an RMC Tokina 80-200mm f/4 a while back and found it to be a good performer. Ditto my remarks above regarding popularity and price.</p>

<p>And I must mention the first zoom I ever owned: an Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9. Made in Korea, this lens is surprisingly sharp. Check it out. Taken on the Santa Barbara, California coast in 1984 -- Canon A-1, Kodachrome 64, exposure unrecorded.<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/sbsunsethdr1a.jpg" alt="" width="667" height="1000" /></p>

<p>I sold that old Albinar when I switched camera systems several years later. Recently I bought another copy off eBay, mostly for sentimental reasons. The lens was in mint condition and I paid about $20 for it. Apparently that first one wasn't some sort of fluke, either, because this latest one appears to be just as sharp, if not a tad sharper.</p>

<p>I am gobsmacked at the $17.95 price for a NEW lens! I think I might get one for my OM2 at that price. Any word on whether it's any good?</p>

<p>I have both versions of the 80-210/3.8-4 Tamron Adaptall. I like them. It's true that at the time these lenses were first made, most zooms in this range were not at sharp at the long end as a fixed focal length lens, especially wide open. The problem with the comparison is that the zooms were often slower and required the user to use a slower shutter speed. This often resulted in less sharpness. Lex has mentioned that although the 70-210 Vivitar Series 1 lenses have been surpassed by modern zooms, they are still very good and maybe better than some photograohers. I have the first version in Konica mount and the second version in Minolta mount. I'd like to find an example of the third version, maybe in Canon FD mount. When you need the extra speed for the shooting conditions you are working in, there is no substitute for it. I know that my 200/2.8 Canon New FD (1st version) is not as sharp wide open as it is closed down a little but if I need f/2.8 to get a higher shutter speed [hand held] and if I need the extra light to focus well, it doesn't matter that some slower lens or some zoom with a maximum aperture of f/4 or f/4.5 is sharper in a lab test. The 200/2.8 wide open will still give me the best performance in that situation. I have the later 80-200/4 Konica Hexanon which was made by Tokina and is the same as the RMC model. It's a decent performer. The 80-200/4.5 Kiron with the zoom lock is also a decent performer. Once I'm using a lens that slow I need to use a camera with a plain matte or grid type screen. This lets me focus anywhere on the screen without having to worry about the focusing aids blacking out. Some other inexpensive but decent zooms in this range include the Vivitar 75-205/3.8 two touch, the later 75-205 Vivitar two touch, the late model 80-200/3.5 Konica Hexanon (if you have a Konica) and the old 80-200/4.5 one touch Nikkor, if you can find one which does not have a very loose focusing/zooming ring. </p>

<p>Wow! Thanks a lot everybody. I was aware of the good Vivitars, but I learned a thing or two about the Tamrons and all the others you write about. We know the Tams 80-200 F2,8 and F3,5 are very good, but they are not cheap. I wish someone had mentionned the few MF Sigma APO, but there is very little to read on the net about them. I have two Zuikos 65-200 both with hazy elements and seak to replace them sometime. But since I use different systems, Tamrons would be a practical choice.</p>

<p>I second the existing votes for Vivitar Series I and Kiron. I have a Kiron 80-200/4.5 for Nikon that I like.</p>

<p>I'm stunned by Michael's comments about the Albinar. Coincidentally I have that exact lens sitting here in my office as a display piece that I have never bothered to use and was thinking of throwing way, just because it's an Albinar. Now I'll have to stick it on a camera (it's a Minolta mount) and see how it does. </p>

<p>Hi August! We'd love to hear your comment on the Albinar's performing since you're not going to throw it away anymore! Pics welcome!</p>

<p>Hey August, I was about to write basically the same thing Philippe was, so I guess I'll just do a +1 instead. But seriously, I'd like to see how well somebody else does with one of the old Albinar 80-200/3.9s.</p>

<p>You know, talking about cheap Tamrons, I used to own an SP 60-300 f/3.8-5.4 that I bought new back in about 1986. Paid close to $300US for it. I sold it several years later when I bought a Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF, reasoning that I used it mostly at 300mm anyway. Well, I'd always missed that lens and found myself wishing I'd never have sold it. I found one sitting in a local camera shop's used case a couple years ago, and when I found that they wanted only $40 for it, I couldn't help myself, and bought it. And then a couple months later, I managed to snag another one off eBay for $20, with an adaptall-II mount (Canon FD) no less. Heh, actually I bought the lens to get the FD mount; I've found that sometimes it can be a much a better deal buying a Tamron lens with a mount already attached than buying just the mount alone. So I just thought I'd mention that, if you're patient, you can find good deals on this lens as well. It isn't a small lens by any means, but it's a very good zoom and has a surprisingly good macro mode that gets all the way down to 1:1.5.</p>