Kalimar lens?

I am a beginning photographer who is currently looking to buy a new camera so

I can take pictures of my young children in sports. I have been told by posts

on this site that no matter what camera I buy, a good lens to buy for sports

is a 70-200 mm lens, which I know can get expensive. I just found on older

camera that has an 80-200 mm Kalimar lens. I have never heard of this company

but was wondering if this lens could be used (at least in the beginning to

keep my initial costs down) with any other cameras which are good for

beginners such as the Canon Rebel XTi or the Nikon D80 or 200 or is it only

made for a Kalimar camera?

Kalimar never made anything, they were just an American distributor for Japanese/Korean cheap cameras and lenses. I think they are now owned by Tiffen.

 

For the Kalimar 80-200 which is available used, I wouldn't pay more than $30 tops. As far as I know there are no Kalimar lenses with a Canon EOS mount, but you could find one for Nikon or Pentax, probably manual focus only. I have no idea about optical quality but I wouln't expect it to be that great.

There are other better choices for a budget tele zoom, depending on what camera you end up with. Canon's EOS mount has been around a while, so you can find 80-200 Canon EF zooms pretty cheap, and there's also a 75-300 zoom that won't cost you much more. These are not pro stuff, but inexpensive and decent for starting out... certainly much better in many ways than the Kalimar. I'm sure that similar options exist for the Nikons and other current DSLRs (except for the Olympus 4/3 system which has not been out long enough to create a used lens market .... but they have a decent, inexpensive tele kit zoom that should set you up just as well).

My 2 cents, If you want to match a lens to a body, the best performance to price ratio 70-100mm auto focus lens is Minolta's 70-210mm f4 (aka: beer can, ~$200 used). At one point in time, Leica offer that same lens with their brand. You can fit the Minolta 70-210/4 to a Sony A100 ($600 at Amazon). For $800 you get a killer image quality outdoor set-up. The Sony A100 also has Anti-shake built-in to the body. Now the down side, Sony A100's ISO noise at 800 and above could be an issue. IMHO, This won't be a good indoor sport set-up. The Minolta beer can is also an older lens which uses the slower in camera AF motor. It is a bit louder and you need to pre-focus to get the best focus speed.

Kalimar made a sparkling series of <b><i><u>70</u>-210</i></b> f/4.0 constant aperture lenses in Pentax "K" mount.<p>I cannot speak about the 70-200 Kilimar.

Without wishing to start a Canon/Nikon flamewar my impression from reading numerous threads and my personal but limited experience of getting a Canon EOS cameras, first a digital and then a film body so I could use the lens coupled on the DSLR is that perhaps becuase of their leading numerical position in the market which results in third party accessories being more readilly available and the less 'locked in' design of the EOS over entry level Nikons that EOS are more flexible to working with other lens. This is more a gut feeling than based on actual knowledge.

<p>Jumping in on a old conversation...<br /> <br /> You (generally) get what you pay for.</p>

<p>I am a former Canon shooter - I now use Nikons exclusively now - both brands are great.</p>

<p>My current lineup includes a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D3s.<br /> With the D90, I normally shoot with a 105mm F2 D AFD DC (defocus)... really nice lens (@ around $950 used / $1200 new).</p>

<p>With the D3s, I normally shoot with a 70-200mm VR... incredible lens (around $1600 used / $2400 new). You can capture incredible photos without even trying - with this lens. That's how good this lens is - and yes... there are Canon lens that are comparible.</p>

<p>I am always very hesitant to state something negative about a specific lens (because there is always someone who will like it) - but the Kalimar series of lens is not what i consider to be acceptable in optical or construction quality in the professional arena... note I said professional.</p>

<p>You can purchase a decent / used Canon or Nikkor lens that would suit your needs for $200 to $400... and saying "it's a Nikkor" or "Canon" (for me) often means something. Not so with Kalimar, Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina. No flame wars please - I own a couple of these off-brand names... such as a Tokina 11-16 2.8. Nice lens... but "not a Nikkor or Cannon"... but also $600 - not $1200.</p>

<p>As for buying a used bodies... I know some people do... I choose not to. I don't have an issue buying used lens though... but (for me) the body is always new. You never "really know" what the camera has been through. I take very good care my equipment... but my shot count is visibly excessive.</p>

<p>This being said (about the camera bodies)... I average 90,000 actuations per year / per body.</p>

<p>My D3s is rated @ 200k-300k actuation I believe. I have 300k already (2 years into the D3s) and the puppy is running like new / looks new / responds like new / is basically new except the shutter mechanism will probably die on my while on a shoot (that's why I carry spare bodies).</p>

<p>If you are looking for a decent camera - on the nikon side - you should look @ the D60 or D90... D90 being more expensive (about $800 for the body). Bypass the D80. The D60 / D80 / D90 are not professional level - but you don't need it to be. The photographer makes the picture. The camera only makes it easier. I've taken incredible photos with a Casio Exilim.</p>

<p>Pierre<br /> R[evolution] Photography<br>

http://revolution.us.com</p>