Super Albinar lens quality?

Anybody have an opinion on the quality of Super Albinar lenses? I'm

considering picking up a used 135mm F/2.8 for astrophotography. I need

something that is as close to apochromatic as possible to avoid fuzzy

blobs for stars like I get in my cheap old lenses that work just fine

for daylight imaging, but astrophotos are much more demanding.

 

thanks,

Dave

Super Albinars are (were?) cheap.

Albinar and Star-D were house brands of Uniphot-Levitt. The owner of Uniphot-Levitt (and the old Camera Barn chain in NY) was Fred Albu. I think that's where the Albinar name came from. These were economy priced lenses and were certainly not apochromatic.

Dave -- quite seriously, buy a good lens the first time around and you won't have to continue replacing it with because it doesn't meet your needs. You'll save money in the long run.

 

You probably could get some high quality manual lenses for a small amount of money, and there are plenty out there as the market gravitates toward autofocus zooms.

Dave,

 

I heard the cheap old Albinar 80-200mm f3.9 wasn't a half bad lens. Obviously that doesn't help you specifically, just a good guide. I am one of those who likes using cheap old 135mm f2.8 (like the Spirlatone)because I like the softness; I suspect it isn't an asset for astrophotography though.

IMHO, they are decent low-end lenses, if bought cheaply enough. That 135mm f2.8 is worth in the vicinity of $20 including shipping, if it's in good shape. It's certainly not an apochromat. It is probably OK for outdoor daylight shooting, but I would strongly doubt that it would suffice for serious astro photography.

Okay, so the consensus is that lens isn't worth going after. I'm not trying to get cheap lenses to work for me. I thought this looked like the right size lens for what I want to do and figured I'd ask around. The cheap old lens I'm replacing is what came with my camera when I decided to try photography as a hobby. It's fine for daylight, but not the strange things that happen when you plug it into an astro-imager and the differing focal planes of reg, green and blue when coming from such great distances.

 

I'm using a pentax K1000 clone, so I'll keep looking for known quality Pentax lenses. Probably something like one of their 135mm SMC's.

 

thanks folks,

Dave

From my limited experience in astrophotography I am inclined to the notion that even cheap lenses will produce acceptable images if the clockwork tracking mechanism works properly. If it doesnt track accurately even the most expensive lens available will produce fuzzy images. Am I overlooking some important factor?

Dan,

 

What I'm discovering is that the various wavelengths have different focal points, especially in long exposures. I'm exposing for up to 20 minutes at a time and this is producing stars with little halos around them. When I shared them with some gurus of astrophotography, they all said it was the result of inferior lenses. They all recommended some Nikon and Canon lenses, but I'm using a pentax type camera.....

 

thanks,

Dave

I never knew about this brand until I purchased a nice lens case at a local thrift store. There was a lens in it. An Albinar 28-85 3.5 with a strange mount that turned out to be for a Pentax AF SLR. While I haven't had the chance to use it yet (I don't own a Pentax) It doesn't look all that poorly made. As a matter of fact, compared against the plastic bodied stuff that now floods the market, and which appears to come attached to a lot of Canon bodies, it looks pretty good. Now..I need to borrow a Pentax...

Dave, my impression is that the 135 f/2.8's were real common until zooms became more common. Now you can't hardly give a 135 f/2.8 away, especially in an offbrand.

 

I think I've seen new Albinars for sale in the past, but can't think where. Kmart or Wolfe/ Ritz or someplace. Anyway, what the others said: cheap lenses.

 

I used a "J. C. Penney" 135 f/2.8 lens for several years, and it was actually a pretty decent years. The diaphram gave up the ghost on it eventually. I paid $10 for it at a camera show or garage sale or somewhere. So if you have a chance to pick up an Albinar cheap, give it a shot, but they're sure not something to go looking for.

 

Most likely, the 135 f/2.8's you see are around 20 years old or so, too.