[traumaalert]

I just ordered a 28-80 F3.5-5.6 Cosina Macro and a 50 F2 Rikenon XR but I couldn't find very much information on either lens. I went ahead and did it because the prices were so good (56$ shipped for both). What can I expect in IQ, problems, anything really. I've had a K-x for a few months now and I wanted something to play with other than the kit lens.

Thanks for your advice

Alex

[Ira]

Are you sure you can mount them on your K-x?

And where in Florida do you hail from?

[traumaalert]

I bought them from the Pentax section on KEH, if they don't they'll be returned. I'm from Tampa but I'm currently at UF

[boriscleto]

Ricoh XR Rikenon 50mm f/2.0 Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

I wouldn't expect much from the zoom. Not at that price. The macro is slightly better than the kit lens.

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=134

[traumaalert]

I'm trying to be cheap and I wanted to play around with a manual focus prime and I wanted to see how well the macro worked since I enjoy taking pictures of flowers and bugs. Anyone have personal experience with either lens?

[Pablom]

I'm 99% sure that Cosina lens is no more macro than your kit lens

[boriscleto]

The kit lens is 1:3 @ 55mm, the Cosina is supposedly 1:2 @ 80mm.

[traumaalert]

Well i'll find out Thursday, to go slightly off topic, are there any cheap (under $100) lenses worth getting? I know you generally get what you pay for glass-wise but college students can't shell out lots of cash for this kinda thing

[boriscleto]

I'm trying to be cheap and I wanted to play around with a manual focus prime and I wanted to see how well the macro worked since I enjoy taking pictures of flowers and bugs. Anyone have personal experience with either lens?

Cheap is good. Other than the DA L 55-300 I've never spent more than $100 on a lens (Sigma A 50mm F2.8 macro).

For a good 50, keep your eyes out for an Auto Sears MC 50mm F1.7 (Chinon). I got mine for $10 shipped. As far as I'm concerned its as good as the Pentax-M 50 1.7.

[ivoire]

Can't comment on your lens purchase, but if you want inexpensive macro try the Raynox 150 or 250 converter. They produce very good results and average $60

[Ira]

Well i'll find out Thursday, to go slightly off topic, are there any cheap (under $100) lenses worth getting? I know you generally get what you pay for glass-wise but college students can't shell out lots of cash for this kinda thing

There are a ton of great manual lenses you can get for up to $100, with an M42 (screw mount) ring adapter for the body--including great old Takumar (Pentax brand) lenses.

For example, the best manual prime on earth for your camera and the best bang for your buck is a Super Multi Coated Takumar or Super Tak 50 F1.4--selling between $50 and $100 on eBay. (If it says "SMC,' that's DIFFERENT. They're not bad lenses, but different.)

A Super Tak Macro 50 F4 (yes, F4--not 1.4), can still be had with luck for $100 and less, with true 1:1 magnification. (I think--guys, help me here.)

Just trying to tell you that there's a ton of great glass still out there at reasonable prices, although this is getting less and less as time goes on. But never buy something just because it's cheap, because unless you know what to look for, chances are that it's garbage.

From the outside, all lenses look more or less equal, but I'm sure you understand that they're not. So save your money for stuff that you know is top quality, and don't buy anything just because it's from an uncle or neighbor and it looks like a huge bargain.

Because it usually isn't.

[RioRico]

For example, the best manual prime on earth for your camera and the best bang for your buck is a Super Multi Coated Takumar or Super Tak 50 F1.4--selling between $50 and $100 on eBay. (If it says "SMC,' that's DIFFERENT. They're not bad lenses, but different.)

An SMC 50/1.4 with dented threads sold for US$36 two days ago. Thatsa DEAL.

A Super Tak Macro 50 F4 (yes, F4--not 1.4), can still be had with luck for $100 and less, with true 1:1 magnification. (I think--guys, help me here.)

There were two different builds, the original MacTak at 1:1 and the later Super/SMC/etc at 1:2. I got my 1:1 for US$50 a couple months ago... with dented threads, easily reamed out. As if macros needed threads...

Just trying to tell you that there's a ton of great glass still out there at reasonable prices, although this is getting less and less as time goes on. But never buy something just because it's cheap, because unless you know what to look for, chances are that it's garbage.

Sometimes yes, sometimes not. Most Sears lenses are pretty good (like the Tomioka-built Sears Auto 55/1.4 that I got for US$16 last week) (and Pentax made some Sears-label lenses). My recent five-buck KM-mount plastic-body no-name (probably Cosina) 50/2 at least equals the SMC M50/2. Et cetera.

IMHO the main problem with buying used glass, especially buying on eBay (where I am to be found) is sloppy/ignorant/scheming sellers who don't adequately describe a lens. My sore point: A couple years ago I paid over US$100 for a Vivitar 24/2 in KM-mount, supposedly a gem of a lens -- which arrived with inoperative aperture and separating elements. And the seller immediately disappeared.

So, there be good and bad lenses, and good and bad copies, and good and bad sellers, and you can't judge a lens by its cover. We can HOPE to get a good copy of a good lens from a good seller at a good price. And I can HOPE to fix some of the cheap dogs that have come my way. Some may emerge from surgery as chimeras, Frankenlenses. So be it.

[jimr-pdx]

I have a Rikenon XR 135mm/2.8, very nice - sharp and great bokeh. Also have the Rikenon 50/2 P with auto aperture, my copy is sharper than my old 50/2A Pentax but worse bokeh. I've been on a Rikenon kick lately, so last (and least): their 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 'macro' is pretty low grade. Actually its best work was the 'macro' shot, otherwise soft, low-contrast images.

I've been browsing the Ricoh line for bargains, and my best is their 35-135 f/3.5-4.5 P, a very good lens in every way. It's an old push-pull design, which I think will be the best sort when I finally do some video, and I paid about $60 at auction for it. Their 28-100 f/4 P is nearly as good but 600g, quite a thing to lug around. Both of these have the auto-aperture mode so you can use more features on the camera.

My Ricoh story among others is at http://granitix.blogspot.com

[soppy]

Hey man, I'm up at UF too. Not to thread jack, but what year are you and have you found a photography club yet? Seems like the one that was here died or something...

Anyways, I have a 50mm 1.7 that serves me really well. I didn't appreciate the meaning of fast till I got that lens. Picked mine up for about $60-$70 on the marketplace here and if you focus it right, something I'm still getting used to, then it is much sharper than the kit lens. For macro, try a reversing ring on a prime lens, that tends to greatly increase the magnification of any lens.

[stevebrot]

You might also want to check out my thread on the XR Rikenon 50/2:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/51999-new-arri...ond-three.html

As noted above, it is a pretty decent lens.

Regarding @jimr-pdx comment on getting "full" functionality from Rikenon-P lenses, I have a few strong cautions. The first is that to the best of my knowledge none of the Rikenon-P (Ricoh brand) lenses have the Pentax "A" contacts. As such, they will only meter in stop-down mode. If I am wrong about this, someone please jump in and set me right.

While the the Rikenon-P lenses don't have the "A" contacts, they do have the dreaded Ricoh "P" pin used to support program and shutter-priority exposure automation on Ricoh cameras. Depending on lens model, this pin may be capable of jamming into the AF drive on Pentax AF bodies with the result that the lens may be extremely difficult to remove. The dangerous ones have a spring-loaded pin. The less dangerous models have a spring-loaded ball-connector.


Steve

(Resident Ricoh fan boy...)