Best sub $100 telephoto lens

**pepperberry farm** · 05-03-2016, 10:04 AM

manual focus: SMC A 70-210mm f4

auto focus: DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED

both can be found for either under or right-at $100... and the DA L 55-300 is a much better lens than the Sigma 70-300....

wbgenetic · 05-03-2016, 10:50 AM

55-300 for under 100?

Driline · 05-03-2016, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt

Thank you all for the quick replies. I have a K5 and am familiar with using film and manual lenses. At this point would a new lens be better for telephoto purposes? I have been getting good deals on most of the lenses I have bought but the deals on the F 70-210 just aren't low enough (usually about $100 for a copy without fungus). For that price should I just look at buying new, or are there lenses that I am missing like the non SMC F 70-210 F4? Also is DC autofocus available for sub 250?

I purchased my Pentax F70-210 in excellent condition on eBay for $65. Keep looking. The guys on Pentax Marketplace generally ask more for this stuff. Not sure why but they do. I don't. That's why my stuff sells the same day instead of lingering around for months

I recently saw someone here trying to get $170 for that lens. Again, look elsewhere.

**todd** · 05-03-2016, 11:36 AM

I have the A70-210 and like it. Got mine in mint for peanuts (in a bundle). When I want AF and/or longer than 210mm I have an FA80-320 that I like better than my Tamron 70-300LD. Either of those AF zooms are good enough for me and were cheap. I think I got my Tamron for $50 and the FA80-320 for $80. If you want a great bang for buck 135mm prime, check out the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. It gets mixed reviews but I think it holds up and have plenty of keepers to prove it, and it can usually be found in abundance in the used markets at around $40.

ChristianRock · 05-03-2016, 11:52 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by todd

I have the A70-210 and like it. Got mine in mint for peanuts (in a bundle). When I want AF and/or longer than 210mm I have an FA80-320 that I like better than my Tamron 70-300LD. Either of those AF zooms are good enough for me and were cheap. I think I got my Tamron for $50 and the FA80-320 for $80. If you want a great bang for buck 135mm prime, check out the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. It gets mixed reviews but I think it holds up and have plenty of keepers to prove it, and it can usually be found in abundance in the used markets at around $40.

I've been curious about the 80-320 but there are really no good examples of pictures taken with this lens on the web. Mostly everything I find seems to be taken 10+ years ago and downsized to 1MP or so.

And a +1 on the Takumar Bayonet 135mm. There are two versions, f/2.5 and f/2.8. I had the f/2.5, sold it, regret it, and bought the f/2.8 last year for less than 40 dollars. I think the 2.5 and 2.8 are basically the same lens, the 2.8 being the later version and I think it has somewhat improved coatings (still not SMC though). They're both excellent value and capable of great pictures, if you find a good copy. Both the one I have and the one I sold are good copies and are sharp from wide open.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 05-03-2016, 11:57 AM

I've owned or (with the really old stuff) sold a lot of these lenses. While it might be difficult to find a F 70-210 for under $100, you can pay less for the Takumar F 70-210 (most samples have a good multi-coating similar to SMC from the A-series) that is optically and physically similar to the ones with the Pentax label. I feel it is optically better than the very good m75-150 that remains in possession. And that 75-150 is at least as good as the m135 f/3.5 (long gone from my collection). The F 70-210s can be shot wide open all the way to 180mm and yield sharpness all the way to the corners. Even 210 f/5.6 is usable, but f/8 is advised for best sharpness on the long end.

Here's a recent shot: Outlaw Country Cruise - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

And, at the long end: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/nvPTcazN/1/7147875_8290432#imageID=254660589

osv · 05-03-2016, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Skodadriver

If you don't mind manual and heavy zoom lens, I recommend the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f3.8-5.4 (23A) ..... but with a PK-A adapter on it. Or you can get one with a PK adapter and use stop down metering. I use one with my K-5 and am very pleased with it. I use a PK-A adapter which I swap on to my other SP Tamrons, 19AH and 26A.

this ^^^

**pepperberry farm** · 05-03-2016, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by wbgenetic

55-300 for under 100?

I didn't say under $100 - I paid $120 for my new DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED just a few weeks ago...

EgelhaafKurt · 05-05-2016, 06:28 PM

I would like to thank all who replied to this thread. I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy. I will attempt to post some pictures when they arrive and post it to this thread, as well as write a review of my thoughts in the review page.

Thank You All!

Kurt Egelhaaf

Driline · 05-05-2016, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt

I would like to thank all who replied to this thread. I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy. I will attempt to post some pictures when they arrive and post it to this thread, as well as write a review of my thoughts in the review page.

Thank You All!

Kurt Egelhaaf

2 excellent lenses. Miles better than any of the kit lenses. You will not be disappointed. I know because I've owned both

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 05-05-2016, 08:12 PM - **1 Like**

With 135mm lenses it is hard to go wrong. Even the lowly 3-layer coated Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 or f2.8 are OK or even good. Or any of the Takumar 135mms. Also many 3rd party 135's are OK. It is a simple range to make a good lens, or if it is so that they had a lot of time and practise to design them. Since everyone had one in their bag back in the film era many were made and they can be had cheaply.

There is only one autofocus Pentax 135mm, and you wont get that one for us$100. But there are two alternatives that can be had with A contacts: the SMC Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and the Tamron adaptall 2 135mm f2.5. Both are good lenses. The Tamron even a bit better. Note that if the Tamron comes with a K mount adapter or some other brand mount you can switch to a KA adapter.

The 200mms were also made in fairly large numbers, but probably only 1/10th as many as the 135mm lenses. Among the Pentax offerings you will have to stay with manual focus and have more patience to find one in your budget. Pentax changed optical design between the K200/4 and M200/4, but both are good enough.

With tele zooms it is more of a gamble. Cheap often means old and early zooms were often not that good. Much more have happened in the last 20-50 years when it comes to zoom optics than it has for primes. Among the Pentax offerings in the range 70 or 80mm to 200 or 210mm the best options (not counting the FA*80-200/2.8) is the M80-200/4.5 and A70-210/4, both constant apperture, and the later even with A contacts. The F 70-210 you mentioned is just OK, but not as good as the M and A alternatives. Stay away from the F 80-200 and FA 70/80-200/210's, including the powerzoom version.

If you go 3rd party and manual focus, consider the Vivitar series 1. They are good for their age. There are 4 or 5 optical deisgns. Several of them with a macro feature and the last one with A contacts. My favo is the original 70-210 f3.5.

Same applies to most 70/80-300mm lenses and the range 200-300mm is typically worse than the rest, less sharp, less contrast. Knowing that, Tamrons various 70-300 are probably as much as you will get for the bucks. The DA55-300mm is a better lens that stays good even up to about 270mm. But it is out of your budget.

Why not get a cheap 135mm for half your budget now...and then save up for a used DA55-300mm?

And with patience and luck you can solve almost any lense need. I got a Sigma 400 f5.6 with A contacts and autofocus for -60 us$ on ebay. Was sold as "not working"...but I saw on the pics the A contacts were dirty...and decided to take a chance. I don't use that focal length much, but thought I it would be fun to have one for wild animals etc. Won it, it arrived...I cleaned the contacts and it worked.

EgelhaafKurt · 05-06-2016, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

With 135mm lenses it is hard to go wrong. Even the lowly 3-layer coated Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 or f2.8 are OK or even good. Or any of the Takumar 135mms. Also many 3rd party 135's are OK. It is a simple range to make a good lens, or if it is so that they had a lot of time and practise to design them. Since everyone had one in their bag back in the film era many were made and they can be had cheaply.

There is only one autofocus Pentax 135mm, and you wont get that one for us$100. But there are two alternatives that can be had with A contacts: the SMC Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and the Tamron adaptall 2 135mm f2.5. Both are good lenses. The Tamron even a bit better. Note that if the Tamron comes with a K mount adapter or some other brand mount you can switch to a KA adapter.

The 200mms were also made in fairly large numbers, but probably only 1/10th as many as the 135mm lenses. Among the Pentax offerings you will have to stay with manual focus and have more patience to find one in your budget. Pentax changed optical design between the K200/4 and M200/4, but both are good enough.

With tele zooms it is more of a gamble. Cheap often means old and early zooms were often not that good. Much more have happened in the last 20-50 years when it comes to zoom optics than it has for primes. Among the Pentax offerings in the range 70 or 80mm to 200 or 210mm the best options (not counting the FA*80-200/2.8) is the M80-200/4.5 and A70-210/4, both constant apperture, and the later even with A contacts. The F 70-210 you mentioned is just OK, but not as good as the M and A alternatives. Stay away from the F 80-200 and FA 70/80-200/210's, including the powerzoom version.

If you go 3rd party and manual focus, consider the Vivitar series 1. They are good for their age. There are 4 or 5 optical deisgns. Several of them with a macro feature and the last one with A contacts. My favo is the original 70-210 f3.5.

Same applies to most 70/80-300mm lenses and the range 200-300mm is typically worse than the rest, less sharp, less contrast. Knowing that, Tamrons various 70-300 are probably as much as you will get for the bucks. The DA55-300mm is a better lens that stays good even up to about 270mm. But it is out of your budget.

Why not get a cheap 135mm for half your budget now...and then save up for a used DA55-300mm?

And with patience and luck you can solve almost any lense need. I got a Sigma 400 f5.6 with A contacts and autofocus for -60 us$ on ebay. Was sold as "not working"...but I saw on the pics the A contacts were dirty...and decided to take a chance. I don't use that focal length much, but thought I it would be fun to have one for wild animals etc. Won it, it arrived...I cleaned the contacts and it worked.

I have found a Takumar 135mm F2.5 for $39, I have heard really positve reviews on the K-series version of this lens, but very little good news on the Takumar. At 39 is that a good deal, or should I steer clear? With the good deal I got on the other lenses I can probably buy one more.

pathdoc · 05-06-2016, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt

I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy.

Wonderful news! Hope they work out for you.

There's nothing at all wrong with mixing series - I have Super Takumars, SMC Takumars, M, A, FA, DA and D-FA series lenses - there's nothing except your own preferences to stop you crossing boundaries!

Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt

I have found a Takumar 135mm F2.5 for $39

Are you talking about the bayonet-mount Takumar or the screwmount?

Some swear by the bayonet Takumars, others at them. They are not as resistant to flare and glare as the SMC lenses, but under the right circumstances they can do a very good job. I saw one recently and would have bought it (for more than $39), but one look at the front element said no. It was a bad copy (lots of haze) and I had to turn it down.

@Tsuken shot one in the Single In April challenge; go have a look at his photos, and you will see what it can do. Start on this page: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/102-monthly-photo-challenges/4691-...april-1st.html

If it's the screwmount Takumar, they're supposed to be very good (but you will need to buy an M42/K adapter, so figure that into the cost). I have the f/3.5 SMC version and I'm very happy with it; bear in mind that the Super Takumars' coatings are not quite as good, but under the best circumstances they can perform extremely well.

EgelhaafKurt · 05-06-2016, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Wonderful news! Hope they work out for you.

There's nothing at all wrong with mixing series - I have Super Takumars, SMC Takumars, M, A, FA, DA and D-FA series lenses - there's nothing except your own preferences to stop you crossing boundaries!

Are you talking about the bayonet-mount Takumar or the screwmount?

Some swear by the bayonet Takumars, others at them. They are not as resistant to flare and glare as the SMC lenses, but under the right circumstances they can do a very good job. I saw one recently and would have bought it (for more than $39), but one look at the front element said no. It was a bad copy (lots of haze) and I had to turn it down.

@Tsuken shot one in the Single In April challenge; go have a look at his photos, and you will see what it can do. Start on this page: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/102-monthly-photo-challenges/4691-...april-1st.html

If it's the screwmount Takumar, they're supposed to be very good (but you will need to buy an M42/K adapter, so figure that into the cost). I have the f/3.5 SMC version and I'm very happy with it; bear in mind that the Super Takumars' coatings are not quite as good, but under the best circumstances they can perform extremely well.

It is a Bayonet from Roberts Camera on ebay. I might grab it, it's in excellent shape as well. Lastly I will be buying a top quality wide angle this summer, I am pretty sure on buying the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8 or the Limited 31mm f1.8 which isn't quite as wide as I would like and is very expensive. Are there other sub $1000 wide angles that others swear by? What are some favorites?

pathdoc · 05-06-2016, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt

I am pretty sure on buying the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8

I came very close to buying that lens last year. A cursory search for reviews brought me to this forum, where I found that numerous users (including Forums staff, who tested multiple examples) had reported horrific miss rates with the AF - it seemed to have problems locking on and gave people blurred pictures, while others had a sweet experience with never an image missed. I decided against it, primarily because if I were to end up with a flawed copy I would be 400km from the nearest camera store with no easy way to return it in person and get a better copy.

If you live near a camera store that is happy to take a troublesome copy back for an exchange or refund with no questions asked, it may be worth going for it. If I had to buy one or the other, though, I'd get the 31/1.8 Limited. I haven't handled the Sigma lens, but I have handled the 31 and I understand that it is substantially smaller.

There is of course the new D-FA 15-30/2.8, a derivation of a proven Tamron design, but that's a beast in every sense of the word, both in terms of size and in price. Very large, and very, very expensive. Well above the $1000 line.

05-05-2016, 08:12 PM - 1 Like	#26
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	With 135mm lenses it is hard to go wrong. Even the lowly 3-layer coated Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 or f2.8 are OK or even good. Or any of the Takumar 135mms. Also many 3rd party 135's are OK. It is a simple range to make a good lens, or if it is so that they had a lot of time and practise to design them. Since everyone had one in their bag back in the film era many were made and they can be had cheaply. There is only one autofocus Pentax 135mm, and you wont get that one for us$100. But there are two alternatives that can be had with A contacts: the SMC Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and the Tamron adaptall 2 135mm f2.5. Both are good lenses. The Tamron even a bit better. Note that if the Tamron comes with a K mount adapter or some other brand mount you can switch to a KA adapter. The 200mms were also made in fairly large numbers, but probably only 1/10th as many as the 135mm lenses. Among the Pentax offerings you will have to stay with manual focus and have more patience to find one in your budget. Pentax changed optical design between the K200/4 and M200/4, but both are good enough. With tele zooms it is more of a gamble. Cheap often means old and early zooms were often not that good. Much more have happened in the last 20-50 years when it comes to zoom optics than it has for primes. Among the Pentax offerings in the range 70 or 80mm to 200 or 210mm the best options (not counting the FA80-200/2.8) is the M80-200/4.5 and A70-210/4, both constant apperture, and the later even with A contacts. The F 70-210 you mentioned is just OK, but not as good as the M and A alternatives. Stay away from the F 80-200 and FA 70/80-200/210's, including the powerzoom version. If you go 3rd party and manual focus, consider the Vivitar series 1. They are good for their age. There are 4 or 5 optical deisgns. Several of them with a macro feature and the last one with A contacts. My favo is the original 70-210 f3.5. Same applies to most 70/80-300mm lenses and the range 200-300mm is typically worse than the rest, less sharp, less contrast. Knowing that, Tamrons various 70-300 are probably as much as you will get for the bucks. The DA55-300mm is a better lens that stays good even up to about 270mm. But it is out of your budget. Why not get a cheap 135mm for half your budget now...and then save up for a used DA55-300mm? And with patience and luck you can solve almost any lense need. I got a Sigma 400 f5.6 with A contacts and autofocus for -60 us$ on ebay. Was sold as "not working"...but I saw on the pics the A contacts were dirty...and decided to take a chance. I don't use that focal length much, but thought I it would be fun to have one for wild animals etc. Won it, it arrived...I cleaned the contacts and it worked. Last edited by Douglas_of_Sweden; 05-05-2016 at 08:22 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX APO DG telephoto lens - RARE!	Edgar_in_Indy	Sold Items	24	12-09-2014 06:43 PM
Best choice for handheld telephoto lens	Ace	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	12-04-2014 09:50 PM
Lens Tournament: DA* 300mm vs DA* 50-135mm (Best Telephoto Lens)	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	21	10-29-2014 09:32 AM
Best sub 200$ kit lens ??	photoshoper	Pentax K-30 & K-50	20	07-16-2013 08:43 AM
Best budget telephoto lens?	robert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-20-2012 09:08 PM

05-03-2016, 10:04 AM	#16
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	manual focus: SMC A 70-210mm f4 auto focus: DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED both can be found for either under or right-at $100... and the DA L 55-300 is a much better lens than the Sigma 70-300....

05-03-2016, 10:50 AM	#17
wbgenetic New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 23	55-300 for under 100?

05-03-2016, 11:22 AM	#18
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705	Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt Thank you all for the quick replies. I have a K5 and am familiar with using film and manual lenses. At this point would a new lens be better for telephoto purposes? I have been getting good deals on most of the lenses I have bought but the deals on the F 70-210 just aren't low enough (usually about $100 for a copy without fungus). For that price should I just look at buying new, or are there lenses that I am missing like the non SMC F 70-210 F4? Also is DC autofocus available for sub 250? I purchased my Pentax F70-210 in excellent condition on eBay for $65. Keep looking. The guys on Pentax Marketplace generally ask more for this stuff. Not sure why but they do. I don't. That's why my stuff sells the same day instead of lingering around for months I recently saw someone here trying to get $170 for that lens. Again, look elsewhere.

05-03-2016, 11:36 AM	#19
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	I have the A70-210 and like it. Got mine in mint for peanuts (in a bundle). When I want AF and/or longer than 210mm I have an FA80-320 that I like better than my Tamron 70-300LD. Either of those AF zooms are good enough for me and were cheap. I think I got my Tamron for $50 and the FA80-320 for $80. If you want a great bang for buck 135mm prime, check out the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. It gets mixed reviews but I think it holds up and have plenty of keepers to prove it, and it can usually be found in abundance in the used markets at around $40.

05-03-2016, 11:52 AM - 2 Likes	#20
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,911	Originally posted by todd I have the A70-210 and like it. Got mine in mint for peanuts (in a bundle). When I want AF and/or longer than 210mm I have an FA80-320 that I like better than my Tamron 70-300LD. Either of those AF zooms are good enough for me and were cheap. I think I got my Tamron for $50 and the FA80-320 for $80. If you want a great bang for buck 135mm prime, check out the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. It gets mixed reviews but I think it holds up and have plenty of keepers to prove it, and it can usually be found in abundance in the used markets at around $40. I've been curious about the 80-320 but there are really no good examples of pictures taken with this lens on the web. Mostly everything I find seems to be taken 10+ years ago and downsized to 1MP or so. And a +1 on the Takumar Bayonet 135mm. There are two versions, f/2.5 and f/2.8. I had the f/2.5, sold it, regret it, and bought the f/2.8 last year for less than 40 dollars. I think the 2.5 and 2.8 are basically the same lens, the 2.8 being the later version and I think it has somewhat improved coatings (still not SMC though). They're both excellent value and capable of great pictures, if you find a good copy. Both the one I have and the one I sold are good copies and are sharp from wide open.

05-03-2016, 11:57 AM	#21
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	I've owned or (with the really old stuff) sold a lot of these lenses. While it might be difficult to find a F 70-210 for under $100, you can pay less for the Takumar F 70-210 (most samples have a good multi-coating similar to SMC from the A-series) that is optically and physically similar to the ones with the Pentax label. I feel it is optically better than the very good m75-150 that remains in possession. And that 75-150 is at least as good as the m135 f/3.5 (long gone from my collection). The F 70-210s can be shot wide open all the way to 180mm and yield sharpness all the way to the corners. Even 210 f/5.6 is usable, but f/8 is advised for best sharpness on the long end. Here's a recent shot: Outlaw Country Cruise - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare And, at the long end: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/nvPTcazN/1/7147875_8290432#imageID=254660589

05-03-2016, 12:01 PM	#22
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by Skodadriver If you don't mind manual and heavy zoom lens, I recommend the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f3.8-5.4 (23A) ..... but with a PK-A adapter on it. Or you can get one with a PK adapter and use stop down metering. I use one with my K-5 and am very pleased with it. I use a PK-A adapter which I swap on to my other SP Tamrons, 19AH and 26A. this ^^^

05-03-2016, 12:27 PM	#23
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	Originally posted by wbgenetic 55-300 for under 100? I didn't say under $100 - I paid $120 for my new DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED just a few weeks ago...

05-05-2016, 06:28 PM	#24
EgelhaafKurt New Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8 Original Poster	I would like to thank all who replied to this thread. I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy. I will attempt to post some pictures when they arrive and post it to this thread, as well as write a review of my thoughts in the review page. Thank You All! Kurt Egelhaaf

05-05-2016, 07:48 PM	#25
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705	Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt I would like to thank all who replied to this thread. I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy. I will attempt to post some pictures when they arrive and post it to this thread, as well as write a review of my thoughts in the review page. Thank You All! Kurt Egelhaaf 2 excellent lenses. Miles better than any of the kit lenses. You will not be disappointed. I know because I've owned both

05-06-2016, 03:37 AM	#27
EgelhaafKurt New Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8 Original Poster	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden With 135mm lenses it is hard to go wrong. Even the lowly 3-layer coated Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 or f2.8 are OK or even good. Or any of the Takumar 135mms. Also many 3rd party 135's are OK. It is a simple range to make a good lens, or if it is so that they had a lot of time and practise to design them. Since everyone had one in their bag back in the film era many were made and they can be had cheaply. There is only one autofocus Pentax 135mm, and you wont get that one for us$100. But there are two alternatives that can be had with A contacts: the SMC Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and the Tamron adaptall 2 135mm f2.5. Both are good lenses. The Tamron even a bit better. Note that if the Tamron comes with a K mount adapter or some other brand mount you can switch to a KA adapter. The 200mms were also made in fairly large numbers, but probably only 1/10th as many as the 135mm lenses. Among the Pentax offerings you will have to stay with manual focus and have more patience to find one in your budget. Pentax changed optical design between the K200/4 and M200/4, but both are good enough. With tele zooms it is more of a gamble. Cheap often means old and early zooms were often not that good. Much more have happened in the last 20-50 years when it comes to zoom optics than it has for primes. Among the Pentax offerings in the range 70 or 80mm to 200 or 210mm the best options (not counting the FA*80-200/2.8) is the M80-200/4.5 and A70-210/4, both constant apperture, and the later even with A contacts. The F 70-210 you mentioned is just OK, but not as good as the M and A alternatives. Stay away from the F 80-200 and FA 70/80-200/210's, including the powerzoom version. If you go 3rd party and manual focus, consider the Vivitar series 1. They are good for their age. There are 4 or 5 optical deisgns. Several of them with a macro feature and the last one with A contacts. My favo is the original 70-210 f3.5. Same applies to most 70/80-300mm lenses and the range 200-300mm is typically worse than the rest, less sharp, less contrast. Knowing that, Tamrons various 70-300 are probably as much as you will get for the bucks. The DA55-300mm is a better lens that stays good even up to about 270mm. But it is out of your budget. Why not get a cheap 135mm for half your budget now...and then save up for a used DA55-300mm? And with patience and luck you can solve almost any lense need. I got a Sigma 400 f5.6 with A contacts and autofocus for -60 us$ on ebay. Was sold as "not working"...but I saw on the pics the A contacts were dirty...and decided to take a chance. I don't use that focal length much, but thought I it would be fun to have one for wild animals etc. Won it, it arrived...I cleaned the contacts and it worked. I have found a Takumar 135mm F2.5 for $39, I have heard really positve reviews on the K-series version of this lens, but very little good news on the Takumar. At 39 is that a good deal, or should I steer clear? With the good deal I got on the other lenses I can probably buy one more.

05-06-2016, 04:37 AM	#28
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt I put an offer in on a F 70-210mm SMC lens for $45 and it was accepted. I also snagged a 35-70mm, so it looks like I might be an F-series and M-series guy. Wonderful news! Hope they work out for you. There's nothing at all wrong with mixing series - I have Super Takumars, SMC Takumars, M, A, FA, DA and D-FA series lenses - there's nothing except your own preferences to stop you crossing boundaries! Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt I have found a Takumar 135mm F2.5 for $39 Are you talking about the bayonet-mount Takumar or the screwmount? Some swear by the bayonet Takumars, others at them. They are not as resistant to flare and glare as the SMC lenses, but under the right circumstances they can do a very good job. I saw one recently and would have bought it (for more than $39), but one look at the front element said no. It was a bad copy (lots of haze) and I had to turn it down. @Tsuken shot one in the Single In April challenge; go have a look at his photos, and you will see what it can do. Start on this page: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/102-monthly-photo-challenges/4691-...april-1st.html If it's the screwmount Takumar, they're supposed to be very good (but you will need to buy an M42/K adapter, so figure that into the cost). I have the f/3.5 SMC version and I'm very happy with it; bear in mind that the Super Takumars' coatings are not quite as good, but under the best circumstances they can perform extremely well.

05-06-2016, 08:24 AM	#29
EgelhaafKurt New Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc Wonderful news! Hope they work out for you. There's nothing at all wrong with mixing series - I have Super Takumars, SMC Takumars, M, A, FA, DA and D-FA series lenses - there's nothing except your own preferences to stop you crossing boundaries! Are you talking about the bayonet-mount Takumar or the screwmount? Some swear by the bayonet Takumars, others at them. They are not as resistant to flare and glare as the SMC lenses, but under the right circumstances they can do a very good job. I saw one recently and would have bought it (for more than $39), but one look at the front element said no. It was a bad copy (lots of haze) and I had to turn it down. @Tsuken shot one in the Single In April challenge; go have a look at his photos, and you will see what it can do. Start on this page: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/102-monthly-photo-challenges/4691-...april-1st.html If it's the screwmount Takumar, they're supposed to be very good (but you will need to buy an M42/K adapter, so figure that into the cost). I have the f/3.5 SMC version and I'm very happy with it; bear in mind that the Super Takumars' coatings are not quite as good, but under the best circumstances they can perform extremely well. It is a Bayonet from Roberts Camera on ebay. I might grab it, it's in excellent shape as well. Lastly I will be buying a top quality wide angle this summer, I am pretty sure on buying the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8 or the Limited 31mm f1.8 which isn't quite as wide as I would like and is very expensive. Are there other sub $1000 wide angles that others swear by? What are some favorites?

05-06-2016, 08:41 AM	#30
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by EgelhaafKurt I am pretty sure on buying the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8 I came very close to buying that lens last year. A cursory search for reviews brought me to this forum, where I found that numerous users (including Forums staff, who tested multiple examples) had reported horrific miss rates with the AF - it seemed to have problems locking on and gave people blurred pictures, while others had a sweet experience with never an image missed. I decided against it, primarily because if I were to end up with a flawed copy I would be 400km from the nearest camera store with no easy way to return it in person and get a better copy. If you live near a camera store that is happy to take a troublesome copy back for an exchange or refund with no questions asked, it may be worth going for it. If I had to buy one or the other, though, I'd get the 31/1.8 Limited. I haven't handled the Sigma lens, but I have handled the 31 and I understand that it is substantially smaller. There is of course the new D-FA 15-30/2.8, a derivation of a proven Tamron design, but that's a beast in every sense of the word, both in terms of size and in price. Very large, and very, very expensive. Well above the $1000 line.