Originally posted by Halco Looked at a couple old 200mm primes in a pawn shop today. The first was a Bushnell Automatic 200mm f3.5 (M42) and an Owens Automatic 200mm f3.5 (M42). Both were massive, solid and had beautifully damped focusing rings. Has anyone heard of or used either of these before? How do they perform?
How much were they?
I had a bushnell 200 that was very similar to a tamron 200. It had some fungus so I did not use it, other than to just shoot a few shots. A bit of PF and not real contrasty...
I think the 200mm lenses are similar to the 135's in that there were a lot of rebranded versions of just a few actually lenses. So lots of similarities.
I personally would grab the Owens if it is dirt cheap just because I have never heard of it. But that is just me.
There are many great old M42 lenses out there. From my experience the 200mm is one of the least desirable only because of the size and weight vs focal length. I like the 25 dollar vivitar 135 2.8 for a more usable 'cheap' option. If I am gonna carry a lot of size and weight I would go for a longer old lens like a 300 or 400...
To give you a sense of price... The Tamron 200 3.5 goes for around 25-50 bucks I think and our own very nice Super Tak 200 F4 goes for 70-100 ish (I think)