Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2009, 03:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
Halco's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 123
Old M42 Off Brands

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?

11-12-2009, 10:51 AM   #2
Igilligan
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Halco Quote
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)

Last edited by Igilligan; 11-12-2009 at 10:56 AM.
11-12-2009, 02:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
Halco's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 123
Original Poster
The pair I think were 9.00, the Bushnell was in a bit better condition than the Owens, but neither seemed bad. Glass was clear, so I may drop in again and grab them.
11-12-2009, 02:50 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,581
For $9, buy them, try them, and if they suck at least you have a couple of cool paperweights.

11-12-2009, 02:53 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,822
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
For $9, buy them, try them, and if they suck at least you have a couple of cool paperweights.


And I disagree with Gus on the 200/135mm. I like my 200mm better than the 135mm's I have. Probably just me. Or even probably just him.
11-12-2009, 03:04 PM   #6
Igilligan
Guest




How dare you disagree with me, when you are so obviously wrong!
11-12-2009, 03:08 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,822
For one time, only one time, I disagree, and you're getting angry? Why Gus, why?
11-12-2009, 07:12 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Stratman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,464
I have a 200MM S-M-C Tak that I love, it is sharp, easy to focus, and I got it in a camera shop for $40!!! And even though it is an all metal and glass lens, it is not very heavy at all...

Here is probably my favorite shot I have taken with it..



11-12-2009, 07:37 PM   #9
Igilligan
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Rense Quote
For one time, only one time, I disagree, and you're getting angry? Why Gus, why?
I Feel Like I May Have Used The Wrong Face

but you are so wrong this time --- haha
11-13-2009, 12:47 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,822
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
I Feel Like I May Have Used The Wrong Face

but you are so wrong this time --- haha
It's just because you can't follow your girls with such a long lens, they're too inpredictable! But you wished you could love your 200mm more, I know! I KNOW!
11-13-2009, 10:57 AM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 228
It seems to me very interesant the question abuot a) to choose a 135 mm lens and go directly to 300/400 range; or b) to choose a 50 mm every day lens and/or a portrait 85 mm (or so) lens and then go to the 200 mm ones.

I prefer the a) option. The first class and cheaper 135 mm lenses are, generally, better and lighter than the first class and cheaper 200 mm ones. Having the 135 lens, go to the 300/400 mm lens let, generally, have more posibilities than the 200 lens.

Only my optic. Rino.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
200mm, f3.5, k-mount, m42, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help with choosing lens brands hcarvalhoalves Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 09-02-2010 09:21 PM
Less known brands ytterbium Ask B&H Photo! 3 06-01-2010 08:14 AM
Time to switch brands? FHPhotographer Photographic Technique 99 09-04-2008 02:35 AM
Polarizer Brands? CJSpangler Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 8 08-01-2008 07:56 PM
Noise on other brands fishy Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 07-22-2008 04:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:20 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top