Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2010, 07:51 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 163
Local Lens: Is it worth it??

I've been on Pentaxforums every day, as well as Kijiji and other local sites looking around. I guess I'm just trying to buy more and more and more, even though my wallet is .... empty. I need to get a job soon, haha.
Well, I'll get to the point.
You can see in my signature all the lenses I have so far. Not a great collection, and I've been wanting to add a decent AF zoom to it, as well as a huge MF zoom to break out the tripod and try to get some nice shots. (haha, tripod, try... don't know why I found that funny...)
Anyways, on Kijiji, I found a:
'Telephoto 450 mm SOLIGOR lens with a Pentax mount'
The info says
' 450 mm 1:8 Excellent condition!! Still in original box. Very seldom used. '
And the listed price is $60.



So, any comments on this lens at all? Anyone even heard of it or seen it before?
I'm not sure whether or not to even look at it.

Your thoughts?

03-06-2010, 08:04 PM   #2
Veteran Member
henryjing's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 467
Is this too big for K-x?
03-06-2010, 08:07 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 163
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by henryjing Quote
Is this too big for K-x?
Well, it says 'Pentax mount' which doesn't say much, I know.
But on one of their other ads, they have a Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP500, so that's encouraging.
03-06-2010, 08:10 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
I'm sure you'll get a lot of lens options for the K-mount. but you really need to dig deeper or have a lil bit of luck on your side to get some great lens for a bargain price.

a great AF zoom at a bargain would be a 16-45, and I don't think you would consider buying something more expensive than that lens at your current state. the soligor 450mm is worth the shot I think, considering it's only for $60 and the only super-telephoto lens that you'd be using for such paparazzi purpose.

03-06-2010, 08:11 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by henryjing Quote
Is this too big for K-x?
it's a big and long lens, that's for sure. and you would definitely need a good tripod for it.
03-06-2010, 08:28 PM   #6
Pentaxian
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
$60!!! buy it for me

One on eBay from the east coast sold for $40us plus shipping so it's about the same if each copy is good?

Last edited by Clicker; 03-06-2010 at 08:44 PM.
03-06-2010, 10:04 PM   #7
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
what it is, what it ain't

That's not a long zoom. That's a SIMPLE LONG LENS (technical term, no joke). Some might call it a telephoto, but technically, a telephoto has a separate optical group (like a built-in teleconverter) to make the long optics 'look' longer than they are. With a Simple Long Lens, there's just some basic glass on the front, a mount on the back, and a focal length of tube in between.

That looks like a fairly common 1970's vintage T-mount lens. They're easy to fit with mounts for Pentax, Olympus, Canon, whatever. I had a similar one for my Olympus Pen-FT. I have another similar one now for my Pentax, a Spiratone 400/6.3, that cost me all of US$15 a few months ago on eBay. Because there ain't a lot of glass in it, it's surprisingly light, 770g, only 55g more than my K20D naked.

Lensmakers didn't go to a lot of trouble correcting for flare & aberrations etc with these, but they're still surprisingly good performers, FOR THE MONEY. Consider them to be cheap fun toys. Add a homemade lens hood; don't shoot into the sun or bright lights, or extreme contrasts. Turn your Shake Reduction on, stop down a little, shoot well-lit subjects, and hand-holding ain't that tough. For other than well-lit subjects, yes, you'll want a tripod. NOTE: Mine focuses past infinity. This can be an issue if you're shooting wide-open. Also, don't shoot distant vistas when the air is warm. Atmospheric turbulence will blur those long long shots.

Back in the day, I had a similar lens on a bellows on my Pen-FT, sitting on a shoulder-stock. I used it to take closeups of rattlesnakes from a safe distance. Heh heh. No shake reduction, just breathe easy and shoot.

Last edited by RioRico; 03-06-2010 at 10:25 PM.
03-06-2010, 10:22 PM   #8
MSM
Veteran Member
MSM's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alabama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 994
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
That's not a long zoom. That's a SIMPLE LONG LENS (technical term, no joke). Some might call it a telephoto, but technically, a telephoto has a separate optical group (like a built-in teleconverter) to make the long optics 'look' longer than they are. With a Simple Long Lens, there's just some basic glass on the front, and a mount on the back.

That looks like a fairly common 1970's vintage T-mount lens. They're easy to fit with mounts for Pentax, Olympus, Canon, whatever. I had a similar one for my Olympus Pen-FT. I have another similar one now for my Pentax, a Spiratone 400/6.3, that cost me all of US$15 a few months ago on eBay. Because there ain't a lot of glass in it, it's surprisingly light, 770g, only 55g more than my K20D naked.

Very interesting. I tried a Vivitar once of this same era. I was shocked to see that the front 'element' unscrewed and it was an empty barrel.

Shub: I think the important words of the lens' description is 'very seldom used.' I am sure there is a good reason(s) it wasn't used. Unless you have some undying love of carrying around a beast of a lens (at least in size) save your money. You will need a tripod, a lot of light (f1:8), excellent manual focusing skill, more light, and a subject that requires the field of view offered by a 675 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens. This is not even mentioning the attention that it will garner!

Save your money for good glass in the focal lengths you shoot the most. $60 may not seem like a hugh amount, but multiply that by the number of lenses that you have bought or are considering and think of the lens you could have bought. Quality over quantity...everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Just my random thoughts...

03-06-2010, 10:46 PM   #9
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
further thoughts

I'm glad mine cost US$15 -- I wouldn't have gone over $30 for it. But I'm cheap. Yes, some of these are little-used because 1) they're bulky and intimidating, 2) the optics ain't exactly dazzling, and 3) the user didn't want to be shot by cops. My Sakar 500/8 mirror only cost US$13, and it's a LOT less intrusive and only 1/2 stop slower.

No, it's not a fine birding tele. It's a run-around-outside-with-a-LONG-lens tele. Shoot at nude beaches from the clifftop! Track frightened pedestrians! Get a BIG flash to go with it! Paint parts of it white and pretend it's one of those US$10K Canon bazookas! Practice your Croc Dundee impersonation! ("You call that a tele? No, no, THIS is a TELE!")

BTW that looks like a M42 mount on it. Same as my Spiratone. (Any PK mount would be wider.) Since mine focuses past infinity, I put a cheap non-infinity-focus flanged M42-PL adapter on it, and now it's right as rain.
03-06-2010, 10:50 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Raybo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 871
QuoteOriginally posted by MSM Quote
Very interesting. I tried a Vivitar once of this same era. I was shocked to see that the front 'element' unscrewed and it was an empty barrel.

Shub: I think the important words of the lens' description is 'very seldom used.' I am sure there is a good reason(s) it wasn't used. Unless you have some undying love of carrying around a beast of a lens (at least in size) save your money. You will need a tripod, a lot of light (f1:8), excellent manual focusing skill, more light, and a subject that requires the field of view offered by a 675 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens. This is not even mentioning the attention that it will garner!

Save your money for good glass in the focal lengths you shoot the most. $60 may not seem like a hugh amount, but multiply that by the number of lenses that you have bought or are considering and think of the lens you could have bought. Quality over quantity...everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Just my random thoughts...
I have a Vivitar 400mm f5.6 from the same era and it does not seem to have the same bad IQ that you have experienced.

Here is a Jpeg of Mrs. Bunny (I think it was taken at F5.6) right out of my K100DS using said lens.

BTW, this image was hand held.


Last edited by Raybo; 03-06-2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason: What ever!
03-06-2010, 11:40 PM   #11
Veteran Member
xjjohnno's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
Seldom used would suggest the seller was not overly impressed with the image quality. For $60 it's not going to break the bank if you buy it but don't expect stellar results from the lens. I'd be guessing it's a Tokina that came out and was rebadged for different brands and the Pentax mount is more then likely M42. I bought one badged as a Prinz Galaxy which I have nothing nice to say about.
03-06-2010, 11:42 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
I can't make it out there but if its still there next weekend, its mine
03-07-2010, 06:37 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
for me it seems too slow 450mm F8.

you should be looking for 400F5.6 there are lots of them out there.

I have a vivitar 400 F5.6 multicoated lens

If you search under postings for this lens and my name you will find a shot of a tiger, on ektachrome film which is quite sharp
03-07-2010, 06:27 PM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 163
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I'm glad mine cost US$15 -- I wouldn't have gone over $30 for it. But I'm cheap. Yes, some of these are little-used because 1) they're bulky and intimidating, 2) the optics ain't exactly dazzling, and 3) the user didn't want to be shot by cops. My Sakar 500/8 mirror only cost US$13, and it's a LOT less intrusive and only 1/2 stop slower.

No, it's not a fine birding tele. It's a run-around-outside-with-a-LONG-lens tele. Shoot at nude beaches from the clifftop! Track frightened pedestrians! Get a BIG flash to go with it! Paint parts of it white and pretend it's one of those US$10K Canon bazookas! Practice your Croc Dundee impersonation! ("You call that a tele? No, no, THIS is a TELE!")

BTW that looks like a M42 mount on it. Same as my Spiratone. (Any PK mount would be wider.) Since mine focuses past infinity, I put a cheap non-infinity-focus flanged M42-PL adapter on it, and now it's right as rain.
Haha yeah, I said the list price was $60, never intended actually paying that. It's probably not worth a $20. But I think it'd be funny to walk around in public with this lens. No fears of getting mugged, that's for sure. Anyone comes at me-- take off the lens and BAM!! Lens can double as a bat

QuoteOriginally posted by Raybo Quote
I have a Vivitar 400mm f5.6 from the same era and it does not seem to have the same bad IQ that you have experienced.

Here is a Jpeg of Mrs. Bunny (I think it was taken at F5.6) right out of my K100DS using said lens.

BTW, this image was hand held.

How far away was that bunny?
I don't have anything near that (200mm max) so I don't know how far away a 450mm x1.5 would be...
That's fairly steady for hand held.

QuoteOriginally posted by xjjohnno Quote
Seldom used would suggest the seller was not overly impressed with the image quality. For $60 it's not going to break the bank if you buy it but don't expect stellar results from the lens. I'd be guessing it's a Tokina that came out and was rebadged for different brands and the Pentax mount is more then likely M42. I bought one badged as a Prinz Galaxy which I have nothing nice to say about.
Well, I think it says seldom used because, judging from their other ads, it's an old lady that has these, probably from a while ago? (Pentax FTW, haha). And Kijiji prices are never as advertised, I learned that the hard was as a buyer and a seller. "Nothing nice to say about" haha, slightly resembles the 80-200mm JC Penney in my sig. Glad that was free

QuoteOriginally posted by Clicker Quote
I can't make it out there but if its still there next weekend, its mine
It's still there, not much demand for Pentax in my area, especially not much demand for a huge honkin lens with unknown properties.
(I said all that, with NO INTENT to discourage you from liking it haha)


QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
for me it seems too slow 450mm F8.

you should be looking for 400F5.6 there are lots of them out there.

I have a vivitar 400 F5.6 multicoated lens

If you search under postings for this lens and my name you will find a shot of a tiger, on ektachrome film which is quite sharp
Yeah this was a quick 'OMG, a Pentax?!?' searches. I've been searching 'Pentax' on kijiji for just about all the cities within 75ish km of me, haha.
03-07-2010, 06:30 PM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 163
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
it's a big and long lens, that's for sure. and you would definitely need a good tripod for it.
QuoteOriginally posted by Clicker Quote
$60!!! buy it for me

One on eBay from the east coast sold for $40us plus shipping so it's about the same if each copy is good?
Clicker, can't guarantee if it's good haha.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
That's not a long zoom. That's a SIMPLE LONG LENS (technical term, no joke). Some might call it a telephoto, but technically, a telephoto has a separate optical group (like a built-in teleconverter) to make the long optics 'look' longer than they are. With a Simple Long Lens, there's just some basic glass on the front, a mount on the back, and a focal length of tube in between.

That looks like a fairly common 1970's vintage T-mount lens. They're easy to fit with mounts for Pentax, Olympus, Canon, whatever. I had a similar one for my Olympus Pen-FT. I have another similar one now for my Pentax, a Spiratone 400/6.3, that cost me all of US$15 a few months ago on eBay. Because there ain't a lot of glass in it, it's surprisingly light, 770g, only 55g more than my K20D naked.

Lensmakers didn't go to a lot of trouble correcting for flare & aberrations etc with these, but they're still surprisingly good performers, FOR THE MONEY. Consider them to be cheap fun toys. Add a homemade lens hood; don't shoot into the sun or bright lights, or extreme contrasts. Turn your Shake Reduction on, stop down a little, shoot well-lit subjects, and hand-holding ain't that tough. For other than well-lit subjects, yes, you'll want a tripod. NOTE: Mine focuses past infinity. This can be an issue if you're shooting wide-open. Also, don't shoot distant vistas when the air is warm. Atmospheric turbulence will blur those long long shots.

Back in the day, I had a similar lens on a bellows on my Pen-FT, sitting on a shoulder-stock. I used it to take closeups of rattlesnakes from a safe distance. Heh heh. No shake reduction, just breathe easy and shoot.
Haha, you make this sound like an old sniper rifle, that may kill me if I use it.

QuoteOriginally posted by MSM Quote
Very interesting. I tried a Vivitar once of this same era. I was shocked to see that the front 'element' unscrewed and it was an empty barrel.

Shub: I think the important words of the lens' description is 'very seldom used.' I am sure there is a good reason(s) it wasn't used. Unless you have some undying love of carrying around a beast of a lens (at least in size) save your money. You will need a tripod, a lot of light (f1:8), excellent manual focusing skill, more light, and a subject that requires the field of view offered by a 675 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens. This is not even mentioning the attention that it will garner!

Save your money for good glass in the focal lengths you shoot the most. $60 may not seem like a hugh amount, but multiply that by the number of lenses that you have bought or are considering and think of the lens you could have bought. Quality over quantity...everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Just my random thoughts...
I can see why this would be 'seldom used' and I understand what you mean. I should make a counter offer of 20 bucks. But yeah, I'm working on getting a "* or Limited" lens soon. Oh, the exclusivity of those lenses.
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!
haha, k-mount, kijiji, lens, mm, pentax lens, slr lens, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SDM lenses, how much they are really worth or are they worth it? Pentaxor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 01-17-2015 11:32 PM
Could someone tell me what this lens is worth? Originalluff Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 05-18-2009 04:15 AM
How much is this lens worth? ranamar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 05-06-2008 08:25 PM
Lens Worth Getting? LeftBehind Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-17-2007 10:09 AM
Is my old lens worth anything? matsoberg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 04-21-2007 09:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM. | 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