[.a.t.]

Have any of you here ever seen a Sears mirror lens? Sears did offer 500mm mirror lenses in their catalog for several years in the 1980s. But they seem to be scarce, so they probably didn't sell very many. That's not surprising considering the asking price for a 500mm in the 1982 Fall-Winter catalog was $269.99. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $722 in 2020.

Early Sears 500s were re-badged Tokinas (review link) which came with a fixed mount offered in the major mounts of the time. Later, there was a re-badged Samyang 500.

A couple years ago, I actually found a cheap (Tokina) Sears 500 on ebay! But it was cheap for a reason...
Two reasons, actually.

First, it had a Minolta SR mount. And second, some of the interior glass was actually fractured! Still, I'm a sucker for unusual lenses - and especially when they're selling for bargain prices. And I was genuinely curious to see how the lens might perform in spite of the damage.

My lens came with matching hood and front cap. The hood is designed so it will thread on in the reversed position for storage. And the front cap fits onto the hood.
Curiously, the accessory thread diameter of the lens is about 75mm, rather than the common 77mm. A former custodian of this copy labeled the hood as being 77mm, but it isn't. And if you're thinking about buying a (Tokina) Sears 500, hope that the matching hood is included. Because finding a replacement might be difficult.

So I've had this lens for a couple years now, but it was only recently that I bought a Sony camera which made it practical for me to use Minolta mount lenses digitally. With its 1.5m minimum focus distance, it's actually useful as a close focus lens. Except my copy is really soft at MFD. I'd never used a Tokina mirror lens before I bought this one, but I'm sure the fractured glass must reduce sharpness and contrast. Even so, considering that this lens was sold as a basket case, I've been pleasantly surprised with some of the results I've seen.

Here's my lens and some recent sample shots:

[ivanvernon]

Have any of you here ever seen a Sears mirror lens? Sears did offer 500mm mirror lenses in their catalog for several years in the 1980s. But they seem to be scarce, so they probably didn't sell very many. That's not surprising considering the asking price for a 500mm in the 1982 Fall-Winter catalog was $269.99. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $722 in 2020.

Early Sears 500s were re-badged Tokinas (review link) which came with a fixed mount offered in the major mounts of the time. Later, there was a re-badged Samyang 500.

A couple years ago, I actually found a cheap (Tokina) Sears 500 on ebay! But it was cheap for a reason...
Two reasons, actually.

First, it had a Minolta SR mount. And second, some of the interior glass was actually fractured! Still, I'm a sucker for unusual lenses - and especially when they're selling for bargain prices. And I was genuinely curious to see how the lens might perform in spite of the damage.

My lens came with matching hood and front cap. The hood is designed so it will thread on in the reversed position for storage. And the front cap fits onto the hood.
Curiously, the accessory thread diameter of the lens is about 75mm, rather than the common 77mm. A former custodian of this copy labeled the hood as being 77mm, but it isn't. And if you're thinking about buying a (Tokina) Sears 500, hope that the matching hood is included. Because finding a replacement might be difficult.

So I've had this lens for a couple years now, but it was only recently that I bought a Sony camera which made it practical for me to use Minolta mount lenses digitally. With its 1.5m minimum focus distance, it's actually useful as a close focus lens. Except my copy is really soft at MFD. I'd never used a Tokina mirror lens before I bought this one, but I'm sure the fractured glass must reduce sharpness and contrast. Even so, considering that this lens was sold as a basket case, I've been pleasantly surprised with some of the results I've seen.

Here's my lens and some recent sample shots:

Thanks for your interesting comments on the Minolta lenses. I have been using a couple of Minolta lenses on my Pentax K-mount cameras using an adapter containing corrective glass to allow for the incompatible registry distances of the Pentax and Minolta mounts. The results, surprisingly, seem quite good, though I would not invest in many lenses requiring use of corrective adapters.

---------- Post added 04-27-20 at 12:26 PM ----------

Thanks for your interesting comments on the Minolta lenses. I have been using a couple of Minolta lenses on my Pentax K-mount cameras using an adapter containing corrective glass to allow for the incompatible registry distances of the Pentax and Minolta mounts. The results, surprisingly, seem quite good, though I would not invest in many lenses requiring use of corrective adapters.

I second your remarks on the various versions of the Pentax 50mm f 2.8 macro, which I have in the D FA version. It is super sharp and a great macro too if you don't mind getting close to your subject, though I would never with to use it on a cobra or rattlesnake. I often use this lens as a "documentation lens," meaning I use it to make accurate visual recordings of items rather than for artistic use.

[.a.t.]

Thanks for your interesting comments on the Minolta lenses. I have been using a couple of Minolta lenses on my Pentax K-mount cameras using an adapter containing corrective glass to allow for the incompatible registry distances of the Pentax and Minolta mounts. The results, surprisingly, seem quite good, though I would not invest in many lenses requiring use of corrective adapters.

That's an interesting subject, Ivan. I've shied away from corrective adapters due to the (supposed) inferior image quality they produce. Yet I happily shoot with broken / damaged lenses such as my Sears 500. And I occasionally experiment with reversing lens elements to get unconventional rendering.

Something to think about...


Tim

[Aaron28]

Have any of you here ever seen a Sears mirror lens?

do not believe I have ever seen one! .....the images look very typical or in comparison to a 500 mirror I have....it may be a rokkinon......I ferget

[.a.t.]

do not believe I have ever seen one! .....the images look very typical or in comparison to a 500 mirror I have....it may be a rokkinon......I ferget

Heh. So you have more lenses than you can keep track of? Same here!

[Aaron28]

Heh. So you have more lenses than you can keep track of?

hahaha! yeh pretty much

[catwalk]

Sears 28mm f2.8 MC Macro PK on a K-3 II.


Subject is a Ceramic Flatpack Integrated Circuit c.a. 1965.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[amc654]

I have a Sears f 3.5-4.5 28-85mm lens with Minolta MD mount; pristine condition. Never got around to buying an adapter. Saw one today for a little more than $20 and am wondering if it's worth it. I have a K100D Super as my fun camera and am buying a K-70 for business. I'm going to be selling a K-7 that only works on manual mode, so this might be a good fit to sell with it (but not sure I'd get the investment back). I'd sell it by itself, but I don't think it's worth much as a standalone. Not sure if it'll fit my old Minolta 35mm film camera, but am going to check that out.

One commenter above indicates good results with a Sears lens w/adapter. Anyone have this specific lens or have had it?

[goatsNdonkey]

Did you check for reviews of that lens, here and elsewhere?

My Sears lenses are mainly (or only?) primes. They are excellent, but I can't say about the zooms. $20 doesn't sound like much to risk, even if nobody can tell you about that zoom.

[amc654]

Did you check for reviews of that lens, here and elsewhere?

My Sears lenses are mainly (or only?) primes. They are excellent, but I can't say about the zooms. $20 doesn't sound like much to risk, even if nobody can tell you about that zoom.

I did look at the reviews, but not sure they were much help. They were mixed, and as we know, even within the same make of lens, performance and user ratings can vary widely with individual lenses.

That's good to know, though, that you're happy with your prime lenses. It helps.

[goatsNdonkey]

I did look at the reviews, but not sure they were much help. They were mixed, and as we know, even within the same make of lens, performance and user ratings can vary widely with individual lenses.

That's good to know, though, that you're happy with your prime lenses. It helps.

Hopefully a forum member with some experience with that model can tell you more.

[ivanvernon]

I did look at the reviews, but not sure they were much help. They were mixed, and as we know, even within the same make of lens, performance and user ratings can vary widely with individual lenses.

That's good to know, though, that you're happy with your prime lenses. It helps.

Minolta-mount lenses, used on K-mount cameras, have to use an adapter with corrective glass owing to inconsistent registry distances for the Minolta and K mounts. It is normally best to avoid lens adaptations requiring corrective glass because of the optical degradation that occurs. Tat being said, however, I have used Minolta lenses and one non-Minolta but Minolta mount lenses on my K-mount cameras to good effect. I would not really bother to do this except for exceptionally good lenses, so I would advising searching for reviews of the lens are considering to see whether it is really worth fooling with.

[amc654]

Minolta-mount lenses, used on K-mount cameras, have to use an adapter with corrective glass owing to inconsistent registry distances for the Minolta and K mounts. It is normally best to avoid lens adaptations requiring corrective glass because of the optical degradation that occurs. Tat being said, however, I have used Minolta lenses and one non-Minolta but Minolta mount lenses on my K-mount cameras to good effect. I would not really bother to do this except for exceptionally good lenses, so I would advising searching for reviews of the lens are considering to see whether it is really worth fooling with.

If I can find my old Minolta SLR, my first option will be to see if it works on that. If it does, I'll keep it for that body. But I've been looking at the adapters with glass, so that would be my next choice. And if all else fails, I can try to sell it, even though it's not worth a lot. Better than using it as a paperweight!

[Aaron28]

huntsville, alabama.....K-50...sears 135/f2.8 macro.....

[ivanvernon]

If I can find my old Minolta SLR, my first option will be to see if it works on that. If it does, I'll keep it for that body. But I've been looking at the adapters with glass, so that would be my next choice. And if all else fails, I can try to sell it, even though it's not worth a lot. Better than using it as a paperweight!

Good luck to you on this lens venture!