[DRad]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Thanks for the recommendations guys. A friend of mine just gave me an old lens he doesn't use anymore - a "Huntar MC Auto 80-205 f3.8". I couldn't find much info about it online but I'll probably give that one a go before getting anything else. If it's no good I'll probably get some primes instead.

[TwoUptons]

Thanks for the recommendations guys. A friend of mine just gave me an old lens he doesn't use anymore - a "Huntar MC Auto 80-205 f3.8". I couldn't find much info about it online but I'll probably give that one a go before getting anything else. If it's no good I'll probably get some primes instead.

If you take some pictures of the lens and post them here, we can try and decode who really made it...
There are dozens (hundreds?) of companies that put their names on lenses made by a relatively small number of companies, so odds are your Huntar is really a Cosina or Tokina or something like that.

-Eric

[elkarrde]

I have M100/2.8, M135/3.5, M200/4, and both mentioned M-series zooms, M75-150/4 and M80-200/4.5.
In my experience, M100 is the sharpest lens of the bunch. M135 is not far, M75-150 is really really good, maybe even as good as M135 (wouldn't surprise me if it's better), M80-200 lags a bit, but not much. Actually, M200 was the lens that disappointed me the most - at least my copy is not as good as zooms. Regarding the prices, M100 and M200 are probably the most expensive of the bunch, M100 primarily because of the relative scarcity, the others should be fairly affordable.

[martin42mm]

If you take some pictures of the lens and post them here, we can try and decode who really made it...
There are dozens (hundreds?) of companies that put their names on lenses made by a relatively small number of companies, so odds are your Huntar is really a Cosina or Tokina or something like that.

-Eric

I've owned and used hundreds of lenses over the years from my first SLR with Helios 58mm, and the Meyer Orestor 135 and Lydith 30mmm ( all of which I still have) to more modern Pentax and other manufacturers on my DSLRs. I've owned near enough every Takumar from the m42 era through to the A series lenses, but most have gone because they have too much colour fringing on the K-S1, although some of the A series still work fine on digital.But for film you have to go a long way to beat the Takumars , although strangely enough the most-used lens ended up being my Vivitar 28-210 zoom that I bought back when they first came out. The colour rendition was superb, and I never had any issues with lack of sharpness anywhere in the range. Perhaps I was lucky, but it virtually lived on my Spotmatics.
Lately I've revisited some of the early K-mount zooms from Soligor, Vivitar and others, usually in the 75-300mm range. Very inexpensive ( usually from Cash Converters etc.), and where they have not suited my tastes, I've sold them on. But some of the Soligors have really surprised me as to the results they give, although some are not so hot. Depends who made them for Soligor, just as with the Vivitars.

I do agree with the support for the Vivitar series 1 70-210 Komine version( the serial number is the clue), but frankly it doesn't matter whose name is on the lens if you like the results. I recently bought a Cosina 100-500 zoom that was not expensive, and was so surprised at the quality of the image I sold my Tamron 500 mirror! The Cosina even had minimal CA on the K-S1, so a win-win. But hardly a leave-on-the-camera lens.....which takes me back to my old Vivitar 28-210 that I also have in K-mount. Odd thing is, the contemporary magazine tests were somewhat sniffy about the lens, so I must have got luckly with both my versions, m42 and K. Never read test reports until after you've bought and tried a lens!

[DRad]

If you take some pictures of the lens and post them here, we can try and decode who really made it...
There are dozens (hundreds?) of companies that put their names on lenses made by a relatively small number of companies, so odds are your Huntar is really a Cosina or Tokina or something like that.

-Eric

Heres a few pictures of the lens, (number on the front is 795205):

[martin42mm]

Heres a few pictures of the lens, (number on the front is 795205):

Not sure who made the Hunter lens since the serial number doesn't match the Vivitar or Soligor makers. I suspect it was actually the year of manufacture ( not long before Hunters finally went out of business), but the name is immaterial. How does it perform? Its always interesting to know who made what before buying any lens, but you can get variations in quality between output from the same maker . This applies to camera manufacturers as well as third-party makers, although I suspect in reality the quality control of the former exceeeds that of the latter. Russian lenses tend particularly towards the latter since I'm not sure they threw anything away, although they have made some superb lenses down the years.

[aslyfox]

. . . If it's no good I'll probably get some primes instead.

in my limited experience [ and the advice from my Dad ] is that film era prime lenses are generally better than film era zooms

he told me that " zooms were compromises "

however he agreed that Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zooms were very good

please remember that I am no expert, I just post a lot

[TwoUptons]

Poking around, I found some Rokunar zooms that look very similar. Could be one of those, but I don't know who made theirs, either...
Could be a Tamron like this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/265019969237?hash=item3db46bced5:g:8bUAAOSwunNeJl0d

I'd go shoot with it... it probably isn't horrible unless there is something wrong with it...

-Eric

[martin42mm]

Prime lenses from any era always tend to give better quality images than zooms, although there are some superb zooms that can give primes a run for their money. Zooms also tend to have a smaller maximum aperture for a given focal length unless you delve into seriously expensive territory. But I remember Victor Blackman ( look him up if you were born post 1980) saying after he had tried his first zoom that he found it heavier and with a reduced aperture compared with a prime of a similar focal length, BUT-and it is a big but for a pressman like Blackman, it enabled him to compose photos in-camera rather than in the darkroom. And of course, with reversal film, the darkroom was never an option. I tend to think of digital these days as being the equivalent of reversal film, and so in-camera composition is important, or you end up with degrading the image to reach the desired composition. So ideally a prime every time, but in reality, zooms are more practical for most purposes warts and all. But the tactile feel of a decently-made prime is always a pleasure....

[JimJohnson]

The 75-150 is a strong lens even today. The 80-200 not as much but not bad. Both should work on your k1000. Of the two I’d go for the 75-150. I like the range and the slightly faster optical performance. The A series 70-210 is another good choice - you would just ignore the A setting and use in standard manual mode.

I was going to suggest the KA 70-210 also. It will give you a bit of 'future proofing' ... I recently dug my 70-210 out of my Super Program kit to compare with other longer lens for my just acquired K-1 ... I was pleasantly surprised that my venerable KA zoom was as sharp and in many cases shaper than other AF telephoto lens I mounted when I pixel peeped at max enlargement on the K-1 display. Did not matter if I tweaked the AF manually..

[Jonathan Mac]

The M 75-150mm f/4 is one of the very few old manual zooms that I've kept a hold of because it's very good, even wide open, while not being all that big or heavy.

[magurera]

Both are good, I'll take the 75-150 / 4 it is better IQ and sharper.
If you need longer tele could look for a Tokina SZ-X 60-300 (it is also in some Revue Porst etc incarnation) very good quality.

[gofour3]

is that film era prime lenses are generally better than film era zooms

he told me that " zooms were compromises "

That's true and Pentax even mentioned this in their early lens manuals, this is from the K Series one in 1975:

Another early zoom that is not too bad is the K45-125/4.

Phil.

[Archone]

Hmm… You’re shooting with a K1000 so it can’t just be a price thing. I’m guessing besides budget, the OP is looking for the film experience. Truth is, at this point is technology, digital as far exceeded what film can do in terms of sharpness and color rendition.

However, that being said, film looks like film. It’s really hard to copy that look, close.. but not really. So that being said….

I recommend going with the original Trinity. K or M 28mm f2.8 and the K or M 135mm 3.5 in addition to the 50 you already have. The 35mm you have is a bonus. This will give you the landscape and telephoto reach you want. Also the primes are generally a little faster than the zooms with less distortion and these lenses have great IQ. And the price is right on this combination as they’re really common.

And they’re both more aesthetically and time period “correct” on the K1000.

Well, thats my opinion.