| Author: | | New Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 18 | | Review Date: September 8, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, sturdy. | | Cons: | Large and heavy compared to other 28/2.8s | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 9
Camera Used: Ricoh XR2s
| |
Mine is actually a "Super Albinar". I actually bought it used, together with a 135/2.8 (back then, these were the two types of lens that were most commonly available from third parties) - Must've been 1980 or 81 - saw an ad in the local classifieds. Didn't even have a camera body yet back then, I bought a Ricoh XR2s from one of the New York camera shops advertising in Popular Photography a couple months later. The guy I bought it from ALSO hadn't got around to buying a camera body, either, so the lenses had been unused.. he got them from Service Merchandise (a weird department store where you went into a showroom, wrote the numbers of stuff you wanted to buy on a form and they'd give it to you on the way out after you'd paid) - apparently he had to put his camera plans on hold. I shot a LOT of film with those two lenses over the years. Forgot exactly what I paid for them, it was a small discount over the catalog price. Must've been an earlier version of this lens, I don't remember a "A" on the aperature ring, nor any sort of problem pin.
| | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Posts: 1,854 | | Review Date: February 27, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $5.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Price, construction | | Cons: | Soft corners, weird bokeh | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Film KX
| |
Mine is different from the example shown, as it says Albinar ADG- Coated Optics all in white letters and is not Macro. It didn;t have the Ricoh pin either (PK mount)
Metal construction with very smooth handling
52mm filters
Not a bad 28/2.8 but the bokeh is weird, and the sharpness is not close to the M28/2.8
Very resistant to flare which is a plus.
| | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2020 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: January 14, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | excellent budget lens, lots of character and sharp | | Cons: | chromatic abberation wide open | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Canon AE1 Program
| |
Great quality lens, works well with digital sensors. Lots of chromatic aberration in backlit conditions. Pro is this lens has 7 aperture blades for very round and beautiful bokeh!
| | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: The Worlds Only Portable City - Complete with Carrying Handle Posts: 2 | | Review Date: November 16, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $5.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Mostly Tokina made | | Cons: | mostly cost effective Tokina made | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: D300S, xe2, and GX8
| |
Tokina obviously made these, I have one identical to my RMC 17mm 3.5 in paint finish and construction build, appearance/shape. But mine was made in Korea and not Japan? I find it amusing that many people rate the Vivitar and Tokina 28 macro versions as extremely sharp, yet this gets mediocre ratings .... 
It is what it is, probably EL Tokina line ? Economical Consumer glass....as in; Economical - Consumer Level - Advanced Consumer
CA is an issue, but after that in real world 3D in outdoor natural light landscape at F8 it as sharp as any 28 and does decent with distances, the resolution is right there too but the overall colors are warmer and bit brighter contrast wise...so it won't deliver the eye pleasing levels many more expensive 28's will and lacks that rich contrast appeal a tidge...adj WB accordingly on Digital...
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2017 Posts: 2 | | Review Date: December 25, 2017 | Not Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Solid feel smooth focus good contrast and color | | Cons: | sharp center super poor edges even at f11 | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 3
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 3
Camera Used: Sony A6000 Sony
| |
Ok not trying to say that others don't have the best of this lens but my example that looks brand new Canon mount on my Sony A6000 is a POS.. I could imagine this being a paper weight on a full frame. I know for a fact it's out of alignment as the right side is blurry and the left is dead on.
This is not the fault of the lens but QA at the factory as i see not one indication of impact or even a hint of lens barrel off level. It's the internal optics. The thing is solid smooth as silk focus and the aperture blades are well put together and clean work.
I have tried three different adapters that all work well on my Canon and after market lenses and i get the same results. Bummer i received a bad apple as i was hoping it would be a keeper, had to give sharpness a 3 QA would have received zero.
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2013 Posts: 14 | | Review Date: March 22, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | really sharp | | Cons: | very few CA's in the corners | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: k-5, k-s1, fuji x-e1, fuji x-t100,mz5 z20p x-rp k-x k-200 sfx
| |
perhaps I've got a better (older?) version with a 7/6 optical construction, not 5/5 elements and for 55mm filters an additional weight of approx. 20 g.
I've tried to use this lens as macro lens with a converter 7/5 elements - wow 
+ very sharp
O/+ some few CA's in the corners in landscapes
++ really very sharp flowers and butterflies. excellent sharpness until edges on close-ups
My front lens of mines seems to be much more bigger. So pay attention: the 7/6-element version is much more better.
This above mentioned 5/5-lens is the newer one, and it seems to be not so good !!! The older version is much more better
++++++++ pay attention to 2 further Super excellent ALBINAR lenses +++++++++
 2.8/135 and 3.5/80-200 (very rare)
The 2.8/135 is - inspite of 4/4 elements only - at f 8-11 excellent in colors, contrast, sharpness and correction of CAs
The 3.5/80-210 is very inexpensive and my secret tip: it has an integrates macro ring.
The correction in the edges is similar to modern zoom lenses at a much more higher price. But it is very rare to find (2 ring zoom).
 | | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 3 | | Review Date: April 24, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | inexpensive, good feel, well built | | Cons: | internal reflections, bad flaring, the "ricoh pin" | |
Got it at a used camera shop in Tucson... i had done a bit of research on the subject beforehand so I knew all about the ricoh pin... took all of 15 minutes to get the pin out.
The lens performed well in lots of light where I had it stopped way way down... it even did well indoors wide open... things sure seemed nice to me so I took it out on Mt Graham last night for "first light" at the stars.
Took a series of 20 to 30 second bulb exposures at iso1600, f/2.8... the outcome was not good. lots of flaring, ghost spots... I took one shot intentionally out of focus and it was readily apparent that the center of the optical axis was not at the center of the sensor... and all edges of the image showed flaring in their respective directions.
Either the optical coating on this lens is complete junk, or there are lots of internal reflections from the inside of the lens barrel. The image is definitely not flat.. but it is a wide angle lens so you can't expect it to be perfect... this is a fine lens and would be perfect for a beginner getting into landscape photos and other high light environments, its just not well suited for astrophotography.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2008 Location: Liberty, Maine Posts: 33 | | Review Date: December 21, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $2.50
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Decent quality, decent images, good first macro | | Cons: | Needed to be modified for my K20D | |
I bought this lens in a thrift store in Maine. I popped in on the K20D to see how it worked. It was good. I then went to take it off...and it was stuck. after a half an hour of jimmying she popped off. Apparently a modification or pin removal is required or it will get stuck in the AF hole. I did the fix, now she works fine.
| | |
;)
;)
