A cheap, good and large supertelephoto third party lens?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Vytautas, Oct 9, 2013.

  1. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    There was a topic in this forum: "A good, small, cheap super-telephoto lens?" But I have only one camera - m4/3 (Oly PM-1) and want to add some nice long reach ability to it for very cheap.

    I have not seen much enthusiastic articles on the Internet about using old cheap 135mm f2.8 or 200 mm f3.5 lenses on tripod. Is it so bad/inconvenient to use these lenses on MTF? They should be faster(brighter) than Oly 40-150, but how do they compare to it in terms of sharpness and other image qualities? I don't ask about the size and weight there ;)

    Some more details:
    I am a new m4/3, Olympus PM-1 user. At the moment I enjoy Hexanon 50 1.7 lens (newer, shorter version) and have some Russian lenses (Jupiter 11,
    Industar 69, 61 and 50).

    I want some longer reach. At first I will test on tripod Hexanon with x2 teleconverter VS TOKINA TELE-AUTO 135mm F2.8 (Konica AR). Could you guess which setup will be better/sharper? If I want to have the best could I play with cheap teleconverter or just have to stick with a single lens setup, just single older 2.8 - 3.5 tele lens?

    Lastly I wanted to ask about the IQ of long (no less than 200 mm) third party lenses. Is it worth to test some 200mm f/3.5 lenses? I have an opportunity to choose from 4:
    WEP AUTO TELON F3.5 (most compact, 13.5 cm),
    SUNAGOR MC AUTO F3.5 (larger, 13.5 cm),
    HEXAR AR F4 (large, 15 cm),
    SOLIGOR C/D MC ZOOM-MACRO F3,5 70-210mm (huge one - 16,5 cm).

    Are they any good or just not suitable for MTF? Maybe I just should buy Oly 40-150? Why there are so little info about using these
    lenses on the Internet?
    • Like Like x 1
  2. McBob

    McBob Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 22, 2012
    Doesn't get much longer or cheaper for much better:

    I have a Nikon 70-210/4-5.6 with broken electrical contacts you can have for $25 + shipping... fully-functional models should be available for not much more

    If you want to spend a little more, Sigma's 50-500 (non-OS) can be had for about $700-800 and performs well. You could barely ask for more reach.
  3. ri toast

    ri toast New to Mu-43

    Sep 2, 2013
    I have some prime lenses I use on my g5. 200 300 and 400. I Q is better than with a teleconverter on. If I only had to choose one lens, I'd get the tele zoom from your list. I enjoy the manual aspect.
  4. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    If you can get a Olympus M.ED 40-150 for around $100, as I did several years ago, there's nothing in the world of old lenses that is as light and as good on an EPM1.

    Still, I have used a Takumar 135mm f3.5 on the EPM1. It's one of the lighter all metal lenses of yesteryear. Handles well on the EPM-1. I don't see anything wrong with getting an inexpensive 135mm f2.8 for your EPM1. You're better off with one made by a camera maker (Nikon, Konica, Canon, Takumar, Olympus, etc instead of Vivitar, Soligor, Rexatar, etc.) Don't pay much more for these lenses than you would for a sandwich and a beer.

    One of the better optically performing zooms is a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f2.8. Pretty heavy though, and hard to focus on the EPM1 w/o a viewfinder or on a tripod.

    Most old teleconverters don't work very well. You're might as well give your money to a street beggar vs buying an old teleconverter.
  5. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    The Konica should have marginally better IQ @ f5.6 compared to the Olympus 40-150mm. However, I'd just get the 40-150mm in this case unless a stop of DoF (at the expense of some IQ) is worth it. I'm just looking at the lenses you listed and not branching out into other 150mm primes---of which some are excellent and have faster apertures.
  6. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    Thanks for great replays!

    1. About 135mm f/2.8:

    I have checked. 135mm f/2.8 Tokina is RMC version. It is small. A pair of quick reviews:
    https://secure.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/discuss/72157612060167473/

    Am I right if I expect that it will be as sharp at f/5.6 as Oly 40-150 @ 135 mm at f/5.6? In addition to that I will have f/2.8 for low light. Overall it's two steps of DoF in comparison to Oly. I guess that Oly 40-150 is really good up to 100 mm, but is it so good at 135mm and in low light conditions still?

    2. About 200mm f/3.5:
    Does the most compact (13,5 cm), third party lenses "Wep Auto Teleton" and "Sunagor MC AUTO F3.5" are worse that big ones - Konica Hexar and Soligor - for sure?
  7. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    I bought an OM 300 lens. I haven't had a chance to try it yet. It was cheap.
  8. verbatimium

    verbatimium Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 17, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario
    For 135mm, I have both the Konica Hexanon AR 135mm F2.5, and 135mm F3.2 lenses. They are both extremely sharp, and produce nice and contrasty images with beautiful background blur. The F3.2 is slightly sharper when stopped down, but the difference is minor. The F3.2 however is a lot smaller (diameter and weight wise, not length wise). If I were to keep one however, I would choose the F2.5.

    I also have the Konica Hexanon AR 200mm F3.5 lens, and it is extremely sharp as well. A bit on the heavier side though, but it's a great lens. I do however find that I use the 135mm lenses more.

    Build quality, it doesn't get much better than the Konica Hexanon lenses. They feel very solid. You can obtain each lens with its corresponding leather lens case. Each lens mentioned above also has a built in lens hood. They are relatively cheap compared to other lenses of similar mm and F. And another important benefit is that the adapters for these lenses are cheap and they are a lot smaller (and weigh less) compared to adapters for other mounts.
  9. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    +1 to what the gent above said. Konica's are still cheap, but maybe your location is not so good for some lenses Vytautas.
  10. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    Any of the Canon "L" lenses are terrific. I had the 100-300 L and used it for awhile. Very sharp lens and occasionally drops to about $200 on ebay. Zoom is push pull...didn't like that too much. I aslo had a tamron 200-400...not quite as sharp as the Canon. I had a Tokina 150-500mm that I needed a mule to drag around with me...it was fairly sharp and nice but huge. The Olympus 300mm...4.5, Nikon AIS ED version. I'd stay away from non-coated lenses...ie the canon non L versions ... the IQ was pretty bad on the one I had.
  11. burdickjp

    burdickjp Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 25, 2013
    I use a Pentacon 135 and a Takumar 200. Both are rather large and heavy compared to the u4/3 body.
  12. JohnF

    JohnF Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 1, 2010
    Oberursel, Germany
    Let's see....

    Nikkor 85 f2, Leica Telyt-R APO 180 f3.4, Olympus OM Zuiko 180 f2.8, Vivitar Series One 200 f3, Nikkor 200 f4, Leica Telyt-R 400 f6.3 trombone with 2x converter, Sigma 500 f8 mirror, Vivitar Series One 600 f8 mirror lenses. Work great with my EPL1 and EP M1, also my E30.

    Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 4
  13. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    My take is that among these older manual long lenses, as a general rule you're much better off going with primes than with zooms. With very few exceptions the zoom lenses from the 1970s and 1980s simply aren't in the class of modern zooms in terms of sharpness and contrast. Meanwhile, for extremely low prices, you can find 135mm and 200mm primes that are quite good and should set you back something like $25-50 bucks apiece. Once you get into the 300mm and longer range, these are more specialty optics, and the good ones still sell for at least a couple hundred bucks, or even more for the top tier models with ED glass from Nikon and Canon and others.

    Among some of the screaming bargains out there, look for the Vivitar 200mm f3.5 - it can easily be found for under $50 in excellent shape, and if you check the archives for adapted lens images here on this forum, you'll see that many folks have used it to take some great pics. Good 135mm lenses are literally a glut on the market - you shouldn't have any problem finding a high quality name brand 135mm lens for the vicinity of $25-30 that is more than capable of outstanding results on an M4/3 camera.
  14. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    Thanks for all. I decided to play with Tokina 2.8 and Canon FD 3.5 135mm + Hexanon 50mm 1.4 on weekend.
  15. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Good lenses to play with; hope you have fun.

    Personally I am looking for the same inexpensive telephoto solutions but in focal lengths above 200mm. I would love to have had a Tokina 150-500mm but those are not widely available. Used prices for the Vivitar 120-600mm lenses seemed to have sky rocketed lately, compared from 3 years ago when I was contemplating getting one. Size doesn't matter to me, since they would be used for wild life and be bolted to a tripod or monopod ..
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.