Cheap Zoom... Arsat-M 80-200 f/4.5

[KevC]

$145... Multicoated. Manual Focus. M42 mount. $145.

Worth it? Or not...

Can't seem to find any information on it.

Maybe save up for the 70-200/4L instead....

[rdenney]

$145... Multicoated. Manual Focus. M42 mount. $145.

Worth it? Or not...

Can't seem to find any information on it.

Maybe save up for the 70-200/4L instead....

I would not expect this to be any better than the Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar lenses on the market, and those have autofocus (even if noisy and slow). Zoom lenses in particular have benefitted from computer optimizations of the sort the Arsenal factory has never implemented.

But I think they are all metal and none too light, so you need a lens that can serve double duty as a defensive weapon, it might be just the thing.

Rick "who owns mountains of Arsenal stuff, but only when seeking something from the old school" Denney

[ron chappel]

While it may sound a good cheap allternative to the 70-200/4L ,it's unlikely to be any sharper than the x-300 consumer zooms.
I hope i'm not being too harsh on a lens i don't actually know -
-i'm just guessing from experience ,having used a multitude of older lenses on EOS

[KevC]

For some reason, I'd trust the Soviets more than the Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar. Somehow those names just make me shudder.

But then again, I've heard tonnes of issues regarding Soviet quality control.

Maybe the Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 would be a better lens. But that's more than $100 more than this baby.

[rdenney]

For some reason, I'd trust the Soviets more than the Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar. Somehow those names just make me shudder.

But then again, I've heard tonnes of issues regarding Soviet quality control.

Maybe the Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 would be a better lens. But that's more than $100 more than this baby.

The Arsat will surely be more robustly constructed than a Cosina (I have a 100-400 that I bought on a lark some years ago). But I suspect the optics are state of the art, circa 1970 or so. I also have an old Vivitar (back when they were a third party manufacturer on a part with the modern Sigma and Tamron) 75-300 in FD mount. Used carefully, it delivered reasonable images. But careful use included making sure there were no bright light sources in the frame to cause flare and reflections. Even Cosina optics have benefitted from computer optimizations that have come since that time.

Lest you get uncontrollable shakes when thinking of Cosina lenses, here's an image shot on Velvia through that cheap Cosina 100-400, at the ugly 400 end. (And guess who makes the outstanding Voigtlander lenses for the Bessa rangefinders.)

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/pinnacle_in_last_light_lores.jpg

Rick "who would not try to enlarge that image very much" Denney

[ron chappel]

Incidentally,the two old zoom lenses that i found to be very good are a cosina 75-300(f4-5.6 i think) and a vivitar 75-210/4.5 (which i still have)
Of course this helps you not alot because -even if i could positively identify them so you could buy one,it may simply be a case of me lucking on to good examples.I just thought i would mention it anyway for interests sake

[Andy_T]

Still ...

with primes, you don't have the same kind of technological advancement since the time those lenses were constructed as with zoom lenses (aspheric elements, LD glass, ...).

I would rather stick with primes. You should be able to get a very good 200/4.0 (e.g. Takumar) lens in M42 mount for less money.

The 70-200/4.0 is a totally different story. It's a great value lens.

Best regards,
Andy