Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Albinar 3.5 200mm M42
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:10 pm    Post subject: Albinar 3.5 200mm M42 Reply with quote

Hi folks

Picked up this lens for a tenner on ebay, it's pretty heavy for a 200mm. Handles well and feel very solid but the focusing ring is a little loose, doesn't affect operation though. Aperture and glass are in good nick.

Not sure what I think of the IQ, it's not really sharp until f8 and bright highlights have a glow around them. It's not awful but it's not great, not sure what to think really so invite some opinions!


















PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teazels at 200, this is a Super Takumar 200 f4, cropped a bit and I think shot wide open and certainly hand held.


Spikes. by Mudplugga, on Flickr

But it cost me £40 at the camera fair last weekend. For a tenner, your lens has potential.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hiya mate

That Takumar is definitely sharper than my Albinar, but sharpness isn't everything. I need to use this Albinar more before I decide whether it's a keeper or not. I'm a bit worried by the CA on the Teazel shot but it was taken late afternoon with the sun low in the sky.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe use it for portraiture when you don't need a tack-sharp optic?

My first zoom was an Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9, made in Korea. Bought it in 1983. It was actually a surprisingly good optic. Sold it several years later, though. But after looking at quite a few slides I'd taken with it way back in those days, I went and bought another a while back. Paid about $20 for it off eBay. So, my advice? If you want a decent but cheap Albinar 200mm, buy the 80-200/3.9 zoom. Cool

I know it doesn't usually work that way. Just sayin' is all . . .


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The pictures of the fruit and the rose have that kind of softness that can be used to good advantage, the long shot down the street looks good as well, but with some PP to take advantage of the softness might look even better ? Maybe B&W Question


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
The pictures of the fruit and the rose have that kind of softness that can be used to good advantage, the long shot down the street looks good as well, but with some PP to take advantage of the softness might look even better ? Maybe B&W Question


Yes, I agree with those points mate, the shot down the street surprised me at ho sharp it was, it's captured a lot of detail in that shot, I forget what aperture that was shot at now, probably f11. The fruit and the rose are wide open, I took a ton of shots of the roses and they all looked nice, it does have a nice softness wide open and the 'glow' it also exhibits on bright subjects could also be useful.

So I still want a Jupiter-21M or Meyer 4/200 but this will do for now. I have a Paragon 3.3/200 I'm about to go out and test so we can compare to this Albinar later, I doubt I'll keep both of them.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Meyer 200/4 isn't that great imo. Lots of ca wide open and not that Sharp.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Meyer 200/4 isn't that great imo. Lots of ca wide open and not that Sharp.


Hmm, thanks for that info. I see a lot of them on ebay for decent prices.

Apart from the Jupiter-21M, what other 180-250mm lenses that won't break the bank do people recommend?

Basically, I'm looking for something that will match the IQ of my Tair-3C 300mm but in the 180-250mm range.

Might not be so easy to find because the Tair is flippin awesome imho!





Now to me, to have captured that spider's web is pretty bloody sharp!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Try a Tamron adaptall-2 80-210/3.8-4 103a. Great lens, bit of ca but it's a great performer for very little cost.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Meyer 200/4 isn't that great imo. Lots of ca wide open and not that Sharp.


That's about right, although my copies seem quite sharp Smile See HERE for a few samples so you can judge for yourself. Nice looking lens though Smile


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
Try a Tamron adaptall-2 80-210/3.8-4 103a. Great lens, bit of ca but it's a great performer for very little cost.


Just remembered I have a Vivitar Series 1 V2 Tokina 3.5/70-210 I need to try out, also supposed to be a great lens but I forgot all about it because I don't care for zooms. It's in OM mount so have to get an adapter.

I actually have half a dozen 70-210 zooms but that Viv S1 will be the best of the bunch by far I expect, I never use zooms so they are just gathering dust.

Anyone know if the Soligor 250mm is a decent lens?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are several Soligor 250mm lenses about. I've got a preset version and a Tokina t4 version. Both seem ok, but one fringes quite badly. Can't remember which!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Apart from the Jupiter-21M, what other 180-250mm lenses that won't break the bank do people recommend?


take a look at my samples from Olympus 200mm /5
http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-my-lenses-part-37-olympus-200mm-5-t38525.html

it's small, lighter (much lighter than jupiter21m) , sharp with nice bokeh, and shouldn't be too pricy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WolverineX wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Apart from the Jupiter-21M, what other 180-250mm lenses that won't break the bank do people recommend?


take a look at my samples from Olympus 200mm /5
http://forum.mflenses.com/testing-my-lenses-part-37-olympus-200mm-5-t38525.html

it's small, lighter (much lighter than jupiter21m) , sharp with nice bokeh, and shouldn't be too pricy


That is precisely what I wanted to hear! I would like a light and compact 200mm for times when crrying a big heavy lens aren't ideal.

I shall go checkout your pics! Thankyou for the tip.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
There are several Soligor 250mm lenses about. I've got a preset version and a Tokina t4 version. Both seem ok, but one fringes quite badly. Can't remember which!


Thanks, they are so cheap I might grab one just to try.

Cheap Telephoto lenses are ten a penny but good cheap telephotos are much harder to come by it seems.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since you're looking for a 200mm that's relatively compact, MF-G's suggestion about the Tamron 103a is a good one. It's a compact zoom, but still performs very well. If you can deal with something a bit bulkier, probably equivalent to your S1 70-210 in heft, is the old Vivitar 200mm f/3.5. These lenses are fairly plentiful, and are actually good performers. I have two, one in Nikon pre-AI mount and one in Canon FD mount. I don't think I paid more than $10 for either of them.

You might also want to take a look at the Pentax M42 200mm f/4. It's also compact, and not too expensive as far as M42 Taks go.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Meyer 200/4 isn't that great imo. Lots of ca wide open and not that Sharp.


Many of them opened, cleaned and not properly built back.

I bought a Meyer 200 from a construction build worker, he did bring lens to me without any caps covered all over with dust and fine powder. It did looks like garbage. I did bought it to study how to clean a lens properly, result was great lens perform well , this copy was in my opinion sharp as Takumar or Nikon 200mm f4.

This Albinar looks to me a 'door stop' throw away lens, sorry for my honest opinion. All suggestion above produce better result even cheapest Tamron zooms.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Meyer 200/4 isn't that great imo. Lots of ca wide open and not that Sharp.


Many of them opened, cleaned and not properly built back.

I bought a Meyer 200 from a construction build worker, he did bring lens to me without any caps covered all over with dust and fine powder. It did looks like garbage. I did bought it to study how to clean a lens properly, result was great lens perform well , this copy was in my opinion sharp as Takumar or Nikon 200mm f4.

This Albinar looks to me a 'door stop' throw away lens, sorry for my honest opinion. All suggestion above produce better result even cheapest Tamron zooms.


No problem Attila, I always value your opinion so thankyou for giving it!

I now have quite a collection of 'door stop' lenses, but I paid very little for them...

Also thankyou for the info about the Meyer, I will pick one up and give it a good clean and make sure it's assembled properly.

In the meantime, I need to get an adpater so I can use the Viv S1. I do have a Yashinon 75-230 that has good IQ but it's as big as my Tair-3C so not ideal for carrying around!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For £40, that Takumar 200, mint and in it's case, was a good buy. I've used it a lot over the last few days and it's here to stay.
It's usable hand held, but on a tripod it's super sharp. I bought it on a whim and wasn't sure about the slowish f4, but I'm glad I did.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just picked up an M42 Optomax 3.5/200, probably be crap as well, but it only cost me 3.60ukp inc shipping so at the very least I can use it for parts.