Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxi!ktw From: ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: RE: Dingy Colors -- Bad lenses (2nd posting--maybe) Message-ID: <250@whuxi.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 09:53:16 EST Article-I.D.: whuxi.250 Posted: Thu Jan 10 09:53:16 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 00:39:28 EST References: <2018@vax4.fluke.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J. Lines: 26 I have found the old adage "You get what you pay for" more correct than not. Whatever you may say about Vivitar, Tokina, etc., a word of advice from one who knows: NEVER buy a Sakar lens. I got one (Minolta MD mount) during the summer (Macy's loves them) on sale for $41.95 (reduced from $69.95!). Not bad for a 135 mm lens (ha-ha). Due to a billing error the lens cost me about $9.00. That is approximately what it is really worth. I would rather save my money for a Minolta lens (either MD or Celtic, if the latter can be found new or used) than play games with some of the lens-makers who seem to find their best market in the back pages of Modern Photography and Popular Photography ("SAKAR LENS RIOT SALE AT LABELLE OF MAINE!!!!!"). It is also next to impossible, it seems, to find fixed length lenses produced by the "off-brand" companies. Once you get past 28 and 135 mm, you're into zooms, which do not interest me because I tend to rely on available light, and the minimum aperture on most zooms seems to be in the neighborhood of f/3.5. For a 35 mm lens, you are all but committed to the camera manufacturers. Ken Wolman Bellcore @ Livingston Corporate Center lcuxc!kenw (Trying to do for Wayne, New Jersey what George Tice did for Paterson.)