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.)