Opteka lenses

[qy10]

I've been browsing online for a new lens and Opteka keeps popping up. They seem ridiculously cheap, which makes me think that perhaps there is a reason why. Honestly, just look at the photos of them, they look cheaply made, but who knows?!

Anyone have experience with these lenses that they could share with me?

Thanks.

 

[tirediron]

There's no such thing as a free lunch... You get what you pay for... There's a reason that many lenses cost thousands of dollars.

 

[480sparky]

Don't worship the specs alone. Do some research/due diligence. Google the model plus the word 'review' and see what pops up.

 

[fmw]

There's no such thing as a free lunch... You get what you pay for... There's a reason that many lenses cost thousands of dollars.

And the major one is gross profit.

 

[table1349]

Opteka begins making lenses. Coca cola in bottles disappears. Concidence? I think not.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Unless you're intentionally looking for IQ that is mediocre at best, run.

IMHO, lenses are best considered a "buy once cry once" endeavor. Quality glass is expensive, but NOT missing shot after shot due to low quality glass is priceless.

 

[fmw]

Based on the reviews the Samyang-Opteka-Rokinon lenses are optically OK but mechanically questionable. Now that we have computer aided lens design we don't need the Leitz or Schneider lens design masters to get an optically good lens. In other words you should be able to make perfectly good images with them but they wouldn't be recommended for professional or hard duty use.

There might even be some issues about reliability over time but I have no data on that. If you are looking to buy something cheap that you don't expect to last a lifetime, no harm done. If you want a purchase that you won't have to replace in the future you should choose something more rugged. I have some Nikkor lenses I've owned since the 1960's and some Leica lenses that date back to the 1930's. I have an old 35mm Summicron that will outperform any 35mm lens ever made for an SLR or DSLR. Good quality is always a good investment.

There are some good quality third party lenses available from companies like Tamron and Sigma that may save some money from camera brand lenses. These are popular and well regarded.

It all gets down to what kind of photography you intend to do and how seriously.

 

[Derrel]

Opteka's 500mm f/8 pre-set long-focus lens is the only product I would consider from them; this is a lens type and specification that has been offered for sale since the 1970's (along with a 400mm f/6.3 lens with pre-set diaphragm). I think Opteka is just the trade name, not a true brand-name. I have one, branded as Phoenix. Loooong, slender barrel, probably four elements, 22 ounce weight, not bad for a $99 T-mount 500mm f/8, all-glass type lens (all-glass meaning NOT a mirror or catadioptric type of lens). Of course it is f/8, it only focuses down to 33 feet as the minimum focusing distance or MFD, a bugger to get into focus, and fairly prone to shake issues....but, again--$99 with T-mount and 2x converter.

The 500mm f/8 lenses have middling image quality, but are fun to play with a bit. The ultra-long zoom lenses Opteka offers are slow aperture-wise, almost to the point that they're pretty difficult to deploy except under super-bright lighting conditions; focusing an f/11~f/16 lens is extremely challenging on today's d-slr cameras. BUT--there are some times when one can use this kinda lens....moon shots...long-range shots when the atmosphere is clear, and so on.

ATMOSPHERIC factors can make a 500mm f/8 lens look about as good as a $10,000 500mm f/4 lens when the shooting distance is a mile or more....there's so muck gunk in the air (pollen,dust,particulate,haze,fog,smoke), or the heat waves are so bad that Top Grade and $10k looks damned close to $99 and 1960's-tech, as in these 500mm f/8 lenses.

 

[tirediron]

There's no such thing as a free lunch... You get what you pay for... There's a reason that many lenses cost thousands of dollars.

And the major one is gross profit.

Isn't that true for every product from every company?

 

[KC1]

Of those that say it is not any good, do you have any of their products? If you do, which ones and what did you think of it?

 

[fmw]

There's no such thing as a free lunch... You get what you pay for... There's a reason that many lenses cost thousands of dollars.

And the major one is gross profit.

Isn't that true for every product from every company?

Of course. But it is a matter of degree. The cost to produce a $3000 lens is certainly greater than the cost to produce a $500 lens but nowhere near what the market prices would lead you to believe. The high end camera lens business reminds me of the high end audio industry where margins are astronomic.

 

[table1349]

Of those that say it is not any good, do you have any of their products? If you do, which ones and what did you think of it?

Of course I don't own one. I got to try one of these bad boys out. IQ was poor - average at best by todays standards. Slightly soft in the center, quite soft in the corners. Wonderful CA if you like that sort of thing in you photos.

As Derrel suggested, reminded me of the early 70's zooms, which I passed by for good primes because they had the same traits. Left it on the shelf.

 

[480sparky]

There's no such thing as a free lunch... You get what you pay for... There's a reason that many lenses cost thousands of dollars.

And the major one is gross profit.

Isn't that true for every product from every company?

Of course. But it is a matter of degree. The cost to produce a $3000 lens is certainly greater than the cost to produce a $500 lens but nowhere near what the market prices would lead you to believe. The high end camera lens business reminds me of the high end audio industry where margins are astronomic.

It's not like the factory makes one $3000 lens for every $300 lens produced.

Low-end gear, regardless of being photographic or audio, benefits from the economy of long production runs. This is because entry-level stuff is marketed as low-$, therefor appeals to a much larger target market. Top-end gear does not sell as much (numerically). So it does not have the advantage of 'cheaper by the dozen'.

 

[KC1]

It sounds like it might be worth a try, the price is good. Like someone said here before the only way to know a lens is to use it for a year.
Worst case its only a small cost for a lesson.

 

[table1349]

It sounds like it might be worth a try, the price is good. Like someone said here before the only way to know a lens is to use it for a year.
Worst case its only a small cost for a lesson.

I can think of a lot better thing to spend $100 on. Cool Things To Buy With 100 Dollars | Qertop