# Opteka lenses



## qy10 (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 11, 2016)

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


----------



## fmw (May 11, 2016)

tirediron said:


> 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 (May 11, 2016)

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


----------



## Stradawhovious (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 11, 2016)

fmw said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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


----------



## KC1 (May 11, 2016)

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 (May 12, 2016)

tirediron said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



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 (May 12, 2016)

KC1 said:


> 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 (May 12, 2016)

fmw said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



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 (May 12, 2016)

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 (May 12, 2016)

KC1 said:


> 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


----------



## robbins.photo (May 12, 2016)

tirediron said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Wait, you mean these companies aren't in business solely to cater to my individual desires?  They actually expect to get something in return for efforts?  

I'm shocked at the absolute temerity of it all.  Lol


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


----------



## tirediron (May 12, 2016)

fmw said:


> 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.


Yes, but don't forget the company needs to recoup their R&D costs.  It might only cost $500 to build a $7000 300mm f2.8 (I have NO idea, just grabbing numbers for illustrative purposes), but before unit one rolled off the line, they could have spent $50,000,000.00 on R&D to get that lens as good as it is, so a LOT of the cost goes back to pay for that, as well, they have to balance that against the number of units they will sell...  it's not as cut and dried as many think.


----------



## KC1 (May 12, 2016)

That's why we let the early adopters pay through the nose, so we don't have to and can buy after the rd costs are paid off.


----------



## KC1 (May 12, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


I can't. But I like taking pictures for entertainment.


----------



## fmw (May 12, 2016)

tirediron said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



One major issue, of course, is economies of scale and high end lenses certainly don't benefit from any of that.  You're right there.  The R&D c0sts should be in the low thousands, not the mid millions.  Lens design is computer aided now.   They let the computer provide numbers, they grind some glass, assemble a prototype and test it.  If it meets the specs they go on to tooling which is production, just like low end lenses, not R&D.  Trust me, the margins in high end lenses is substantial.


----------



## fmw (May 12, 2016)

480sparky said:


> 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'.



No question about it.  But it doesn't change what I said.  The margins for the manufacturers are substantial at the high end.


----------



## 480sparky (May 12, 2016)

fmw said:


> ........  Trust me, the margins in high end lenses is substantial.



Well, there ya go.  You've obviously identified an untapped niche market. Start cranking out your own $3000 lens clones for a paltry $750 and you'll be filthy rich within a month or so.


----------



## fmw (May 12, 2016)

480sparky said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > ........  Trust me, the margins in high end lenses is substantial.
> ...



Sounds like a terrible idea.  Too small a market.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

Simple solution:  Build your own. 

What's that you say, you can't build your own at a reasonable cost.  Solution?  Pay their price or find another hobby.


----------



## KC1 (May 12, 2016)

480sparky said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > ........  Trust me, the margins in high end lenses is substantial.
> ...


Its already been tapped, by opteka.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2016)

KC1 said:


> That's why we let the early adopters pay through the nose, so we don't have to and can buy after the rd costs are paid off.


I see you bought into that whole CD Kool-aid story when it came out. They were supposed to come down in cost.  Oops didn't happen.


----------



## 480sparky (May 12, 2016)

fmw said:


> Sounds like a terrible idea.  Too small a market.



So making and selling a lens for $750 retail that performs just as well as someone else's $3000 lens is 'a terrible idea'?

I hope your chosen profession isn't being a business advisor.


----------



## fmw (May 12, 2016)

480sparky said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a terrible idea.  Too small a market.
> ...



No.  I hire business advisors.


----------



## pip_dog (May 13, 2016)

I had an Opteka branded fisheye lens for a while. It was a real fun toy to whip out on occasion and was pretty sharp in the center but quite soft on the edges and was prone to pretty bad flaring. Not bad for $130 though. Ended up selling it when the novelty wore off. 

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (May 13, 2016)

fmw said:


> No.  I hire business advisors.



Might be time to consider hiring some new ones.  Sounds like the old ones may not be giving such sound advice.

One thing to consider with the cost of high end lenses is that they are built to far more exacting standards.  Consumer grade lenses are pretty much automated, off the assembly line built.  Pro grade lenses, on the other hand, have very tight tolerances and are inspected at various stages throughout the production process.  As a result the production costs are a lot higher than you might think.  The manufacturing process for a professional grade lens is complex and the tolerances to which they are built are very tight.    When you spend that much money on a lens you expect it to be perfect, out of the box - and for it to keep working for years and years to come.


----------



## KC1 (May 13, 2016)

This is for television camera lenses, but the process is the same for still and video camera lenses.


----------



## fmw (May 14, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > No.  I hire business advisors.
> ...



I don't argue with any of that.  It is a question of degree.  The high end lenses should cost more but not 10 or 20 times more.  That is a matter of gross profit, not production cost.


----------



## Gary A. (May 14, 2016)

I have a Rokinon 8mm fish that I am quite pleased with the IQ.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 14, 2016)

fmw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


According to whom?  Without really knowing what production costs are it's a bit hard to judge, but even if they make high margins, what difference does it make?  Aren't they allowed to charge whatever the market will bare for they efforts, just as you do?

Or would you prefer to allow someone else to dictate to you what your work is worth?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## fmw (May 14, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



According to me.  Of course the manufacturer and distribution chain can charge anything they wish.  What difference does it make?  Ask the photographer putting out $10,000 for a lens.   Is there an ignore button on this site?


----------



## robbins.photo (May 14, 2016)

fmw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


You really need to make up your mind here.  First your basing this off hired business consultants and now apparently your citing your own expertise on being the final arbiter of what is a fair market price when frankly I seriously doubt you even know what the production costs on the aforementioned lenses even are.

There are plenty of photographers out there that shoot for free or ridiculously low rates.  Do you think it would be fair then to base your prices on that even though you provide a higher quality product?

Or do you think it's fair for people to decry you as being greedy and money grubbing for charging more when they don't even have a clue as to what your costs are and further ignore the quality differences?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2016)

ENOUGH

Return to talking about the optical quality of the lenses -  lets leave this daft side- discussion/debate/argument out of the thread now.


----------



## 480sparky (May 14, 2016)

I like good lenses.  Especially with bacon.


----------



## KC1 (May 14, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I have a Rokinon 8mm fish that I am quite pleased with the IQ.


Some fish have fairly high IQs as far as fish go (cichlids in particular), just keep it on ice or it will spoil quickly.


----------



## Overread (May 15, 2016)

NOTICE - Bickering removed. If you want to squabble and argue take it to PMs only. Also if you put a user on ignore that's the end of the matter - you don't need to start telling them or parading the fact around. Ignore them and move on and that's the end of it.


----------

