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

Kalimar 28-200mm f/3.9
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:24 pm    Post subject: Kalimar 28-200mm f/3.9 Reply with quote
Years ago, when I was a camera dealer, I owned a copy of this lens for a while. I was intrigued by it because it was the only wide-to-long tele zoom I had seen that had a constant aperture. So, before I sold it, I took some photos with it. Fortunately, I recently digitized them along with a bunch of other old negatives, so I have a couple that I've posted below as examples.

Actually, I wasn't expecting much from this lens when I took the photos. I mean, a Korean-made Kalimar built in the mid-80s? Well, the images put my suspicions to rest. I was pleasantly surprised at how nice they came out. My conclusion was that, for general photography, this lens worked very well.

So a couple of weeks ago, I ran across a copy of it on eBay in KR mount, and saw that the opening bid price was very low, and there had been no bids. So I watched it, and even minutes before close, still no bids. So I bid on it, and got it for the opening bid amount -- about $15US.

The lens is in at least Ex+ condition, showing only very light signs of use. The glass is clear, and the aperture blades are snappy. Appearance-wise, it reminds me a lot of the Korean-made Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9 (also a constant aperture lens) I own in terms of finish and other smaller details. And I've found that old Albinar to be a surprisingly good lens as well.

My only problem is, I don't own a camera that uses the K-mount. Well, thanks to member jmiro's generosity, I will be receiving shortly a Pentax MV, which I'm hoping will be compatible with a KR mount lens. And I'll go ahead and buy a K-to-EOS adapter as well, so I can use it on my Canon XS (1000D).




Note that the aperture ring has both (A)P and KR labels, with the (A)P being next to the "program" setting on the ring. The mount itself has six holes drilled into it for electrical contacts, but only two of the holes have electrical contacts in them.

It has a 72mm front filter size and is fairly heavy. Its maximum macro ratio is nothing to write home about -- 1:4 -- but it's good enough for close focus at least. Interestingly, I note that it also appears to be a varifocal lens because the minimum focusing distance changes with focal length (6 ft/1.8m at 200mm and 8ft/2.5m at 28mm).

Here are a few shots I took back in 1990 with a lens identical to this one (except it may have had a different mount -- I don't recall anymore the camera I used):





Reasonably good sharpness, color, and contrast. I may have done some saturation and contrast enhancement with the original scan, but I don't recall now if I did or not. Note the bokeh in the second shot. Not bad, eh?

I'll post some digital images once I have some. I had to send my DSLR back to Canon for warranty service, so it will be at least 10 days before I can try it out digitally. Plus I haven't ordered a K-to-EOS adapter yet anyway.

One other item worth noting: Kalimar has marketed this lens it at least two different versions. This f/3.9 version is the earliest. Later version(s) have a variable aperture.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
We often think of old zooms as not being that good. When I bought my Chinon, it came with a Vivitar 28-200. I listed it on ebay as soon as I got it home, but as the listing was running I took a few sample shots. It was difficult to fault it. As it was already listed I let it go. I often wonder if I should have kept it as a walkaround lens.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zooms, even the best ones, have to accept compromises in terms of distortion mostly, but also of CA and of vignetting. And speed of course. Sharpness however is not usually much sacrificed, as we see there is a lot of sharp zooms around. So using zooms depends a lot on the attitude of the photographer, if he values much sharpness and can accept the other shortcomings, zooms can indeed be useful.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
We often think of old zooms as not being that good. When I bought my Chinon, it came with a Vivitar 28-200. I listed it on ebay as soon as I got it home, but as the listing was running I took a few sample shots. It was difficult to fault it. As it was already listed I let it go. I often wonder if I should have kept it as a walkaround lens.


Well I used my first zoom ever about a year ago, and was amazed at the quality of the cheap recommended ones...after about 10 zooms have stopped buying them as it's difficult to see the difference in an A4 print or on a computer screen for sharpness in comparison. But there must be some difference and will sort thru them for best bokeh, 3d effect, best sweet spots, etc


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, most people's eyes (especially the non professionals) are more trained to perceive sharpness or lack thereof, than to perceive things like chromatic aberrations or field distortions. So many zoom makers optimize the sharpness and cut corners in the other aspects of the image quality.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Zooms, even the best ones, have to accept compromises in terms of distortion mostly, but also of CA and of vignetting. And speed of course. Sharpness however is not usually much sacrificed, as we see there is a lot of sharp zooms around. So using zooms depends a lot on the attitude of the photographer, if he values much sharpness and can accept the other shortcomings, zooms can indeed be useful.


These are good points. And I did not test for them when I took the earlier pics with this lens. I have found that, with other cheaper optics, one area where they show their "lower" quality is in CA or flare when wide open. But typically stopping the lens down just one stop eliminates most of this. As for image distortion, yeah, that's probably a bigger and more intractable issue, as is the possibility of vignetting. I think though, with this lens, vignetting isn't a real problem given its 72mm front filter size.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1