Should You Bother with Third-Party Lenses?

                                                                                                      
     Expectations. 

    That is what it really comes down to. More than the optical performance, build quality, or outright cost (all of which can vary wildly) of any vintage aftermarket lens, it is your level of expectation that should determine whether you bother with them at all. If you are expecting OEM-grade (Original Equipment Manufacturer) performance and build quality out of something that was originally half-or-less of the cost, you are going to be disappointed. It is as simple as that. However, if you reasonably expect (oh come on, since when does that apply on the Interwebs ;-)) somewhat-lesser-but-still-capable performance from that $10 or $20 flea-market find, you may find yourself completely satisfied with a third-party alternative.

    Well now. That took care of that in short order. Cheerio...

    Okay...okay...okay. You know I can't leave well-enough alone. Read on if you feel the need for a long-winded, over-analyzed version of the above. Otherwise, just go out and keep snapping away with any cheap old light-sucker you find. After all, ignorance is bliss... ;-)     

   
​   The allure of getting more (or at least the same) for less never seems to fade. We always are hoping for some magic combination of high performance for pennies and so very rarely find it. And for good reason...high performance costs money, whether you're talking cars, cameras, cosmetics, or, in this case...lenses :-). The reasons are pretty basic:

1. ​Higher-grade materials cost more than lesser ones. 
2. Machining or forming such materials into higher-quality components which are then assembled into a mechanism takes more precision and skill. Whether it's a human or an automated system, this takes time for training or programming and "time is money". We will term this: labour.
3. Proper quality control also takes more time and therefore, more money. Obviously, the more intensive and/or more frequent the inspection method(s), the larger the impact will be on the final cost of the product.

   With tens of millions of interchangeable lenses, both OEM and aftermarket, produced during the latter half of the 20th century, trying to find the silk purses among the sows' ears can feel like an impossible task. Some folks decide to just stick with the OEMs and be done with it, and that certainly minimizes (but does not eliminate) the risk of getting a loser lens. The majority of vintage glass is much more affordable today than in the film era, especially when you take inflation into account. But, for the most part, the same pricing separation between OEM and aftermarket lenses holds true in the used market of today as it did when these optics were sold new. Many vintage third-party lenses can be had for next to nothing nowadays, which will always be a temptation for bang-for-the-buck enthusiasts (full disclosure: me :-)). The trouble is that things are not black and white: while there is plenty of jobber junk...there are some gems to be had, too. So how can we sift our way through? 

  OEM vs. Third-Party

   In the area of manufactured goods, the aftermarket seeks to exploit areas that they perceive are underserviced by the OEMs. Here are three main areas in order of frequency:

• Increased value over OEM
• An item not available from an OEM
• Improved performance over OEM

   When value (bang for the buck) is the point that the third-party manufacturer chooses to target, they will have to make some choices with regard to the three factors cited at the outset:

• They will have to use equivalent materials more efficiently (better design) or substitute lesser-quality materials...and/or
• Use cheaper labour than the OEM, which entails: using lower skill level workers, more automation, or offshoring their manufacturing...and/or
• Reduce the level of quality control

   It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that when companies opt to use inferior materials and quality control procedures (which are the most common choices made, by the way ;-)), the end result will be less expensive...but with a commensurate drop in quality. Labour is more complicated, as you can have low-paid workers that can execute at a high level of precision (the key to offshoring) or not. On the other hand, if an aftermarket manufacturer approaches the situation with the idea of aiming for a balance of performance with economy and executes it cleverly, the final product can be a desirable alternative to the OEM product. When it comes to third-party lenses we find examples of both approaches, often, ironically, within the same brand. And that is where the opportunity to snag a steal of a deal presents itself. The reputation accrued by selling vast quantities of below-average swill sullies the entire brand, in the eyes of the average (READ: non-geekazoid) buyer. Thus all Soligors & Vivitars (to name just a couple of venerable vintage off-brands) must be junk, right?  

  The Rise of the Aftermarket Lens Manufacturers

  Lenses & accessories have always been the most lucrative portion of the interchangeable lens camera (ILC) market. After all, the whole point was to have the versatility offered by multiple lenses. Multiple lenses = multiple purchases = more profit. It is no surprise, therefore, that the aftermarket keyed in on the lens market early in the post-WWII era. Ironically, both Canon and Nikon (today as OEM as they come) came to worldwide notice by offering aftermarket lenses for Leica and Contax interchangeable lens rangefinders. From such humble beginnings... ;-). Now, the key to their success was that they actually were offering as good or better imaging performance for less money. How was that possible? By developing improved optical designs and glass types, using equivalent or near-equivalent materials, lower-cost-but-highly-skilled labour, and improved quality control. This did lower their profit margin compared to the German OEMs, but the Japanese went for higher-volume sales to offset that, and they also took advantage of a very favorable 300 yen to 1 USD exchange rate that remained fixed for nearly three decades after WWII. 

   As certain Japanese manufacturers (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax being the largest among them) rapidly caught up to the Germans during the 1950s, they transitioned to becoming OEMs themselves. This left a vacuum in the aftermarket that the next tier of Japanese optical companies quickly moved to fill in the 1960s. By the time the '70s rolled around, a new crop of third-party manufacturers were pushing hard against the maturing Japanese OEMs, which were also engaged in more strident competition with one another. This inevitably led to cost-cutting by all participants as they fought for market share. The success of the aftermarket lens makers was readily apparent by the efforts of the OEMs to introduce budget lens lines (Minolta Celtic, Nikon Series E, Pentax Takumar Bayonet, etc.), and by simplifying construction of their standard lens lines to stave off such third-party incursions. The aftermarket initially targeted wide-angles and moderate telephotos (not coincidentally, those were the two categories of lenses that buyers first looked to acquire after their original purchase of an SLR or rangefinder with a normal lens), but some soon became innovators in the burgeoning zoom and macro sectors as the '70s wore on. By the '80s the OEMs were really feeling the heat and sometimes actually subcontracted the best of the third-party builders to manufacture some of their lenses or the components thereof (a practice that has only intensified in the past three decades). Brands such as Kiron (Kino Precision), Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Soligor, and Vivitar came to dominate the low-to-mid-range lens market. We will now take a closer look now at how to separate the pearls from the pigs. 

 
  Where to Start?

    There were literally dozens of brands of third-party lenses during the height of the SLR boom. That in itself can be enough to make your head spin and puts some people off right there. In reality though, there was a pile of badge-engineering going on, with only a fraction of those brands being true optical manufacturers. Now, just because a brand was not a manufacturer per se, should not be taken to mean that they were automatically junk-peddlers. For example, Vivitar, perhaps the the most prominent third-party lens brand during the '70s and early-'80s (at least in North America :-)), did much of the optical design for their Series 1 lens line and then subcontracted the actual construction of said lenses to companies such as Cosina, Kino, Komine, and Tokina, to name a few. Kino became so successful as a subcontractor (and not just for Vivitar) that they began to market their own lenses under the Kiron brand and were considered among the top aftermarket suppliers of the early-'80s.

    The first clue to the possible desirability of a vintage third-party lens will be its original selling price in relation to the OEMs. Just as now, lenses were built to price points back in the day. The price point served as the arbiter of which features, materials, and quality control procedures were used. Older catalogs or magazine adverts are an excellent resource in this case. Back issues of Popular Photography as far back as 1981 can be viewed on Google, and butkus.org has some catalogs from the late-'70s and early-'80s when the SLR boom was at its peak. Now, if an aftermarket lens was less than 2/3s the cost of an OEM, there had to be some substantial cuts made somewhere in the areas mentioned earlier: 1) materials, 2) labor, and/or 3) quality control. Different manufacturers prioritized different qualities, but some general themes emerge:

• Lens Coatings - one of the most precise and cost-intensive manufacturing procedures is the application of anti-reflective coatings to the optics of lenses, especially when multiple layers of coating are applied (logically termed "multi-coating" :-)). And this is where almost every aftermarket company chose to cut costs, whether by resorting to single-coating or inferior multi-coatings (not to mention often only coating some or none of the elements with their ultra-cheap stuff). Even today, the OEMs put a lot of R&D into coating technology and their finest efforts will outdo the best of the third-parties'. But even four decades ago, the top aftermarket multi-coatings were at least decent and a far cry from the single-coated lower-line offerings. Terminology becomes very critical here as "coated" = at least one air/glass surface that has at least one layer of coating; "multi-coated" = at least one air/glass surface that has at least two layers of coating (but the rest could be only single-coated or have none at all ;-)); "fully multi-coated" = every air/glass surface has at least two layers of coating. Where things get complicated is that it there is a lot of grey area between and even within those three designations, so is there any way to determine how extensive the coatings are on a particular lens? Most aftermarket lenses had some sort of designation engraved on the front trim ring (such as "MC" or some other acronym containing  "C" or "MC" to signify if multi-coatings were present), so that is a start. But the most reliable method is to look at the reflections emanating from the lens when a light source is pointed towards it. If there are no colors detected, just multiple white reflections...then the lens has no coatings whatsoever. Blue reflections alone are a sign of basic magnesium fluoride single-coating. Magenta or amber reflections are more advanced, and red and green are evidence of quite sophisticated multi-coatings (for the era). You didn't start to get decent multi-coatings from the Japanese aftermarket until the mid-'70s. Now, even the OEMs from the 1960s used single or double (technically "multi") coatings and their first multi-coated lenses didn't appear until about 1971 or so, so single or double coatings do not automatically rule out an aftermarket prime lens, as many photographers prefer the look or rendering of such optics. However, when it comes to zooms, and their far more complex optical formulas, full multi-coating is a necessity for half-decent contrast, flare, and ghosting performance. Bear in mind also that even the cheapest modern zooms' coatings outperform the best coatings of four-decades-or-more ago.
• Glass - High-refractive and low-dispersion glass types are more costly to produce and sometimes to work with when forming them into elements. Aspheric elements took much more labor to produce before the 1990s, as well. This was another area where the cheaper aftermarket lenses made use of more common and basic glass types that were not capable of as much aberration-correction and thus were not capable of the imaging performance of the best OEM or top-tier third-party lenses. The most visible sign of this would often be in the corner performance and/or chromatic aberrations. Soft and smeary corners and heavy magenta or green fringing (especially with large maximum apertures; a common tactic among aftermarket brands was to crank up the maximum aperture to grab consumer attention at the expense of aberration-correction) were commonplace among third-party lenses. Try to find multiple reviews (a wider data range improves your odds of making an accurate assessment) from people that have actually used the lens in question and pay close attention to their pictures/descriptions of corner & color-fringing performance at various apertures, if possible. A valuable resource for reviews on aftermarket glass is the pentaxforums.com section for third-party lenses. *** NOTE *** Please keep in mind that most reviews are based on a single copy of said lens, and that there is a decent chance that it is an outlier one way or the other. Also review quality varies widely, if an individual scores a lens at a 10 (or conversely, a 5 or less ;-)) in all categories, you can probably disregard that information as a valid data point, unless they clearly explain their reasoning and testing in each area. The original price of the lens in question is again another reasonable (albeit not precise :-)) indicator of glass quality. Again, there was no way an aftermarket lens priced at 1/2 or less that of an OEM lens could make use of the absolute best glass types available at the time. But, for lenses with relatively simple formulas, you could get very credible performance with standard glass types. And don't forget that the OEMs would also try to use the least-expensive glass types whenever possible to maximize their profits, and the top-spec glass was saved for their premium optics, only.
• Interior Finishing - Another time-consuming, and therefore costlier, process is that of blackening or matte-finishing interior surfaces of a lens to reduce the reflection of stray light which impairs contrast and clarity. This was another major corner-cutter for all but the best of third-party manufacturers. Whether by coating surfaces with flat black paint (which can come off in chunks over time if poorly applied), machining or casting grooves into interior barrels to absorb incoming light, or using felt or some other material to provide baffling, interior finishing is a very strong indicator of overall quality of construction. If a manufacturer does not see fit to pay attention to such (relatively) small details, chances are that other corners have been cut along the way. This is another area that can be easily verified by a quick visual inspection.
• Feel - Probably the first thing we notice when picking up a lens. Is the focusing and/or zoom ring stiff or smooth, wobbly or nice and solid? Does the aperture ring click positively yet smoothly, or is it too stiff or floppy? On the cheaper stuff, you can also feel the thinner barrels, and see increased use of poorer-quality plastics and rubber on lenses from the mid-'80s and on. 

  The Better Third-Party Manufacturers

    Ok, but what if you can't find an original price or a modern review for a particular lens? Well, let's cover some of the better third-party manufacturer's lens line-ups and narrow down the field a bit. This is not going to be an exhaustive list by any means, just a general outline:

• Tamron - Tamron was best known for their "Adapt-all (II)" system, where they produced the same lens but with adapters for each proprietary OEM lens mount. Their main marketing push was that if you decided to change SLR brands, you would be able to keep your lenses and just get the appropriate adapter instead of having to start from scratch with your lens set. A most valuable resource for Tamron is the adaptall-2.com website. They have the most extensive listing of Tamron manual focus lenses available and many extant tests from Modern Photography magazine for your perusal. A nice feature is the inclusion of model #s for each lens, which Tamron included on every unit produced, so you can exactly pinpoint the precise version of a given lens. The SP line was Tamron's top tier, and often featured lenses with features not found on their OEM-equivalents such as close-focusing zooms and larger-apertured macros. Even Tamron's standard Adapt-all line contains some high value/performance ratio glass and it is worth checking out as prices for non-SP lenses are serious bargains in today's market. More personal reviews can be found at the Tamron Legacy pages at pentaxforums.com. Often, you will pay as much or more for the adapter as the lens. Today Tamron remains as one of the OEM's main sub-contractors and one of the leading aftermarket suppliers.
• Tokina - Tokina was one of the most prolific aftermarketers as they had their own-branded lenses and served as a sub-contractor to Vivitar, Soligor, and many other brands. Many of the the best-regarded optics for these other brands were Tokina-designed and built. Tokina's own premium line was designated "AT-X" and featured some of the best zooms and macros available at the time. On their mid-to-high end stuff, Tokina's build-quality was a match for the OEMs and probably the best among the third-parties. They were the first to offer compact zooms in the mid-'80s. Correction for chromatic aberration was probably their weakest point with Tamron often besting them in that area. Coatings and glass were average. As with Tamron, Tokina continues today as an OEM sub-contractor and an aftermarket supplier. Check out pentaxforums.com for the best aggregation of Tokina manual focus reviews online.
• Sigma - Sigma was at best OK in the manual focus era, but they really didn't begin take off as an influential aftermarket manufacturer until the 1990s with auto focus. They focused on the lower mid-range market during the peak of MF, so don't expect to find some earth-shattering OEM-killer in sheep's clothing with Sigma's name on it ;-). 
• Soligor - One of the largest badge-engineerers of the MF era and one of the first to go when the SLR slump of the early-'80s hit. With at least ten suppliers over their existence, quality ranged from decent to very good. The C/D- and GS-line lenses were the best optics to bear the Soligor name, many being manufactured by Sun Optical, Tokina, Komine, and Tamron. Fortunately for us, the manufacturers of Soligors were identified by a digit or alpha-numeric code at the beginning of the serial number. A handy table can be found at apotelyt.com. Again, pentaxforums.com is the best source of user reviews, but you have to sift through the Miscellaneous section and the list is definitely not exhaustive.
• Vivitar - Vivitar was a leading light in zoom and macro lens design in the 1970's. Their Series 1 optics were premium-tier offerings and priced at the same level as the OEMs, but often offered superior close-focusing performance. It's more difficult to find bargains among Series 1 lenses, but you basically get what you pay for. Vivitar's quality was decent for their lower-tiered lenses until the mid-'80s. Come the late-'80s though, even the Series 1 designation began to lose a bit of its luster as Vivitar's parent corporation began to slap it on just about anything. There were still some very good optics in the range, but they were starting to be obscured as the race to MF bottom accelerated. Like Soligor, Vivitar used serial numbers to identify the manufacturer with the first two digits into the 1990s. The Series 1 and good mid-level Vivitar optics were mostly produced by: Cosina - 09 or 9, Kino (Kiron) - 22, Komine - 28, Tokina - 37. Cosina was also used for quite a bit of lower-end Vivitar stuff, so a serial number starting with a 9 doesn't automatically mean a good lens. But don't discount Cosina's ability to make fine lenses; much of the modern Zeiss lineup is Cosina-built. The Vivitar section at pentaxforums.com is again one of the best means available to evaluate and research the MF-era Vivitars.
• Kiron - Kino Corporation did so well as a sub-contractor in the late-'70s that they decided to get in on the SLR boom with their own branded lenses. The knowledge they gained from producing the groundbreaking first-version Vivitar 70-210/3.5 close-focusing zoom was put to good use as they became one of the top aftermarket manufacturers for the next half-decade. But, with the rapid demise of MF following the introduction of the first practical auto focus SLRs in 1985, Kiron did not make the transition to AF like Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, or Vivitar. One thing to watch for with Kirons is their propensity to develop oil-fouling on the aperture blades more frequently than some other brands. Nothing that a CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust) can't resolve, but just something to be aware of. As with Soligor, there are no dedicated pages for Kiron at pentaxforums.com, but you can access quite a few reviews from the Third-Party Lens Reviews Miscellaneous page. 

  Wrap-Up

   Alright. So you come across a lens in a thrift-store or online and the price seems ridiculously low. The focus/zoom and aperture rings feel good...the glass & coatings look good...the aperture is clean and snappy...and...you can't find a review or any info online. Should you give it a whirl? Only you can decide. But in the $10 - $30 range you almost can't go wrong. If you find you absolutely detest it, at those prices you can likely get your money out of it by foisting...umm...I mean selling it on to some unsuspecting...uhh I mean someone with a lower tolerance threshold than yourself ;-). At worst you will have (be stuck with) a lens to take into situations where you might not want to risk a more valuable optic, and at best you may be pleasantly surprised because what did you really expect for such a small amount in the first place? And there you go, we've come back around to expectations. 

   One caveat: beware of accumulating a pile of lenses that do nothing but gather dust because they were so cheap to acquire. I am still a proponent of having just a few lenses that you really enjoy using and getting certain results from rather than a pile of glass that only serves to cause paralysis-by-analysis when you try to decide which one to use. Finally, whether you end up with an OEM or a third-party lens for a given application, make sure it is because it gives you the results you want, not what I or anybody else says about it. :-).  

  References:

    Tamron @ http://adaptall-2.com/
    Third-Party Lens Reviews @ https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/
    Soligor Lens Compedium @ https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/soligor-catalog
    Vivitar Lens Compendium @ https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/vivitar-catalog
    Old Photo Catalogs @ https://www.butkus.org/chinon/catalogs_photo.htm