>>3000282I'm assuming everything is in working order, yes? The camera isn't broken, the lenses aren't full of fungus, yadda yadda.
>K1000Yes, is good. Actually if that's all you'd gotten, $17 would be a good deal for a working K1000, they generally go for quite a bit more than that.
>the Sigma 28/2.8 on itthat's not exactly what you'd call a stellar lens. It wouldn't stand up to a modern digital sensor. But for film its fine. Try to stop it down, if you can.
>the 135/2.5Takumar Bayonets are budget things, not the nice glass that "real" takumars are. I own one of those, and the contrast and sharpness aren't great. But again, forget that, seventeen bucks. And you don't need razor-sharpness in a portrait lens anyway. Use that little built-in hood that it has, it flares easily.
>the 50/2.0At least it looks like an SMC-M 50/2.0. I can't actually see but its the right size and those are common as dirt. Its a nifty fifty. Shoot it at f/8 and it'll be razor sharp, shoot it wide open and it'll be less so, since it's the cheap model (the 50/1.7 and 50/1.4 are rather better, but less common and more expensive) But again, good enough for government work.
>that long-focus thingWhat is it, a 400/5.6? Hope you have a nice tripod and a stationary subject. Expect it to be not very sharp and to show a lot of CAs.
>>3000315welcome to /p/. we hate things. It is 4chan after all.
