Found a lens at a thrift store. $20. Off of an old film SLR

as far as price goes it's nothing special - not overly expensive, not a steal.
if you feel like you have some use for it sure, get it, just don't expect much out of it.
might be a good investment if you want to see if you'll actually utilize tele in your photos - $20 isn't much so even if you'll just throw it in a drawer in few days nothing really lost.

>>3136661
20$ is pretty much for 'lens' lenses especially when they where zooms and/or budget solutions to begin with. generally your dads fully manual primes are a solid choice and you can get really good glass for comparable prices at thrift stores. personally i wouldnt buy it.

>>3136690
'old' lenses* what the hell

>>3136661
I'd buy it even though I don't need it but would like a back up. I have the same old Canon lens 28-80mm, which came with a used Canon Rebel 2000. The AF has slow hunting and has a loud squeak, but when it does focus the images are pretty good. Also no image stabilizer which limits you to hand shooting in good light.

$20 in good condition, worth.

$20 is worth buying just to use it ironically for a couple of laughs until you discover it's actually pretty decent stopped down despite the softness, vignetting, and color fringing at f/5.6 and decide get the related 28-70 so you have a set of shitty lenses but you actually end up enjoying their quirks and you forget all about stupid megapixels and charts and ISO and sharpness and focus speeds and you start to hone on more important aspects like light and composition and eventually become a better photographer just because you took a chance on a $20 thrift store lens.

tl;dr: Heil Hitler.

>>3137178
>enjoying their quirks
the things you listed aren't enjoyable
>forget all about stupid megapixels
lenses aren't sensors, they don't have megapixels
>and charts and ISO and sharpness and focus speeds
buying a cheap lens doesn't make you care any more or less about any of those
>tl;dr: Heil Hitler.
oh, so you were an idiot all along

>>3137180
I'm sorry.

>>3136661

Had one, compared it to the 70-210 f4 "poor mans L" and the actual 70-200 f4L IS

Wide open it's a dog, soft, chromabs out the ass, the other two lenses curbstomp it American History X style.

Stop it down to f/16 and it shines, sharpness is as good as the 70-210 but a tad softer than the 70-200L. You'll only notice these issues if you pixel peep.

Correct for abberations and you got a nice lightweight tele that fits in your pocket.