Your favorite cheap-o lens

<p>Jonathan Jones beat me to it, my Tokina 19-35 went with my Rebel G on a sale years ago, but that was a great little lens, and only about $170 when it had the "new & shiny" premium on it</p>

<p>the tamron 18-50mm is awesome!</p>

<p>Gotta be my 80-200mm Tokina AT-X. Works like a charm even though it's manual focus. Does very well on my N90s. Couldn't go wrong for $85.57 delivered. Nobody seems to want the old lenses :)</p>

<p>My "cheap" favourite is the Nikon 50/1.4 AIS. </p>

<p>Many people wouldn't dare put an AI or AIs lens on their high end DSLRS, but I do. In this sense I have lots of bargain lenses. The best bargain is probably the Nikon 400/2.8 AIS that I got for about the same price as a new Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS. I prefer twice the reach! </p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 is my best and cheapest lens, and I use it a lot. It was marvellous on D70, and still is on D300.</p>

<p>Also, nikon 24-85 afs (not afd)</p>

<p>I have not found a good cheap lens for my Nikon yet. My best cheap lens to date has been a 135mm f/2.8 k mount for my Pentax. My neighbor gave to me free. He bought it at Salvation Army for $10 only to realize later that it didn't fit his Minolta. It takes nice contrasty pictures. The brand name on that one is Sears believe it or not. :) I have been considering a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and I also found a Vivitar 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5 manual focus macro lens for Nikon on KEH for $33. For that price it might be worth a shot. My dad used some Vivitar lenses on his Mamiya/Sekor when I was a kid. </p>

<p>Old Nikkor 105/2.5...$75</p>

<p>My current second- favorite cheapo lens is a pre-AI 85/1.8 recently purchased for about 60 bucks, not beautiful looking, but it has very good manners. Third, more for cheapness than anything else, is a 35/2.8 that I got for $10 in clean condition. Not a stellar performer, but how much cheaper can a working Nikkor lens get?<br>

My all time favorite cheapo lens, however, remains a 50/f2 AI bought a few years ago from KEH for $35. It was listed as "bargain" condition, but they must have had a surplus and decided to toss a few better ones into the bargain bin. Its only apparent concession to bargain-hood is a little scuffing of the filter threads and a tiny hint of age in the focusing smoothness. If this lens has any vices, I'm too dumb to notice them. If you know of any, don't tell me.</p>

 

<p>The Nikkor 600mm F4G ... a bargain at $9500 ... Donald Trump.</p>

<p>Two entries:<br>

1. When I was a Canon man, my 50/1.8. Not just for the sharpness and insanely good color rendition, but because it looked like a piece of s---. It really did. Mounted on my then Digital Rebel XT it was tiny light, unobtrusive, and perfect.<br>

2. I just got a Nikkor 135/2.8 E series for less than a hundred bucks, basically nver used. On my crop camera, it is good for portraits from a distance with studio strobes, tack sharp, and incredible tonality...all of the photos have this look to them that is at once lo-fi and, when perused for a second, also tack sharp. I am on my second laptop but will post a few shots from it in a little bit.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Jay</p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8 is the best "cheapo" hands down. Though by certain standards it's not exactly a cheapo lens, unlike those G type non AF-S lenses, it does have an aperture ring, it also features a distance scale, a real MF ring, and a nice and tight metal mount.</p>

<p>The $200 55-200 VR would be my 2nd choice.</p>

<p>Canon EF 35mm f/2. Besides EF 50mm f/1,8.</p>

<p>My 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor, one of the sharpest lenses ever produced by any camera company, cost me $10 at a garage sale about 20 years ago.</p>

<p>The cheapo lens in my bag is a old 28mm F2.5 AIS dateing back to the early 80's works great with total man on a D40 got it to use with a old EM</p>

<p>LEARNNNNNNN.......get the 50/1.8 and discover framing, capturing the scene, awesome in low light, blinding fast focus in the AF version. A dream on an old manual FM2. Zooms are for journos not artists.</p>

<p>My favorite cheapo lens is my 24-70 f/2.8L :D :)</p>

<p>200mm f/4 Ai. Almost as sharp as 70-200 at 200mm at 1/10 the cost and maybe 1/5 the size. Thank you, Bjorn, for this recommendation.</p>

<p>Two lenses, one has to be the 50 f1.8, but I also use the 28-200 G which is another of those nikon sleepers very sharp with low distortion. I might add a third lens into the pot. \the 75-150 E<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Sigma 70-300mm APO DG macro brilliant lens got it low expectations but produces some great results</p>

<p>I put a second vote in for the Nikon 28-200mm G lens. OK, OK it DOES have a plastic mount, but we ARE talking cheap-o here, right?? <br>

The optical performance is really, really good and it has great close-up capability. It's also very compact & light weight. This was the very first lens I bought when I moved into the digital slr era. Sold it to get something "better" and have regretted it ever since. </p>

<p>Some favourites:<br>

 

<ul>

<li>Nikon 50mm f/1.8</li>

<li>Tamron 90mm macro</li>

<li>Tamron 28-75 f/2.8</li>

<li>Tokina 12-24 f/4</li>

</ul>

Martin

</p>

<p>I picked up a 35-70 2.8 d macro on a whim as a fill in lens. It's now my go to piece. Great as a normal Dx zoom and absolutely tack sharp as a macro. Nice size, very versititle, fast and sharp.</p><div></div>

<p>The relatively new kit lens sold with the Canon XSi, the 18-55 IS, is a sleeper. Cheap looking, plastic construction and mount. It rivals my 17-40 f4L in many respects and is superior in a couple. I've gotten some superb nighttime images at a shutter speed of 1/6th of a second so the IS works extremely well.<br>

As I noted elsewhere, I recently shot some images with it at Zion National Park with heavy snow on red rock compared against the Zeiss F2.8 24-70 on a SONY A900. The 13x19 prints were virtually indistinguishable. Cost of a lens isn't always a guarantee of IQ. </p>

<p>The relatively new kit lens sold with the Canon XSi, the 18-55 IS, is a sleeper. Cheap looking, plastic construction and mount. It rivals my 17-40 f4L in many respects and is superior in a couple. I've gotten some superb nighttime images at a shutter speed of 1/6th of a second so the IS works extremely well.<br>

As I noted elsewhere, I recently shot some images with it at Zion National Park with heavy snow on red rock compared against the Zeiss F2.8 24-70 on a SONY A900. The 13x19 prints were virtually indistinguishable. Cost of a lens isn't always a guarantee of IQ. </p>