Your favorite cheap-o lens

<p>Jerry,</p>

<p>ditto on the 35-70, great lense, but "cheapo"?.... paid ~$350 for mine...<br>

Ben</p>

<p>Without a doubt, the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the Vivitar/Soligor 100mm f3.5 macro. Two of the best optics out there, at ANY price!</p>

<p>Well, if you enjoy hearing about oddball lenses, my 7.5mm f/8 Spiratone circular fisheye is pretty good. But for an all-around bargain, you cannot beat the Nikon 28-105mm AF-D (I think it's "D")...I could actually live with that as my only lens.</p>

<p>Benjamin. The 35-70 2.8 was Nikon flagship lens for standard zooms in the 90's, before the 28-70 came out. Considering the price it can be found today and the performance it delivers, IMHO it is a cheap lens for what you get for a little more than the price of a plastic consumer zoom. It has a very little distortion and a superb sharpness. The only drawback is its tendency to flare when shooting into the sun.</p>

<p>Entirely agree with all the Nikkor 50/1.8D folks. No better lens for the money IMO. :)</p>

<p>24mm F2.8 AIS in beautiful condition for $135; bought off the local online want ads last week. One of the great lenses of all time.<br>

105mm F2.5 non-AI, first optical (Sonnar) design, in excellent condition, for $70; got a new factory AI ring for it for $20. Another great lens of all time.<br>

75-150mm F3.5 series E lens for $75, with a loose zoom ring; I got the ring action tightened, and rabbit ears added for the benefit of my non-AI cameras, for another $70. Some say it was actually made by Kiron, which qualifies it for third-party status.<br>

70-210mm F4 AF two-ring zoom for $160, in excellent condition; works in all generations of Nikons: meterless F's and F2's, non-AI and AI cameras; works with my D40, though without autofocus, not that I care about autofocus. Some people don't like this lens; mine is very nice, optically. One stop slower and a lot less money than those F2.8 zooms.</p>

 

<p>I got mine used for $350 too. For the performance it's cheap. Especially when stacked up next to the 17-55 2.8 for almost $900 and it's not as sharp and not a macro. I love mine. Next is my old-ish 20-35 2.8.</p>

<p>Canon 50/1.8. Great.<br>

I am looking to try out a 28/2.8 soon though..</p>

<p>I see here that amongst different platforms the fast 50 is still king. For me it's the Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4. Still a current lens, it's an AF prime that predates digital and was produced using Pentax optical formulas from the 1970's. This sweet little baby is still considered one of the best 50mm lenses on the planet. Recently Dpreview stacked it up against the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and, the Nikon AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D. Here's the dpreview article http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/<br>

Soon to be replaced by the much more expensive DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM the the FA 50mm is only $199 CDN / US. And yes, Canon shooters can buy and adaptor to use this K-mount prime (and others) with their gear too.</p>

<p>75-150 E lens.</p>

<p>Third vote for the Nikon 28-200G. Compact, lightweight (i.e. "plastic-y"), good optics. After selling off my D300 and beloved 18-200VR for a D700, the 28-200 is about as close to the 18-200 as you can get for an FX camera. Bought it off ebay used for a bargain. Maybe it was yours, Peter ;-). If so, thanks! </p>

<p>Jerry, Luca,<br>

no doubt the 35-70 is superb and worth every dollar and more (it does flare though).<br>

Can yo explain to my wife that $350 is a steal compared to $1500 for a 24-70? The term "Cheapo" is relative :)</p>

 

<p>Years ago I got a beaten up old manual Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. This lens is the predecessor of the familiar AIS 85mm f/2.0. It's the lens used for the crucial picture in the movie "Blow up". I paid next to nothing. The lens is mechanically very robust, has excellent image quality and a very creamy bokeh. It is the only one of manual nikkors that I still use regularly on digital. <br>

When I got my (first) digital SLR a year ago, I got a used Nikon 18-70mm zoom. The lens is a bit wobbly and could be faster, but I am very pleased with the image quality. It is sharp, light, small and has an excellent rendition of out-of-focus areas. Something the newer 18-200 and 16-85 wonder zooms fail badly at. In fact, I find the oof rendition of these lenses so horrific and distracting that I would never change the 18-70 for one of these lenses. </p>

<p>I got the Canon FD 50mm 1.8 for FREE. It came with the Canon AE1 Program that my half sister gave me. She never learned how to use it. The camera body had to have a CLA and it's working great now. </p>

<p>Benjamin, I bought my 35-70 2.8 in 1996. Twelve years later I am still using it. Basically I have two sets of lenses, the fixed (E series) ones: 28 mm, 50 mm 1.8 and 135 mm, which travel with my FM2 and the 20 mm, 35-70 mm 2.8 and 70-300 mm that travel with the F100. Apart from the F100 body (which replaced a worn out F90X) and the 70-300 (which replaced my still regretted 75-300 mm), those sets of lenses follow me since at least ten years (some even 20). I have learnt a lesson in photography: unless money is a real issue, on the long term it is far better to buy something and use it until it wears out, than to buy something just to regret it and upgrade to something better one year later. This is a message I passed to my wife, let me buy the right tool for the pictures I want to take from the very beginning and then I will keep using it until it dies. I have friends who spent huge amounts of money starting with a Tamron 28-200 and ending three years later with a 28-70 2.8 mm and a 70-200 2.8. In between they kept "upgrading" from lens to lens and at the end they spend 2-3 times the money they would had spent if they bought the right lens from the very beginning.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Nikon 28-200 G. Razor sharp, <strong>very</strong> light weight. Don't let the plastic construction put you off, this lens is the best walkabout lens I've ever owned. It ain't particularly fast, but you knew that already, right. Really wide range and small. Put a 50 f/1.8 in your pocket for indoors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Plenty of old Nikkors come to mind as they sell cheap now but for modern lenses I have a list of three plastic cheapies. The 18-55 afs vr, 55-200 afs vr and the 50 1.8. All perform far above their price point and weigh near nothing to boot.</p>

<p>my vote goes to nikkor AF 28-80G 1:3.5-4.5 for range & flexibility, OK sharpness, small and lightweight in one package.<br>

Second vote for AF 50/1.4D.</p>

<p>my vote goes to nikkor AF 28-80G 1:3.5-4.5 for range & flexibility, OK sharpness, small and lightweight in one package.<br>

Second vote for AF 50/1.4D.</p>

<p>Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro mint cond. $120 odd Australian Dollars - best bang for bucks in my lens bag.</p>

<p>I would have to say Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. About as sharp and useful as any $100 lens could possibly be.</p>

<p>Nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro. recommended by Dan Fromm and Joseph Wisniewski. An excellent lens. See attachment with it reversed. Thanks Dan and Joseph..</p>

<p>sorry here it is</p><div></div>

<p>My 55/3.5 AI'd Micro-Nikkor and M2 extension tube set was one of the best purchases I've made, but at around $100 used I'm not sure it's a "cheap-o lens", per the title of this thread. Affordable, sure, and an excellent value. But not necessarily cheap. To me, cheap is a choice between buying beer and buying a camera doodad from a pawn shop or thrift store. If it costs much more than a weekend's supply of domestic beer, it's not cheap.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Lex in a way. I think it would best to call the thread the best bargain lens purchased. My 55mm lens was a bargain but although a bargain I think that even by today's standards it is still up there in terms of quality results.</p>