What's been your most/least cost-effective lens.

<p>Most cost effective = 60/2.8 Micro & 300/4 AF-S</p>

<p>Least cost effective = 85/2.8 PC Nikkor.</p>

<p>My most cost effictive is the Tokina 28-80 2.8 that I have used as my normal zoom in my wedding kit from day one. Paid $280 for it and have made my money back 50x over.</p>

<p>Least cost effective would be my 50mm 1.8....Even though it was cheap and is a great lens, I never use it. I have that great 28-80!!!</p>

<p>My 200-400VR (though it sure seemed spendy at the time of purchase!). I've since enjoyed the heck out of the images I've made with it for the past five years. Just-announced price hike on the VRII version-- being about $2K more than I spent-- means I could likely sell it for very close to what I bought it for. Not that I'm eager to do so, however.</p>

Most cost effective... 18-200 vr: I keep getting great shots with it because it can do what I want without slowing me down.

 

Least cost effective... Tokina 100 2.8 macro: Great lens but I can't figure out what I might want to shoot with it.

<p>If you mean "cost effective" as in the best performance for the price, then the lowly 18-70mm kit Nikkor is the hands down winner.</p>

<p>A Nikkor 28-105 for NZ$250, amazing lens for the price. Last 3 magazine covers were all images shot with this lens.</p>

<p>A mint Nikkor 24 f2.8 AF (not D) for NZ$95! I use it for 90% of my personal documentary work on a D300.</p>

<p>35mm ais F2 on my Fm3a. It's about welded to the camera. 50mm is most often to tight for the way I see things. 35-40 is about perfect.</p><div></div>

<p>My most cost effective lenses that I use on my D700 are:<br>

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 ($200) -<br>

I also own the legendary Nikon 24-70mm 2.8, but the tamron is not too far behind and definitely a better bang for your buck, $1600 vs $200! I keep it for my 2nd shooters and also as a back up lens (It used to be my primary lens). It's just as sharp, same color rendition, not as good in low light focusing, but not a slouch.<br>

my other is Nikons 35mm 1.8 DX lens ($200) -<br>

I actually love this one because it works so unexpectedly well on FX (d700). It's insanely sharp wide open and takes great portraits. It's extremely portable, lightweight, and unobstrusive. Some days I would only need to bring a 35mm 1.8 prime and a 50mm 1.4.<br>

My least cost effective:<br>

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 , 24-70mm 2.8, and Nikon 14-24mm 2.8.<br>

I list them as least cost effective because.<br>

1. obviously they cost alot!<br>

2. heavy!<br>

3. Not the fastest lenses as far as aperture<br>

4. big! they take up so much room<br>

I can't rid of these lenses though because they are versatile, and do have qualities which justify the high costs.<br>

Fast focusing, durability, low light focusing ability, versatility, reliability, focus accuracy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd have to put my Nikkor 24-85 2.8-4 AF-D at the top of my list as it stays on the D700 about 90% of the time. Traded in the 24-120VR kit after I got my eyes checked and have been very happy since (a - my eyes are ok, b - my camera now takes sharp pictures ;-} ). Second in line is the 105 Micro Nikkor 2.8 VR, just a gorgeous lens with images that sparkle.</p>