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

<p>I recently came across an old thread about the "worst lens you ever owned" and it got me thinking. Has the advent of AF-S, VR and nanocoatings changed the photo landscape for ever or are the originals still the best?</p>

<p>So, what has been your most cost-effective lens and which has been your least? This would cover both Nikkor and third party (including used, although fire-sale or lenses acquired from unsuspecting sellers on <a href="mailto:eb@y">eb@y</a> might distort the picture somewhat).</p>

<p>To start things off (although my total sample is small):</p>

<p>Best: Nikkor 28-105 AF-D IF - bought originally with my F80 when I switched from Canon manual focus (FD) exactly seven years ago. It is, as someone once said, "the Swiss Army knife of lenses".</p>

<p>Worst: Nikkor 70-300 AF-D ED - again, bought with my F80. I only realised what a dog it truly was when I got my D700 and could do more thorough testing. Now exchanged for the current VR (G) version.</p>

 

<p>Most cost effective lens: Any 50mm prime and the 24-85AFS. The 105VR, too.<br>

Least effective to me: All the manual focus zooms I`ve had, together with my 20mm primes.</p>

<p>Most cost-effective : 50mm f/1.4D (truly versatile, great lens - bought used for $200)<br>

Least cost-effective: 18-200mm VR & 50-500mm Bigma<br>

There you have it.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Andy</p>

 

<p><strong>TOP:</strong><br /> 1. AFS 17-35mm 2.8 not cheap but it is on my cam 95% of the time.<br /> 2. AI 28mm F2 If I need that extra stop and don't want to spend 3-4k on the 28mm 1.4 at the time <br /> 3. AIS 75-150mm f3.5 small & compact & sharp and only $75 though I don't use it much</p>

<p><strong>BOTTOM:</strong><br /> 1. AFS 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 came with my d70, it is an okay daylight lens, really<br /> 2. AIS 50mm 1.4 came with my F2AS. Contrary to most here probably but never been a 50mm man. Weird, I know...</p>

<p>Okay, I only have like seven Nikon lenses. I have no bad lenses, really.</p>

<p>Are you sure you had the ED version?</p>

<p>I'm a bottom feeder so all my lenses have been extremely cost effective and when I find I don't use a lens I have been able to sell them for more than I bought them for. I can't choose only one, I will have to say my heavily worn Nikon 14mm f2.8 D ED and pristine Nikon 400mm f2.8 ED AIS both bought for a total cost under $2000 have been my most cost effective since they likely are responsible for 80% of my best images. Heck, 80% of ALL my images over the past 5 years for that matter!</p>

<p>The least cost effective lens ever is likely going to be the one I buy in the next month. It will be a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 ED AF-S, hopefully beat up. I hope it makes a liar out of me! If it does what I hope it can I can even sell my Nikon 200mm f2 AI for twice what I bought it for. I hate the thought of parting with the sharpest lens I have ever owned but then I could add another yet cost effective lens to my arsenal. We'll see.</p>

<p>Probably the most cost-effective lens I have bought was a used 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 AF zoom that turned out to be a very good lens for its modest price. The runner-up was a used 50-135mm AIS zoom that is killer sharp. The least cost-effective was a 300mm 4.0 AF lens that is optically great, but I discovered that I simply tend to leave such heavy lenses home most of the time unless I am specifically photographing wildlife.</p>

<p>I'm a hobbyist, so none of my gear is cost effective... So I measure the amount of joy I get from using it.</p>

<p><em>Cost effective</em>: AF-S 300 f/4; the build quality and sharpness make me happy every time, but the grand price must go to the 105 f/2.5 (cheap 2nd hand) - what a lens. Runner up is the AiS 35 f/1.4, but after owning it for just 2 weeks, I'm still learning on this beauty.<br /> <em>Least cost effective</em>: 70-300G f4-5.6; it's perfectly OK from f/8 to f/11 under 240mm, which is a bit limited, especially in cold and wet Netherlands, and AF is superslow; main problem is that it balances badly with a D300, making it hard to handhold. However, for me, the price here must go to the even cheaper AF-D 50 f/1.8... I just do not like 50mm on DX a great deal.<br />I bought both these "least cost effective" new, but being Nikon 2 cheapest, that's not a great deal of money wrapped up there.</p>

<p>But of all my lenses (except having 2 copies 105 f/2.5), they all have a clear role to me, balancing advantages versus disadvantages for specific situations. So they all get to stay.</p>

<p>Well, the nifty fifty is of course <em><strong>THE</strong></em> definition of cost effective. And if you don't own one, then "youz waz robbed".</p>

<p>But, I find myself using the 18-35mm Nikon the most of all my lenses. The 17-35mm would have been choice one, but my amateur budget would have been herniated. I'm using DX and film bodies, so on the digital I like that 18-35 range ... I prefer to be slightly wider than 'normal' for most shots.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

 

Tough call between 50f1.8 afd and the 18-55 ED non- vr kit lens I bought for 30e. Neither ever paid me a meal, though.

<p>Sure, most cost effective: 50/1.8 - used the same one for 20+ years, and still have it, and it still works. It's been back burnered by other, better lenses ... but it sure earned its keep. <br /><br />The <em>best</em> money I've spent on a lens? The 70-200/2.8. It paid for itself in weeks, and is very importat to the type of shooting I find myself doing.<br /><br />Least cost effective? Probably the kit zoom that happened to come bundled with one my my digital bodies. Nothing wrong with the 18-70 (actually a nice little lens for the money if you use it within its natural boundaries), but it's relegated to sitting on the shelf in case all of my other lenses are stolen or fall into a volcano.</p>

<p>Most cost effective? My 1971 PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8. Still in use today, still shaping my decisions about which cameras to buy.</p>

<p>Least? Several Meyer Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 lenses, but not in Nikon mount, of course. I suppose for the latter lenses, a <strong>huge</strong> Soligor 70-210mm zoom lens I bought for $20 on eBay. Got a good laugh out of it though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you sure you had the ED version?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, John, I'm certain. It wasn't especially cheap for a "consumer" lens - and knowing about the limitations of the original very cheap G version (and having had a cheap lens actually wear out on me!) I spent the extra cash. It took a while for disappointment to seep in, but it somehow never gave me that "wow" factor. Having come from the Tamron 70-210 adaptall-2 on Canon, I expected more (unlike my Tamron SP lenses, the 70-210 wasn't amazing for the money, but still seemed as good as the Nikkor, except for reach and perhaps colour rendition).</p>

<p>Interesting to see votes already for fast 50mm primes: I've a strong feeling that if I'd been doing this poll in 12 month's time I would have felt exactly the same, but I only got my AF-S 1.4G at Christmas. It's a phenomenal lens, to the extent where the disadvantages of having no focal length control become totally overshadowed by the sheer IQ (and speed) of the prime.</p>

<p>My favorite lens and best bang for the buck. The 55mm f3.5 micro that I got used for 110 bucks and have used for all kinds of fun stuff.</p>

<p>My least "cost-effective' and yet second favorite lens: Tokina 11-16 f2.8. I'm always "looking for excuses" to shoot with this awesome lens, but it gets less use than I ever thought it would. I simply don't need to go that ridiculously wide that often. But... I will never sell it. I simply adore it!</p>

<p>Most cost-effective by far was a "bargain" grade 50/2 AI I got from KEH a few years ago for $35. It's the lens I leave on the camera, and more often than not, the one I end up using if I can. <br>

For "least," probably a third-party 500 mirror lens I bought used for too much some years ago, that seemed pretty good in the store, but turned out to be unacceptably soft. I was seduced by the sheer magnification of it, and by the fact that it was the first (and perhaps only) non-Nikkor reflex lens I'd ever found that would fit under the overhang of a Photomic finder. I fired away at birds and beasts for a few rolls, and when the slides came back, not one was a keeper.</p>

<p>Most "cost-effective": 80-400 VR, simply because I did not have to pay for it. Next would be the 70-180 Micro Zoom - could never decide which focal length I wanted in a macro lens and this lens solved the conundrum. 300/4 AF-S - probably seen the most use but 99% of the time with either a TC-14E or TC-17EII behind it. The Nikon 12-24 belongs here too - a favorite go-to lens that I can't seem to part with despite having the Tokina 11-16/2.8 as well. Need to include the 24-120 that I purchased when it came out and now is my wife's walkaround lens.<br>

Not cost effective and sold over the years: absolute worst was a 50/1.4 - took only a few shots with that dud. Followed closely by a 55/2.8 Micro and a 50/1.8. Can't remember what made me purchase the 85/2 AIS since I already owned the 105/2.5 at the time.<br>

Not cost effective (yet) since I don't own them for that long: Sigma 150/2.8, Nikon 85/1.8 AF, Tokina 11-16/2.8, and Nikon 17-55/2.8. Guess the 10.5 fisheye will never really be cost effective but it's fun nonetheless.<br>

Since I am a hobbyist, I consider cost-effective in terms of usage and enjoyment for the money spent.</p>

<p>More people have paid me more money for shots from my cheap used 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor than any other. Second on the list is my lowly 18-70 kit lens, always producing results far better than its price would suggest.</p>

<p>At the other end of the list is my 200/4 that I bought new in the late '70s. Amortized over the years it's cost close to nothing, but I've never taken a keeper with it in 30 years.</p>

 

<p>Most effective lens (as against cost effective) - Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 - 90% shots taken using this lens since I got it<br>

Least effective lens - Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 - I got this lens for indoor shots, but realised that I am still going for my 70-200mm to get close-up shots of my 2 year old girl. The lens itself is great, just my use of it has not been what I would call 'value for money'.</p>

<p>In my case, cost-effective will be based on my usage of the lens and how successful I feel the pics taken with it have been.<br>

Most cost-effective: 55/3.5 and 28/3.5, simply because I've used them a lot and they were dirt cheap. I have more expensive lenses that I sue a lot, but those two are just very cheap lenses.<br>

Least cost-effective: easily the 400/5.6 ED, just too long and too big most of the time, so it doesn't leave home and thus get that much use. Shot some nice photos with it that I couldn't do otherwise, but really, I could live without it. It's not a bad lens though.</p>

<p>I have made more off the 180 2.8 ED I bought 27 years ago. This is from last week.</p>

<p>It's interesting that the most cost effective lenses are not necessarily among the cheaper ones.<br>

<br />My most cost effective for Canon DSLR has been my 24-70mm L 2.8, which I use on a 5D. I keep it on the camera most of the time, even though in theory I prefer prime lenses, and have only kept the half dozen or so lenses that I like the most.<br>

<br />The creative freedom and quality of this lens, at every focal length and aperture, and my tendency to prefer focal lengths that are not at the extremes, make it a true workhorse.</p>

<p>most cost-effective: $120 50mm f/1.2 I got at a garage sale (the woman there thought 1.2 meant it was an early edition!)</p>

<p>least cost effective: $100 for an 80-200 AI'd f/4.5 lens... fuzzy focus, died within 3 wks of acquiring it.</p>

<p>For me, it's a toss-up between my 85mm f/2 and 105mm f/2.5 AIS Nikkors. But my 180mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor has also served me well. All of them are 1980's vintage.</p>

<p>For me the most "cost-effective" lens has probably been Tamron 28-75/2.8. It was the second lens I ever bought and it's been by far my most used lens.<br>

The least "cost-effective" was Nikon 18-200 VR. While it seemed like a great idea to get one, I never used it much.</p>

<p>most cost-effective: tamron 17-50 and sigma 50-150. sharp, fast, compact.</p>

<p>least cost-effective: nikon 18-70 and nikon 70-300 ED. mediocre/average at best.</p>

<p>The answer depends what type of photography takes bulk of your time. For my hobby:<br>

Most cost effective: 18-200VR bought with original D200 and after I have bought bunch of other lenses, this is the one I use most with great tresults.<br>

Least cost effective 90mm VR Macro played with it for a while but it just stays on shelf.</p>

<p>Regards, ifti</p>