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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by peteraitch, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. 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?
    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 eb@y might distort the picture somewhat).
    To start things off (although my total sample is small):
    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".
    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.
  2. Most cost effective lens: Any 50mm prime and the 24-85AFS. The 105VR, too.
    Least effective to me: All the manual focus zooms I`ve had, together with my 20mm primes.
  3. Most cost-effective : 50mm f/1.4D (truly versatile, great lens - bought used for $200)
    Least cost-effective: 18-200mm VR & 50-500mm Bigma
    There you have it.
  4. TOP:
    1. AFS 17-35mm 2.8 not cheap but it is on my cam 95% of the time.
    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
    3. AIS 75-150mm f3.5 small & compact & sharp and only $75 though I don't use it much
    1. AFS 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 came with my d70, it is an okay daylight lens, really
    2. AIS 50mm 1.4 came with my F2AS. Contrary to most here probably but never been a 50mm man. Weird, I know...
    Okay, I only have like seven Nikon lenses. I have no bad lenses, really.
  5. Are you sure you had the ED version?
    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!
    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.
  6. 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.
  7. I'm a hobbyist, so none of my gear is cost effective... So I measure the amount of joy I get from using it.
    Cost effective: 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.
    Least cost effective: 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.
    I bought both these "least cost effective" new, but being Nikon 2 cheapest, that's not a great deal of money wrapped up there.
    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.
  8. Well, the nifty fifty is of course THE definition of cost effective. And if you don't own one, then "youz waz robbed".
    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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

    The best 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.

    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.
  11. Most cost effective? My 1971 PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8. Still in use today, still shaping my decisions about which cameras to buy.
    Least? Several Meyer Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 lenses, but not in Nikon mount, of course. I suppose for the latter lenses, a huge Soligor 70-210mm zoom lens I bought for $20 on eBay. Got a good laugh out of it though.
  12. Are you sure you had the ED version?​
    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).
    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.
  13. 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.
    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!
  14. 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.
    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.
  15. 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.
    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.
    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.
    Since I am a hobbyist, I consider cost-effective in terms of usage and enjoyment for the money spent.
  16. 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.
    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.
  17. Most effective lens (as against cost effective) - Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 - 90% shots taken using this lens since I got it
    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'.
  18. 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.
    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.
    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.
  19. I have made more off the 180 2.8 ED I bought 27 years ago. This is from last week.
  20. It's interesting that the most cost effective lenses are not necessarily among the cheaper ones.

    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.

    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.
  21. 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!)
    least cost effective: $100 for an 80-200 AI'd f/4.5 lens... fuzzy focus, died within 3 wks of acquiring it.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
    The least "cost-effective" was Nikon 18-200 VR. While it seemed like a great idea to get one, I never used it much.
  24. most cost-effective: tamron 17-50 and sigma 50-150. sharp, fast, compact.
    least cost-effective: nikon 18-70 and nikon 70-300 ED. mediocre/average at best.
  25. The answer depends what type of photography takes bulk of your time. For my hobby:
    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.
    Least cost effective 90mm VR Macro played with it for a while but it just stays on shelf.
    Regards, ifti
  26. The most cost effective must have been the Nikon 18-200 VR I bought for £410 new for my D200 and used a lot for eighteen months and sold for £425 very honestly described on ebay. I got eighteen months of very frequent use from this lens until I upgraded to a 35mm digital and it really didn't cost me anything. As a purely financial response this has to be my best.
  27. Most cost efective must be the Vivitar 135/2.8 MF, very sharp and clean and only 40 euro. The runners up should be the Nikon 60 micro, the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Tokina 12-24. Recently I got a Nikon AF 35-70/2.8, but it is too short to make a real verdict.
  28. Most cost effective: 55f3.5 micro AI'd or 105f4 micro AI or 50f1.8 AFD. All inexpensive and great performers
    Least cost effective 18-200 VR mostly because it's the most I've spent on a lens.
  29. Most cost effective: 50mm f1.4 AFD. Cheap and I used it a hell of a lot until I bought its 'G' younger sister. 17-35mm f2.8 after that for the huge amount of use it got even relative to its price.
    Least cost effective: 14-24mm f2.8. The no filter issue rendered it useless to me. Although I knew it didn't take them I thought I would alternate between that and the 17-35mm depending on if I thought I needed a filter or not. Trouble is I always felt I needed to be prepared to use filters and so never took the 14-24mm out. Total waste of money...
  30. For me the most cost effective is : AF 35mm f/2D
    the least cost effective is AF-S 24mm f/1.4G
  31. My most cost-effective lenses are also the most expensive because they have the quality that I desire.
  32. Without question, two most cost effective are both from mid 1980s and I still use them all the time. Tamron SP 28-80 3.5-4.2, and my trusty 50 1.8 (small flat) Nikkor. I worked a coffee house with only the 50 last Thursday, and worked a 100th Anniversary celebration of a church yesterday with only the Tamron zoom, delivered the finished CDs 10:00 AM this morning. Neither lens has ever failed or let me down.
  33. If by cost effective you mean use per dollar of cost then the most cost effective would be my Nikon 18-200 VR because I use it so much. The least cost effective would be my Nikon 10.5mm FF FE only because it's expensive and doesn't get a lot of use.
    If you mean most overpriced then it would be my 18-200 VR because it costs so much more than competitive lenses by Sigma and Tamron. The biggest bargain would be my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 because it costs so much less than competitive lenses (Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4).
  34. My most cost effective lens was my Canon EF 85mm f1.8 FD with my Canon T90. It paid for itself many times over. My second is my Tamron 28-75 F/2.8, it too has paid for itself several times. My worse lens was an old Sigma 135mm which never took an in-focus photo.
  35. A lens I use frequently and was very inexpensive in a kit...18-70 on a D300s. Mine is usually at f8, on a tripod. Performs very well indeed in that circumstance.
    The lens that "makes the most money": the 70-200 f2.8 on D700. I do a good bit of equine photography and I'm not sure I've ever sold a horse or horse and rider picture that wasn't taken with this lens.
    I'm beginning to fear my least cost effective lens is the 14-24 2.8. I use it primarily for landscape, usually early/late in the day and backlit. The flare is just awful.
  36. Best:
    1. 18-55 VR. An amazing, little, super-convenient, dirt cheap lens. I love it. I even have it on my D200 quite often (yep, it looks funny).
    2. 50/1.8 AF. It's a legend and it deserves it.
    3. Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro. Great qualilty, cheap, I used it for portraits. I'll probably never understand why I've sold it...
    4. (so far seems to be) Sigma 50-150/2.8 II. I've got it as a smaller, more convenient replacement for the bulky NK 80-200. I got it for half the price and I'm happy with it so far, though I guess I should get a prime tele.
    1. NK 70-300G. Oh boy, what crap. Had it for two days and sold it.
    2. NK 80-200/2.8. Well the lens is good, but it's so big and heavy, I never carried it around.
  37. it


    I have lots of lenses but make my living with the 24-70, 35L and 85L.
    My 45mmTS is a fun toy, but so far just that.
  38. Best:
    - Nikon 50mm f/1.4D. Use it a lot for portraits and low light shooting. Sharp, compact, lightweight.
    - Nikon 20mm f//2.8D. People have mixed opinions on this lens, claiming it's soft in the corners and that it produces CA. It's indeed fairly soft and there's some CA on the D200, but it's small, lightweight, focuses fairly close and to be fair it does not perform much worse than the other fix focals in this range, except for the Zeiss 21/2.8 perhaps. I like it much better optically than the Tokina 12-24, which is larger, heavier, is very prone to flaring and ghosting, and produced an extensive amount of asymmetrical lateral chromatic aberration which is very hard to get rid of in post-production. On DX the 20/2.8's FOV is nice for shooting indoors or groups of people, on 35mm/FX it's a good landscape lens. Plus, it focuses fairly close. Reverse-mount it and you'll be in macro-heaven. Nikon should update it, adding new coatings/ED-glass - as long as they keep it compact and light-weight.
    - Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 PC Auto. Costed me around $90 with PK-13 ring, in mint condition, factory AI'd. Use it a lot for product shots, but also works well as a portrait lens because it 'draws' images in a nice way.
    - Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR. I rarely use it for macro, in fact, I rarely shoot macro these days. For portraiture the AF-S and VR come in useful, but I now wish I had gotten the 85/1.4D instead... Still a very good lens.
    - Nikon 200mm f/4 AI. Got it cheap, so it's not a big thing. Well-built and fairly compact. Like many older Nikkor lenses, the 200/4 has a pleasant way of 'drawing' images, but focusing is a pain on the D200. As such I don't use it that often.
    - Tokina 12-24. Has some optical issues which increasingly bother me. Unsuitable for shooting nocturnal city scapes, chromatic aberration is a real issue especially since it's hard to address in post-processing due to its asymmetrical character. It is sharper than the 20/2.8D, but sharpness alone doesn't seal it for me.
  39. Cost effective:
    Tamron 17-35mm
    Nikon 24-70mm
    Olympus 50-200mm
    These are the "earning lenses"
    Other lenses that have some worthwhile value:
    Nikon 50mm f1.8
    Nikon 75-150mm
    Because they are cheap and good.
    Least cost effective:
    All the other lenses that sit on a shelf, because I think I might use them one day.
  40. Best:
    Tokina 12-24mm/2.8 - Used for 3-days in NYC recently. Great pics, great price.
    Nikkor 24-70/2.8 - A bit pricey but it is on my camera 75% of the time. It is sharp and versatile.
    18-200VR: I liked this lens at first because it was so versatile. I found too many circumstances, however, where it was too slow and/or the pictures soft. I sold it for about what I paid for it - the best lens decision I ever made.
    Still deciding:
    70-200 VR: This is a great lens. I find that I use it less often than I thought I would. I can't sell it because it is absolutely needed occassionally. Just not as often as I thought I would.
  41. Cost Effective:
    28-200 3.5-5.6 G, in studio very sharp at f/8 and above, great as a lightweight walkaround too. Got a new (as in unsold since discontinuation in 2006) one 6 months ago for £200, really impressed with it. Also the 2nd hand 50mm 1.8 AIS, took some great shots with that £40 lens on my D700.
    18-135 kit lense 3.5-5.6, it really is very sharp on my D80, not much to complain about if sufficient light.
    70-300 sigma apo dg 4-5.6, got it as a cheap option when i was just shooting for fun with a D80, wished i had saved the money and got a better lens later. It does a job with portraits but nothing special.
    next lense: 105/135mm f/2.0 DC still not made up my mind.
  42. Most cost effective:
    24/2.8 - Used this a lot until I bought a 12-24mm.
    75 - 150/3.5 - Very versatile lens
    Least cost effective:
    21/4 - Dragged this around on an F2 for years and didn't take many shots with it. I used the metering from my other cameras. Viewfinders had parallax issues.
  43. The most cost-effective lens I’ve owned was the 50mm/1.8 Series E lens that came with the EM I bought in 1982 – I only ‘retired’ that camera early last year when I made the switch to digital. A neat little performer that was gold when used with Kodachrome 25 and 64 back in the day.

    The 35mm/1.8 that I bought six months ago is right up there, too.

    I can’t think of a true ‘least cost-effective’ lens that I’ve owned. Maybe the 18-55 kit lens that came with my D40, if only because it now sits in my bag most of the time.
  44. To this day, as unbelievable as it sounds, the most cost effective lens I have ever used was a Quantaray 28-80 lens I picked up at a yard sale years ago. Think I paid something like $10 for it. I had used it on several Nikon film camera's (N8008, N80, and F100), then had it on D100 and D70 and I swear it was one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I still look at pictures shot from it and they are crystal clear compared to pictures I shoot with on more expensive lenses today. Sold it back years ago and regret it, because now I can only find the 28-90 ones on ebay.
  45. your most cost-effective lens and which has been your least?
    50/1.8D would be the most cost-effective. Least cost-effective? Hmm. 14mm AF-D. The worst Nikkor I've used in terms of image quality as well as utility.
  46. At the bottom: my Sigma 28mm f1.8 AF (first version) has awful performance, even stopped down: I have taken 5 photos with it - that amounts to £20 ($30) per photo - complete rubbish!
    Way out on top: my 24mm f2.8 Nikkor-N (factory AI'd) though optically perfect, had almost no black paint on it when I bought it (suggesting it was much used and cherished), and I have taken maybe 2000 photos with this lens at a cost of less than a penny a picture.
    Somewhere in-between: my 35mm f2.8 Nikkor-S (factory AI'd) has never been used. I bought is as boxed 'new-old' stock in perfect collectors' condition, aiming to use it, but never have. It cost me £65 several years ago : I think it is worth a lot more now in 'real terms', so it may actually be my most cost effective lens.
  47. If, by cost effective, you mean the lens by which I've made the most money, it was probably my old 28-70 2.8 (now sold in favor of the 24-70). It paid for itself several times in the four years that I owned it. Now that I don't take on paid shoots as much, the cost effectiveness of the new lens is much lower.
    If, by cost effective, you mean the lens that I paid the least for and use the most, it would be my 75-150 Series E. I found one on ebay with a $20 "Buy it Now" price and a $10 shipping fee. The photo was out of focus and useless, but the seller claimed that the lens was "nice" in the description. I figured it was worth a shot, so I bought it. I received an absolutely mint copy that is tack sharp. As a kicker, the seller refunded $3 of the shipping cost. Grand total for this little gem: $27. Now that's a cost effective lens.
  48. Cost effective? My 70-200 is my most used (for portraits) and worth about what I paid for it 1.5 years ago. Now thats cost effective. Least cost effective and least used is the 1.7 TC that I only carry when need reach then carry a d200 body as well for the crop factor to 500mm.
  49. bmm


    Great thread.
    Most cost effective = 35/2 and 85/1.4... I refuse to go anywhere without that pair at minimum. They are always in my bag and I love them.
    Least cost effective = probably my 180/2.8 - though its a great lens - as I bought it in preparation for going to FX, and so it only gets little bit of use on my current DX body.
    I'm a bit unhappy with my 24/2.8 too so even though I got it for a good second-hand price its not giving me 'return on investment' and I'm thinking of ridding myself of it soon.
  50. My list will seem odd because my least cost effective lenses are actually excellent lenses, optically. I just don't get much use from 'em. I'm not counting my optically mediocre lenses because I didn't pay much for 'em.
    With my 35mm Nikons (primarily F3HP):
    • Most cost effective - 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor. Saved me from having to use medium or large format for a specific architectural project. Much more travel friendly.
    • Least cost effective - 180/2.8 pre-AI Nikkor. Great lens but I paid too much for it and used the 105/2.5 AI far more often.
    With the D2H:
    • Most cost effective - Easy, the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor. Excellent lens and was a gift! Has helped me take some of my best people pix.
    • Least cost effective - I'm tempted to say the 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor, but I didn't actually buy that lens for the DX format dSLR. So I'd say the 300/4.5 AI Nikkor. Outstanding lens, but it turns out I don't really have much need for a telephoto longer than around 100mm.
  51. Most cost effective = 60/2.8 Micro & 300/4 AF-S
    Least cost effective = 85/2.8 PC Nikkor.
  52. 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.
    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!!!
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. A Nikkor 28-105 for NZ$250, amazing lens for the price. Last 3 magazine covers were all images shot with this lens.
    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.
  57. 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.
  58. My most cost effective lenses that I use on my D700 are:
    Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 ($200) -
    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.
    my other is Nikons 35mm 1.8 DX lens ($200) -
    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.
    My least cost effective:
    Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 , 24-70mm 2.8, and Nikon 14-24mm 2.8.
    I list them as least cost effective because.
    1. obviously they cost alot!
    2. heavy!
    3. Not the fastest lenses as far as aperture
    4. big! they take up so much room
    I can't rid of these lenses though because they are versatile, and do have qualities which justify the high costs.
    Fast focusing, durability, low light focusing ability, versatility, reliability, focus accuracy.
  59. 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.

Share This Page