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

[marc_henry1]

<p>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.</p>

[tveck]

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.

[glenjo]

<p>Most cost effective: 55f3.5 micro AI'd or 105f4 micro AI or 50f1.8 AFD. All inexpensive and great performers</p>

<p>Least cost effective 18-200 VR mostly because it's the most I've spent on a lens.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>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.<br>

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...</p>

[michael_shi1]

<p>For me the most cost effective is : AF 35mm f/2D<br>

the least cost effective is AF-S 24mm f/1.4G</p>

[dan_south]

<p>My most cost-effective lenses are also the most expensive because they have the quality that I desire.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>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.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

[Marc453]

<p>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.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>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.<br /> 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 <em>wasn't</em> taken with this lens.<br /> 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.</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Best:<br>

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).<br>

2. 50/1.8 AF. It's a legend and it deserves it.<br>

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...<br>

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.</p>

<p>Worst:<br>

1. NK 70-300G. Oh boy, what crap. Had it for two days and sold it.<br>

2. NK 80-200/2.8. Well the lens is good, but it's so big and heavy, I never carried it around.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have lots of lenses but make my living with the 24-70, 35L and 85L.<br>

My 45mmTS is a fun toy, but so far just that.</p>

[frankeleveld]

<p>Best:<br>

- Nikon 50mm f/1.4D. Use it a lot for portraits and low light shooting. Sharp, compact, lightweight.</p>

<p>- 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.</p>

<p>- 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.</p>

<p>Worst:<br>

- 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.</p>

<p>- 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.</p>

<p>- 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. </p>

[billsymmons]

<p>Cost effective:<br /> Tamron 17-35mm<br /> Nikon 24-70mm<br /> Olympus 50-200mm<br /> These are the "earning lenses"<br /> Other lenses that have some worthwhile value:<br /> Nikon 50mm f1.8<br /> Nikon 75-150mm<br /> Because they are cheap and good.</p>

<p>Least cost effective:<br>

All the other lenses that sit on a shelf, because I think I might use them one day.</p>

[david_peterson9]

<p>Best:<br>

Tokina 12-24mm/2.8 - Used for 3-days in NYC recently. Great pics, great price.<br>

Nikkor 24-70/2.8 - A bit pricey but it is on my camera 75% of the time. It is sharp and versatile.<br>

Worst:<br>

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.<br>

Still deciding:<br>

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.</p>

[midan_smith]

<p>Cost Effective:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>18-135 kit lense 3.5-5.6, it really is very sharp on my D80, not much to complain about if sufficient light.</p>

<p>worst:<br>

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.</p>

<p>next lense: 105/135mm f/2.0 DC still not made up my mind.</p>

[james_videbeck1]

<p>Most cost effective:<br>

24/2.8 - Used this a lot until I bought a 12-24mm.<br>

75 - 150/3.5 - Very versatile lens<br>

Least cost effective:<br>

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.</p>

[jim_devlin]

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.

[rafael_s]

<p>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.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>your most cost-effective lens and which has been your least?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

[astral]

<p><em>At the bottom:</em> 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!</p>

<p><em>Way out on top:</em> 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.</p>

<p><em>Somewhere in-between:</em> 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 <em>lot </em>more now in 'real terms', so it may actually be my most cost effective lens.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>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.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Great thread.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>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.</p>

<p>With my 35mm Nikons (primarily F3HP):</p>

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

<p>With the D2H:</p>

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>