michael_schirmer Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 I'm purely a beginner at SLR cameras. Unfortunately i don't have the budget that allows me to buy great lenses. My question is what about the Quantarray lenses do you not like. I haven't hear one person say anything remotely good about them at all. So if i could have some help to understand what the lense does i would greatly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Simple: buy one, use it, and see. It might please you for a number of years. Since you have no budget to buy a better lens, you can invest all your ingenuity and art into composition, etc etc. And you might not need a better lens if your basic art skills are not there. So; enjoy a Q...y lens by all means and learn with it. There is no shame in being poor and adventurous and daring to learn, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_van_hulle1 Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Another take. Just buy the manufacturer's 50/1.8. Just about everyone has a good one of these and they're probably the cheapest lens you can buy. In return, most will give you some of the best performance you'll see out of a basic lens. As for issues - try contrast, clarity, flare, vignetting, build quality, resale value, etc., etc., etc. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachaine Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 If you already have it, just use it. One day, if you become more serious about photography, you may want a lens with better optical quality, that produces sharper enlargements and less distortion. But I'm sure it's fine for now. If you don't already have it, I would suggest one of the cheap Nikon G lenses (28-80G, 28-100G). They are pretty sharp for the price, and they autofocus very well and reliably. A useful comparison might be an analogy with grocery shopping. Do you want to buy the brand name fruit salad that has consistent quality, or the generic fruit salad that comes from whichever supplier gave the store chain the best deal that month? Quantaray is just the generic house brand for lenses at Ritz. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Not sure what kind of camera you have or what lens you're considering or how much you're willing to spend on the lens, but while there are sample to sample variations, the obvious truism is that the NIkon lenses will provide better results. And at the prices (UNDER $100 at keh.com) that some USED Nikon manual prime lenses are going for, it's almost a no-brainer. As far as WHAT a lens does, there are many, many books and websites on beginning photography. In fact, wiithin photo.net, click on the "LEARN" link on the gray bar on top of the page. To learn about Nikon cameras and lenses, go to nikonlinks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Here's my beef: lenses are all about compromises, and one of the compromises is 'price point'. If you compromise too much on price, the image quality can suffer. With Quantaray lenses, there's a further compromise, 'profit margin'. If you're comparing two inexpensive lenses, say the Nikon 'kit zoom' and the equivalent Quantaray lens, even if the retail price is the same, the Quantaray wholesaled for far less. Put another way, 'far less' money was spent on manufacturing it. This fatter profit margin is why the store is interested in 'pushing' this lens on you. Your salesdude is probably pocketing $15 if he can get you to choose the Quantaray. Conversely, he's getting his hand slapped if he hands you the camera with the OEM lens on it unless you specifically ask him to (I had a Ritz guy admit that last practice to me as he impolitely jerked the camera away just before he handed it to me). This does not mean that all Quantaray lenses are crap, nor does it mean that all cheap lenses are crap. It's intended to make you think about the motivations of salesdudes (I was one, 20 years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Most, if not all, are made by Sigma. You should expect the quality to be equivalent, as there is really little advantage for Sigma to purposely produce a lower value lens for this limited market. Your best value may be in used Quantarays as the name alone restricts its market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcb.photo Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Your best value may be in used Quantarays as the name alone restricts its market. -Alex Alex, I respectfully disagree with you on this point. I don't think they have the quality. The ones I've seen and used, admittedly not all of them, really are under preformers. They are inexpensive, because they have a reputaion based on poor preformance. But as I said, I've never used them all so maybe I never used the better ones. Michael, the 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 lens are the best place to start-IMHO. If you don't mind a MF lens you can get a cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (assuming you have a nikon SLR). If it's an older body, look at the 50mm f/2 - a great lens Best of luck, keep us informed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencer_hahn Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 Well, here's food for thought: This morning I tried to use a Quantaray 2x TC that I borrowed from a friend in a pinch for bigger reach. Upon mounting it and attempting to get a DOF preview at f/8 (or f/16), it locked up and now the aperture lever is jammed. If it were a Nikkor TC-20E II I'd be rightly pissed, but since it's a Quantaray I shrugged it off as 'well, it's a Quantaray...' You get what you pay for, and don't expect much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 The only one that I really can comment on was the 70-210 f/2.8 that seemed to be pretty sharp. I have no first-hand experiences with others, nor do I now, or expect to, own any Quantaray lenses. My implication was that second-hand was a good risk and should it prove to be unsatisfactory, could be resold at minimum or no loss. I am a firm believer in pre-used equipment with many thousands invested that way. Best wishes, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 I'm going to get flamed for this. I don't own any 3rd party lenses now, but I had good and very bad ones in the past. A few years ago I couldn't afford good wide glass-- and I wanting one so much, I ended buying a used Vivitar 19-35/3.5-4.5 on e*ay for roughly $100. It was cheap-- it was plasticy and it felt as if it is going to fall apart any moment... BUT, it had stellar performance -- for its price. I didn't shoot any winners with this one, but it did teach me a lot about wide angle-photography (and that I should only need one wide-angle prime). Michael, Don't expect a $100 lens to compete with one costing ten-fold. Know your limitations (and you certainly are going to hit such "walls" as vignetting, softness, and quirky construction), and your photography shall improve-- Yes, even with a $100 Quantaray. Another piece of advice? Some people recommended the 50/1.8; I also recommend this lens and the 35/2 and 85/1.8. This kit, although covering a rather limited zoom-range, cannot be easily outgrown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickaubin Posted September 25, 2003 Share Posted September 25, 2003 I agree with Todd about those sales people. Way back when I was looking for a N-60 and moderate zoom, the woman slapped on a Tamron 28-300 and claimed I'd never need another lens. I nearly took out a counter display when I racked it out to 300. Skip the 3rd party, catch-all zoom and go for the brand name 50. It's a great place to start. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 If you have the budget to buy any new lens, you have the budget to buy Nikon's sharpest, their 50/1.8 AFD. Wider than than, Nikon's 28/2.8 AFD is not as bad as some people say, at least their current 6-element design isn't bad. On the telephoto side, The 70-300/4-5.6 AFG is really good in the 70-180 range (gets a bit softer after than, but properly stopped down with 800-speed film it still gets usable results). You haven't told us if you had a camera already (you posted in the Nikon forum, so I assume that you do or that you have already decided that you wanted a Nikon). You haven't told us what you normally like to shoot. You haven't told us your budget. You haven't told us if you would use used lenses. I have some cheap glass on my N55 (28-80G, 70-300G, 50/1.8), all bought new. I like it. I didn't quite break the bank buying them (cost me about $500 total, including the body). Even if you manage to be very careful about your costs, don't forget that you'll need money to shoot film, that many pictures will likely be duds that you'll have to throw away, and that the cost of film quickly outweighs that of the hardware. I'm reasonably happy when I manage to keep the cost of a 36-roll of color negs under $5 (filom processing and printing) (or $4 with no printing), or under $6 for a 36-roll of slides. At that kind of price, if you shoot 2 rolls every week-end, your film budget every quarter will be $130, and you'll end up with 50 to 100 good pictures if you're careful when you shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nghi_hoang Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 I am putting in another vote for the Nikkor 50 f/1.8 lens. Excellent lens that costs relatively little when it comes to Nikon optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberto pastorelli Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Michael, maybe you can find at the same price of the Quantaray, a good usel lens. I always think that with a low budget is meaningful to buy brands like Nikon or Canon. The final photo will be made by the lens, not by the body... In this view, a new Pentax (with Pentax lens) or a used one was to be preferred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_schirmer Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 I do appreciate everyone contributing to help me understand. I'm sure i have a ways to go to be up to speed on SLR cameras. Yes, i do have a budget when it comes to lenses. Maybe after a few years i will have the know-how that is worth getting a better lense. Currently, I have a N65. I do have a Quantarray 28-90 lens. I've heard that a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 is a great first lense. And from the likes of it, make sure its a Nikon. I guess i am hesitant on getting this lens due to my inexperience on knowing how to take great pictures. Currently i am taking alot of family photos, because i am still trying to learn how to take good pictures. I realize that the lens i have is fine for that. But that was not my goal in getting this camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_schirmer Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 How many of you find pre-used lenses a hope-you-get-lucky experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now