davelok
Senior Member
I can't believe no one mentioned the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN A!
Well it's for APS-C and just fits the bill, but anyway...
Well it's for APS-C and just fits the bill, but anyway...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Prime lens in the 60-105mm range under $500
- Thread starter bakaroni
- Start date
Rob Spanjaart
Forum Enthusiast
A 60 is not a 90. Still, good lens on aps-c.
davelok
Senior Member
I'm trying to see how well it works with a 1.6x teleside converter. A 144mm f/2.8 equivalent on the cheap 
Of course, I'll lose much of that excellent IQ, and this is going OT now, so I shall C&D.
Of course, I'll lose much of that excellent IQ, and this is going OT now, so I shall C&D.
The Sony APSC factor is 1.5, so the Sigma 60 has the same field of view as a 90 when mounted to an APSC camera. The lens is very inexpensive and one of the sharpest available for Sony APSC e-mount.
Won't be useful to the OP, however, who is looking for FF lenses.
Last edited:
Habs Fan27
Leading Member
- Messages
- 748
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 266
I've used the following lenses on APS-C:
Voigtlander 75 2.5
Canon FD 85mm 1.8
Tamron Adaptall 90 2.5 macro
Can't go wrong with any of these. Canon/Tarmron lenses were around $100-120, CV 75 was closer to $300. The Canon was nice, a little soft wide open and hard to focus until you stop down a little. Tamron was a bit on the heavy side and difficult to focus for portraits as it was made more for macro shooting. Tamron was super sharp though, amazing lens. CV 75 was the smallest of the bunch and also best focal length on APS-C. 85/90mm felt a bit too long for me. CV is also has a bit more of a solid feel to it, very well built. Focus throw seem just right to me.
Voigtlander 75 2.5
Canon FD 85mm 1.8
Tamron Adaptall 90 2.5 macro
Can't go wrong with any of these. Canon/Tarmron lenses were around $100-120, CV 75 was closer to $300. The Canon was nice, a little soft wide open and hard to focus until you stop down a little. Tamron was a bit on the heavy side and difficult to focus for portraits as it was made more for macro shooting. Tamron was super sharp though, amazing lens. CV 75 was the smallest of the bunch and also best focal length on APS-C. 85/90mm felt a bit too long for me. CV is also has a bit more of a solid feel to it, very well built. Focus throw seem just right to me.
Rob Spanjaart
Forum Enthusiast
I wouldn't call that on the cheap. An old Pentax, Nikon, Chinon etc etc 2.8 135 can be found on the cheap and will be a lot sharper.I'm trying to see how well it works with a 1.6x teleside converter. A 144mm f/2.8 equivalent on the cheap
Of course, I'll lose much of that excellent IQ, and this is going OT now, so I shall C&D.
Diacyclops81
Leading Member
- Messages
- 887
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 571
If the size and weight are not an issue, then the "bokina" (also available as Vivitar Series 1) is great, it's macro too!..I have one but it's huge compared to a Contax G 90 2.8. The Zeiss C/Y 85 2.8 might be a good one to consider.
davelok
Senior Member
But those would be fully manual, and would require an adapter nonetheless. Anyway,enough digression from my side. I wonder why Sigma haven't released the FE versions yet. Too small a market?
bugeyed
Senior Member
If you go with the Contax G lens, spring for the Metabones or Fotodiox Pro adapters. I know that the Metabones has much smoother focus action. Hoping that the Fotodiox Pro does too. I am comparing them to cheaper adapters that don't have the large focus ring that sticks out over the back of the lens. If you only have one C-G lens, you can keep it on the lens. I have 3 C-G lenses & opted for 2 of the cheaper adapters so I could have one per lens, as the Metabones doesn't lens itself well to swapping lenses while reusing the same adapter & it's expensive.
Kev
Smokymtnhiker
Well-known member
I'm happy with the Contax 90mm f/2.8 you mentioned.
Including Metabones adapter I have about $350 in mine. I rate the IQ as second or third sharpest among my lenses only behind the FE 55mm f/1.8, and maybe the Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro. The only drawback of the Contax is the lack of a buttery smooth focus. The adapter works and works well but isn't for everyone.
I also have a Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 which is really a great lens. For $45 off ebey plus adapter, it is one heck of a bargain. Supposedly the later nFD 80-200 f/4L lens is better, but I would have to see it to believe it.
Including Metabones adapter I have about $350 in mine. I rate the IQ as second or third sharpest among my lenses only behind the FE 55mm f/1.8, and maybe the Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro. The only drawback of the Contax is the lack of a buttery smooth focus. The adapter works and works well but isn't for everyone.
I also have a Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 which is really a great lens. For $45 off ebey plus adapter, it is one heck of a bargain. Supposedly the later nFD 80-200 f/4L lens is better, but I would have to see it to believe it.
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
You already named it.
Any reason you didn't opt for the Techart AF adapter?
Would you rate the FD 80-200/4 higher than the Minolta 70-210/4 (the beercan)? With the latter you'd get AF.
Focus Breather
Senior Member
I also have Vivitar S1 . The lens is stellar! And I agree, it is huge. That`s why I have mentioned Tokina AT-X , which supposed to be same optical design in smaller and lighter body. Pretty underrated lens, I believe.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum