Reading mode: Light Dark

Best lens overall? (Bang for buck, iq, etc)

Go to last post
L

LennyLevino

Leading Member
Messages
605
Reaction score
522
What's currently (in your opinion) the best lens on the market? When I say "best" I mean its overall package and offer to a consumer. Image quality (sharpness, contrast, rendering, bokeh etc), build quality, weight/size, focusing accuracy etc. All in relation to its cost.

If you have multiple favorites you may share them too.

For me, I can't decide between Nikon's 24-120mm f4S and Sony's new 20-70mm f4G. I'm a Canon shooter myself so I haven't tested either of them, but just going from reviews and examples images I've seen. They are also quite unique. The Nikon goes 15mm longer than the normal 24-105mm's, while also being priced below the competitions. The Sony is also priced very reasonably, goes 20% wider on the wide end, and is relatively light-weight and compact as well.

If I had to choose, I'd go with the Nikon 24-120mm f4S since I think the extra 50mm on the long end would be more useful to me than an additional 4mm on the wide end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I doubt that it's meaningful to speak of "best", but if IQ is a criterion I would think that primes rather than zooms would be in the running.
 
LennyLevino said:
What's currently (in your opinion) the best lense on the market? When I say "best" I mean its overall package and offer to a consumer. Image quality (sharpness, contrast, rendering, bokeh etc), build quality, weight/size, focusing accuracy etc. All in relation to its cost.

If you have multiple favorites you may share them too.

For me, I can't decide between Nikon's 24-120mm f4S and Sony's new 20-70mm f4G. I'm a Canon shooter myself so I haven't tested either of them, but just going from reviews and examples images I've seen. They are also quite unique. The Nikon goes 15mm longer than the normal 24-105mm's, while also being priced below the competitions. The Sony is also priced very reasonably, goes 20% wider on the wide end, and is relatively light-weight and compact as well.

If I had to choose, I'd go with the Nikon 24-120mm f4S since I think the extra 50mm on the long end would be more useful to me than an additional 4mm on the wide end.
Click to expand...
It's a question of horses for courses.

-M
 
Leaning heavily on the bang for buck category, it has to be the old Pentax-M 50 mm f/1.7 manual lens. It is compact, sharp, has natural rendering and currently costs around £20 delivered. It feels like a crime to buy and sell them at this price point but I guess Pentax just made too many of them, so the supply is plentiful. I've got three despite never owning a Pentax camera.
 
Last edited:
Sigma 45mm F2.8 DN Contemporary especially when it was on sale for $225. It just makes such lovely images.

Old 50mm primes can be pretty good--I like my Konica Hexanon 50mm F1.8. The old Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM has some charm. They tend to be quite variable manufacturing, and even the best examples aren't great.
 
Last edited:
That Sigma 45mm is a lens I would love to use- too bad I can't find a camera I like to put it on. Though I havent tried the original S5 yet.
 
I had the G version before, which was also excellent.

The Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6 for M43 is also good.

I find this focal length range to be quite handy, in everyday use. it gets out to proper telephoto and down to proper wide angle and f/4 is a good compromise to keep it from being huge.

The Nikkor is an $1100 lens, but for a walk-around lens, it is just really good.

Another great value lens is the Nikon Z 40 mm f/2. I just it a lot, when I feel like the 24-120 is too much to carry.

These two lenses are a big reason I went to Nikon instead of Canon when I went FF mirrorless; they are good lenses that a typical amateur can afford. Canon seems to make a couple of slow zooms and then jumps right into the super-expensive pro lenses.

I don't think you're too badly off with the Canon 24-105 L. Although you lose 15 mm of telephoto, you gain some portability.
 
Dem Bell said:
Leaning heavily on the bang for buck category, it has to be the old Pentax-M 50 mm f/1.7 manual lens. It is compact, sharp, has natural rendering and currently costs around £20 delivered. It feels like a crime to buy and sell them at this price point but I guess Pentax just made too many of them, so the supply is plentiful. I've got three despite never owning a Pentax camera.
Click to expand...
What do you shoot them on?

I had the 50/2 A, so it can do S and P, but I read it was not as good as the 1.7. The 1.7 was also better than the 1.4, as I recall.
 
I'm not sure, but I can say with certainty that for me, it would not be an f/4 of any variety.
 
What a strange question. I don’t know if this is about the best value lens, or the best overall IQ, both of it, nothing, or maybe something completely else. It would be easier to judge and compare lenses on a specific vector.

That said, my current favorites are the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 DS, and the Voigtländer 50mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar VM. Is the RF 85mm cheap? Nah. Does it deliver? Heck, yeah! Is the Voigtländer a good value? Compared to what? A Leica lens? Yeah. Compared to other 50mm lenses? It is rather on the expensive side.

Again, what a strange question. Most of my ~30 lenses are good to great. Do I like the OMZ 300mm f/4? Oh yeah! How is the value? Great compared to Canon’s tele primes. I would still consider the lens to be rather on the pricey side. Would I be happy with this lens for portraits or interiors? What a stupid question :-D
 
You can only judge this question based on your own photographic tastes and interests. I know that for me the answer would not be a zoom of any kind, much less a wide-range "all purpose" zoom. "Jack of all trades and master of none" is bound to be boring.

I have several excellent lenses I really enjoy using, and a list of several more I would like to try if I had the money and/or the right cameras. But I'm not sure I could pick one as "the best overall" for *me*, much less anybody else. It just depends on what you want to do photographically and how you want to do it.

That said, I think a lens that really stands out in the bang for the buck department is the Fuji 50mm f/2.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote
 
Last edited:
Dem Bell said:
Leaning heavily on the bang for buck category, it has to be the old Pentax-M 50 mm f/1.7 manual lens. It is compact, sharp, has natural rendering and currently costs around £20 delivered. It feels like a crime to buy and sell them at this price point but I guess Pentax just made too many of them, so the supply is plentiful. I've got three despite never owning a Pentax camera.
Click to expand...
I have to agree it’s a fantastic lens. I use mine, adapted, on Sony and Canon FF bodies, zone-focusing for street photography.

Of the modern lenses I own, the closest one to absolute perfection is the 24mm f/1.8 Rokinon/Samyang for Sony. Plasticky construction, low cost… but wow!

Cheers,

Ricky
 
LennyLevino said:
What's currently (in your opinion) the best lense on the market? When I say "best" I mean its overall package and offer to a consumer. Image quality (sharpness, contrast, rendering, bokeh etc), build quality, weight/size, focusing accuracy etc. All in relation to its cost.

If you have multiple favorites you may share them too.

For me, I can't decide between Nikon's 24-120mm f4S and Sony's new 20-70mm f4G. I'm a Canon shooter myself so I haven't tested either of them, but just going from reviews and examples images I've seen. They are also quite unique. The Nikon goes 15mm longer than the normal 24-105mm's, while also being priced below the competitions. The Sony is also priced very reasonably, goes 20% wider on the wide end, and is relatively light-weight and compact as well.

If I had to choose, I'd go with the Nikon 24-120mm f4S since I think the extra 50mm on the long end would be more useful to me than an additional 4mm on the wide end.
Click to expand...
None of those come close. For a few reasons. First, fitness for use—as others note without a use case, a lens might be excellent or a paperweight.

Second, value. Those lenses you list are far from the best bang for the buck for any use since they are competing with new primes like the nifty fifties, which are exceptional values even new, and with old primes from the film era. Some have been mentioned already.

So my answer would be the the absolute best bang for the buck lens is a 50mm film era lens. It was the standard focal length for a reason. There are bazillions of incredibly good ones out there for <$100 for most all mounts. Some still compete with modern lenses for sharpness, if not coatings. But again, look at the prices. And some are macros, which are particularly good. And they are fast in most cases. Even on M43 or smaller sensors they're worth using, and can make great portrait lenses on such bodies.
 
LennyLevino said:
What's currently (in your opinion) the best lense on the market? When I say "best" I mean its overall package and offer to a consumer. Image quality (sharpness, contrast, rendering, bokeh etc), build quality, weight/size, focusing accuracy etc. All in relation to its cost.
Click to expand...
That is an impossible question to answer. This is especially true since every single person that posts in this forum lacks experience with a sufficient number of lenses to draw any conclusions. Because of that, I would ignore every answer given.
 
Sony 16mm f/2.8. King of lenses.



ea1bd45189bf4b249b423f2d79af2662.jpg
 
For me (amateur) my Olympus 12-100mm F4 is my only lens for everything. Great range (24-200mm equivalent on 4/3s), fairly compact and weather sealed with built in stabilization. Unfortunately it replaced my previous Oly 12-40mm F2.8 which was also awesome; smaller, faster but shorter focal length (24-80mm equivalent)
 
I almost guarantee the answer is almost entirely an individual choice. For me personally it's pretty easy, but it's easy to see from a bit of reading that my choice is not the most common answer.

Personally, the best lens for me is the widest range zoom I can find. Currently for me it's an 18-300mm DX compact from Nikon. But always on the watch for more tele and seldom use below 24mm on the wide end. In second place for me it's a 55-200mm DX vrII compact due to it's compactness and it's super sharp.

I'm in this for the fun. I'm not a pixel peeper and do not shoot RAW. I love having the sharpest detail possible, but that's only for me to see, as my audience could care less how super sharp my images are so just good works for them.
 
Last edited:
If someone already said this, I am sorry.

also say you have the VERY VERY VERY best lens camera combination in the world and them you display it on a monitor half the res of the camera, hmmmmm.
 
Either my Canon 17mm tilt shift lens or my old 300mm 2.8 but then the are so similar in what they do it hardly matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard Murdey
Help me pick out a ultrawide zoom lens!
2
Replies
29
Views
7K
Bernard Delley
B
R
Help Deciding on Landscape setup
Replies
12
Views
3K
KLHman
K
Satyaa
That one lens you always wanted...
2 3
Replies
45
Views
25K
georgehakim
georgehakim
MrHollywood
Heavyweights for the Money
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
ARClark
ARClark
Satyaa
Opinions on 400mm zooms for Z7ii ??
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
olyflyer
olyflyer

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top