Reading mode: Light Dark

Brag about your cheap lens.

Go to last post
I do not have any bad lenses. They are all just fine. I have had duds damaged in transit and with nesting spiders inside etc, but who has not?

My favourites are the 50-135mm f3.5 AI-S and the 28-70 AF-D f3.5-4.5, because they are sharp and nicely balanced on a D200 body. The 50-135 is sharper than a D200 or D300 can resolve stopped down and handles very well. Its as well-built as a Canon L, but there are duds around due to age, and again, couriers/packing. These are solid heavy objects, but retailers who claim insurance on damaged goods pack as though they care more about claiming insurance than selling a lens to you- and using your money to do so. Inadequate packing is the bane of the industry, and pushes prices up by wrecking our heritage. It is called vandalism. It is done on purpose.
 
I have just read a thread by someone called pandalee. Its very good as fiction, but has anyone biothered to add up the expense of these insane claims, if true. I suspect its another name for a novelist or short story writer. Pan Dali = surrealist god?
 
pandalee said:
and in last year , I think it was in Oct , I got another D700 and sold the D300s and I finally got kind of happy but I needed more resolution somtimes , so in Nov , I bought Canon 5D2 , it was an easy move for me since I already had all Canon lenses I needed and flash.

now , I only use 5 lenses , the 24-70 AFS, AFS70-200f2.8GEDVR2, AF85f1.4DIF, AFS60f2.8GED and Zeiss 100f2ZF2(I sold my 28ZF2 since I found I dislike its color rendition).

You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I got real curious. This member has awesome stuff that I will never be able to afford. Pandalee, I am truly jealous.

the 24-70 AFS,$1775.00
AFS70-200f2.8GEDVR2 $2180.00
AF85f1.4DIF $1100.00
AFS60f2.8GED $530.00
and Zeiss 100f2ZF2 $1843.00

2 D700's $4798.00
1 canon 5d mark 2 $2399.00
 
Nikkors I would not buy again, sorry David but the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 is one. I had one and it was soft until about f8 on a D200.Thats not full frame for which it is designed. Wide open at wide angle it gave a hazy view of everything, but no way is it anything like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, easily the worst corrected lens I have used in 40 years. EASILY. field curvature wrecks resolution in the outer thirds of the image and the corners are not ever sharp even stopped right down at many focal lengths. I bought mine new when they first appeared for £300 and after a days trial it went back. It would cover a digicam sensor but not APS, no.....

The 18-55mm nikkor I have aint too hot either. it has lots of CA at wide angle settings.

Oh yes, do not buy the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 nikkor even for APS-C. I had two both absolutely dreadful, really dreadful. I had light emitted from objects, rather than reflected! WOW1

And I tried to get decent coverage via Nikon on a 1Ds with adaptor usiung the 17-35mm f2.8 which I found a copy of secondhand in Jacobs. It was truly dreadful, I mean a joke at only £50 but it was £700!!

I noted how Bjorn needed a boxful to get a good copy when they were new. I would suggest all purchasers of this lens, and the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 demand a boxful to choose from too.
 
The cheapest lenses I own are named left and right. I was born with them and they have an automatic aperture. The auto f-stop's do change from going inside to outside. Things could get out of focus as time passes or by taking on too much alcohol.

Every time you blink an image is recorded in 70 megapixel's more or less to the main sensor array.

It also has built in UV filters, but Ray ban, Julbo, Maui Jim make polarized versions. Amazing that this technology has been around for thousands or maybe millions of years.
 
ryan2007 said:
The cheapest lenses I own are named left and right. I was born with them and they have an automatic aperture. The auto f-stop's do change from going inside to outside. Things could get out of focus as time passes or by taking on too much alcohol.

Every time you blink an image is recorded in 70 megapixel's more or less to the main sensor array.

It also has built in UV filters, but Ray ban, Julbo, Maui Jim make polarized versions. Amazing that this technology has been around for thousands or maybe millions of years.
Click to expand...
That's great. Unfortunately the AF mechanisms on mine were broken, so I had to have them serviced to the tune of $4000 dollars. Mine cost more than all of my other equipment combined.

not complaining, just saying. wish I had $4000 worth of equipment...
 
anotherMike said:
I guess cheap is relative. I have pretty pricey glass, so to me a 300$ lens is cheap (or perhaps the better word is affordable).

Not a fan of the 85/1.8 AF-D. It's reasonably sharp - sure, but the 105/2.5 AIS is a bit better, cheaper, and has better rendering. I lost some shots taken with the 85/1.8 AF-D back before I sold it - images taken in white sands NM before I knew or had heard about the F/11 or beyond center ghost-like reflection artifact that this lens (and the 50/1.8) most absolutely have. Nasty. Learned my lesson then. 85/1.8 was a decent lens on film - not my cup of tea on digital, at all. Being you can likely score a 105/2.8 AIS for 200 bucks and a little change, if one doesn't mind MF, it's the (far) better lens and it won't burn you should you shoot at F/11 in reflective environments either...
Click to expand...
I've owned the 105 f2.5 ai. sharp, compact, and well built.

I also own an 85 f1.8d. Not as solid or well built (it's plastic after all), sharp, faster, still relatively compact, and it auto-focuses.

Really there is no reason not to own both..... the differences in the focal lengths and the differences in their strengths make them both useful.

The 105 is good wide open and has a nice rendering wide open (feel / contrast + a sharp softness for portraiture that isn't easily quantifiable)..... the 85 on the other hand is, from my experience, a great multi-purpose lens. Excellent sharpness from f2.8-f8 at all focal distances. And, at the same time it can be used as a portrait / low-light lens with "nice" characteristics.

Back to the 105 I always felt the lens was meant to be used at distances under 10m which makes it somewhat limited in use plus it's lack of AF which makes it a bit more of a specialty lens.

bottom line:

I own the 85 f1.8d. I sold the 105 f2.5 ai. For my uses the 85 f1.8d gets mounted far more often - AND - I have the Tokina 90 f2.5. There is nothing the 105 f2.5 does that is better than the Tokina for my needs.
 
Many people love their 105/2.5 (for good reason!), and at around what, less than $200, it could be considered a "cheap" lens. I will say that I am very happy with my 100/2.8 Series E AIS lens that I got in bargain condition for a whopping $59. As good as the 105? Perhaps not. Pretty darn good? To me it is.
 
mc01776 said:
Many people love their 105/2.5 (for good reason!), and at around what, less than $200, it could be considered a "cheap" lens. I will say that I am very happy with my 100/2.8 Series E AIS lens that I got in bargain condition for a whopping $59. As good as the 105? Perhaps not. Pretty darn good? To me it is.
Click to expand...
I planned to sell my 100mm 2.8E but find it too useful, I love it's small size and it's performance does not fall too far behind the 105mm 2.5 AI that I also have.

Most of my excellent VFM lenses are manual focus; in addition to the above I own and enjoy using 28mm 2.8 AIS, 50mm 1.8 AI, 55mm 2.8 AIS micro, 135mm 3.5 AI, 200mm f4 AI and the 70-150 E.

Happy shooting, Lizzie.
 
Mannypr said:
Got a friend you bought on Ebay a Kodak lens which turn out to be a winner, super sharp with great colors but I forgot what model it is.Just to let you know that my friiend seconds your experience.
Click to expand...
not clear is it auto or manual focus lens?
--
Current gear: Nikon D700, Nikon D40, Panasonic ZS3, Olympus SW1030, Fuji F30

 
I print up to 40" x 60" with this lens all the time.
It is one of two lenses I grab for when working on my landscapes.

I'll let the pictures do the rest of the talking.











It even does Pano. 5 shots at 12MM



And it prints HUGE:





Hope this helps somone out there on the fence about this wonderful lens.

Roman
--

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
I own and print up to 40" x 60" for my customers with several 2nd party lenses.

Now...dont buy cheap if you expect perfection.

But my Tokina 12-24 is an awesome lens, I print huge, and it performs up to the same standards as the Nikon 12-24.

Better build too.

Now...agreed that there are 2nd party lenses out there you might want to avoid. But that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Roman
--

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Beautiful shots, and yes I love my Tokina too, the 11-16 2.8 is my only non-Nikon glass. Well built, tough, sharp, a real favorite!

Again, well done.

Don
 
Have you ever compared these to the sigma 10-20? I am curious how they compare sharpness wise.

I just got the sigma and am surprised by its sharpness
 
I read the reviews when both were out and found the following in almost every test.

Sigma - less CA less sharpness

Tokina - More CA More sharpness

I picked sharpness over CA as CA is easy to correct in post and there is no substitute for sharpness.

Both are excellent lenses.

Roman
--

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Waimak Stud wrote:
..snip.. Can you find this scooter rider?..snip...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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