Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Perhaps a Fun Question?
Jul 20, 2018 18:05:33 #
frjeff
Loc: Mid-Michigan
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
Jul 20, 2018 18:08:12 #
frjeff wrote:
All, because I research all my lenses. I buy only Nikon Lenses.Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
Jul 20, 2018 18:18:33 #
Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Jul 20, 2018 18:22:46 #
A 1986 Minolta AF 300mm F2.8 I picked up at a garage sale for a few dollars. So unbelievably sharp, even at F2.8.
Jul 20, 2018 18:26:53 #
Magaliaman
Loc: Magalia, CA
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
I Picked up a Nikon 180mm F2.8 AF (Circa 1986) from Craigslist. It had a dent in the filter ring that prevents you from screwing any filter on it. I got it for $25.00. Possibly the best deal I've ever gotten. Works like a charm on my D800 & D7100. Its an Older Smooth Metal barrel on the lens. Nothing pretty but it sure takes great pictures.
Jul 20, 2018 18:29:30 #
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
Like Stan, I do a great deal of research before I buy, so I can't say I was surprised by IQ, but as for a ratio of quality to cost, the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D at $133 new is probably it for me.
Jul 20, 2018 18:29:58 #
Jul 20, 2018 18:33:11 #
Jul 20, 2018 19:14:12 #
Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6.
I had the 200-400 f/4 on my wish list for years. I got a Bigma (Sigma 50-500) a while ago but found it somewhat soft and slow to focus. When I heard about the 200-500 I thought it might be a stopgap until I could afford the 200-400. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was reasonably sharp. But the best thing about it was the VR, which was new generation technology. I gave up using a tripod or monopod on my long lens. I have hand held shots at 500mm down to 1/10 second that are not perfect, but passable. A photo taken at a concert, from the back row of the hall (about 50 meters from the stage) showed a singer with a tie with writing on it that I could read. Hand held.
I have removed the 200-400 from my wish list.
I had the 200-400 f/4 on my wish list for years. I got a Bigma (Sigma 50-500) a while ago but found it somewhat soft and slow to focus. When I heard about the 200-500 I thought it might be a stopgap until I could afford the 200-400. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was reasonably sharp. But the best thing about it was the VR, which was new generation technology. I gave up using a tripod or monopod on my long lens. I have hand held shots at 500mm down to 1/10 second that are not perfect, but passable. A photo taken at a concert, from the back row of the hall (about 50 meters from the stage) showed a singer with a tie with writing on it that I could read. Hand held.
I have removed the 200-400 from my wish list.
Jul 20, 2018 19:42:39 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
I am extremely pleased with the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 and the reviews echo my experience. I believe it cost about $1200. It has become my go to lens. The Nikkor equivalent is $2400.
Jul 20, 2018 20:06:34 #
My choice would be an FD 70-210 f4 manual lens for Canon film cameras. Incredibly sharp. One ring to push-pull for zoom and turn for focus. I picked mine up, along with a broken AE-1 at an estate sale for $10 around 1985.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Jul 20, 2018 23:48:20 #
Sunnely
Loc: Wisconsin
Strodav wrote:
I am extremely pleased with the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 and the reviews echo my experience. I believe it cost about $1200. It has become my go to lens. The Nikkor equivalent is $2400.
Re: Tamron 24-70 mm f2.8 G2 - I'm interested in this lens. Is it like a multi-purpose lens and takes more than decent pictures? Sorry, if it's a dumb question. Thanks.
Jul 21, 2018 05:44:16 #
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
2 lenses.
1. Rokinon 8mm f3.5 fisheye for about $180.00. Love it.
2. Canon FLM 100mm f4.0 $25.00 (IfiI remember right) great macro lens and very versatile and excellent IQ when used as intended.
Jul 21, 2018 05:46:25 #
Joe Blow wrote:
My choice would be an FD 70-210 f4 manual lens for Canon film cameras. Incredibly sharp. One ring to push-pull for zoom and turn for focus. I picked mine up, along with a broken AE-1 at an estate sale for $10 around 1985.
Great deal.
Jul 21, 2018 05:48:08 #
None of the following were surprising, but I have found these to be great values.
- Nikkor 400/2.8. Outstanding image quality and I was just borrowing it from a friend, so paid nothing for it.
Of the lenses I have purchased,
- Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2
- Fuji 18-55/2.8-4.0 LM OIS.
- Nikkor 400/2.8. Outstanding image quality and I was just borrowing it from a friend, so paid nothing for it.
Of the lenses I have purchased,
- Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2
- Fuji 18-55/2.8-4.0 LM OIS.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.