Perhaps a Fun Question?
Jul 21, 2018 06:07:01 #
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
Nikkor 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 AF-D - Paid $110.
Jul 21, 2018 06:36:02 #
Georgews
Loc: Wellington, New Zealand
My all time fav was a Pentax Takumar 105mm which I still have. I have used it with a screw thread adaptor on my Canon DSLR. I found it was an ideal length on me old Pentax ES and sharp as.
Jul 21, 2018 06:37:36 #
Georgews wrote:
My all time fav was a Pentax Takumar 105mm which I still have. I have used it with a screw thread adaptor on my Canon DSLR. I found it was an ideal length on me old Pentax ES and sharp as.
Jul 21, 2018 06:45:10 #
`
Got two "kissin cousins" that impress me:
Canon EF-s 10-22/3.5-4.5, bought quite reasonably
in a private sale. I wanted it for its practical aspects.
Had no concerns about stellar optics. I just assumed
that it's a Canon OEM lens, ultrasonic indicating it's
not some bottom tier price-point lens, so therefor it
would surely be more than adequate optically.
Proved to be a snappy imager of very low distortion
and remarkably even illumination, remarkable in an
ultrawide zoom of a bit over 2X zoom range, having
quite favorable max open apertures across its zoom
range. As a non-L this thing is a secret super star !
Which reminds me. The 10-22 was my upgrade over
my 10-18/4.5-5.6 which has unappealing spec's of
less than 2X ratio and slow max apertures from end
to end :-(
The 10-18 was a truly dirt cheap open box special
during an "extra 20% off existing open box prices"
promotion. Build quality in-hand is unimpressive to
put it kindly. But it was soooo cheap ! If all it would
be good for might be 10mm ultra wide shots at f/8
it would be worth its doubly marked down low price.
BUT ! Its optical performance rivals the 10-22. The
10-22 has better max apertures and zoom ratio, is
better built, has better AF, but that shitkicker 10-18
is about equal in optical qualities.
Both these lenses amazed me way beyond price. I'd
hugely recommend either of them according to your
budget. They're both "sleepers" in the EF-s line up.
Even at the normal retail, they are very fairly priced.
But I would never have discovered their quality if I'd
not encountered them at seriously reduced prices. It
feels good to feel lucky !
So thanks for your "fun question" that makes me feel
good just to answer it.
Got two "kissin cousins" that impress me:
Canon EF-s 10-22/3.5-4.5, bought quite reasonably
in a private sale. I wanted it for its practical aspects.
Had no concerns about stellar optics. I just assumed
that it's a Canon OEM lens, ultrasonic indicating it's
not some bottom tier price-point lens, so therefor it
would surely be more than adequate optically.
Proved to be a snappy imager of very low distortion
and remarkably even illumination, remarkable in an
ultrawide zoom of a bit over 2X zoom range, having
quite favorable max open apertures across its zoom
range. As a non-L this thing is a secret super star !
Which reminds me. The 10-22 was my upgrade over
my 10-18/4.5-5.6 which has unappealing spec's of
less than 2X ratio and slow max apertures from end
to end :-(
The 10-18 was a truly dirt cheap open box special
during an "extra 20% off existing open box prices"
promotion. Build quality in-hand is unimpressive to
put it kindly. But it was soooo cheap ! If all it would
be good for might be 10mm ultra wide shots at f/8
it would be worth its doubly marked down low price.
BUT ! Its optical performance rivals the 10-22. The
10-22 has better max apertures and zoom ratio, is
better built, has better AF, but that shitkicker 10-18
is about equal in optical qualities.
Both these lenses amazed me way beyond price. I'd
hugely recommend either of them according to your
budget. They're both "sleepers" in the EF-s line up.
Even at the normal retail, they are very fairly priced.
But I would never have discovered their quality if I'd
not encountered them at seriously reduced prices. It
feels good to feel lucky !
So thanks for your "fun question" that makes me feel
good just to answer it.
Jul 21, 2018 06:50:54 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
I bought three Minolta prime 2.8 AF lenses for my Sony A99, the 20, 24, 28 were all under $50.00 and all are surprisingly excellent. Those along with my Minolta AF 50 1.4, 50 and 100 macro's and of course my favorite of the bunch, the Minolta 200 mm 2.8. I also own the beer can and the secrete handshake Minolta AF lenses.
Jul 21, 2018 06:58:13 #
An older Olympus 70-300 in the 4/3 mount that I use with an adapter to micro 4/3 on my EM1 Mark ll. Really sharp all the way out to 300mm.
Jul 21, 2018 06:58:38 #
User ID wrote:
` br br Canon EF-s 10-22/3.5-4.5, bought qui... (show quote)
You are right on all points pretty much. I got the 10-18mm for the price and good reviews.
As to construction mine has held up well with no problems. I figure if I drop the camera with the lens on it and the plastic mount breaks then that saved the camera mount from damage.
Jul 21, 2018 07:09:15 #
Mac wrote:
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.
Another lens is the Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D that I got for $119 used from KEH.
Jul 21, 2018 07:18:13 #
Gene51 wrote:
Nikkor 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 AF-D - Paid $110.
I agree.
Jul 21, 2018 07:21:49 #
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
90mm Ektar on a Crown Graphic. I bought it used and don’t know the original price. I was always surprised how sharp it was for an inexpensive wide angle. Also the 55mm Micro-Nikkor with Kodalith film at ASA 3. The results made me think of microfilm.
Jul 21, 2018 07:22:17 #
Jul 21, 2018 07:23:50 #
43-86 AI zoom - much maligned because of the earlier years, but made some of the best landscapes and portraits I've ever done. Blow up to 3 feet by 4 feet shot on Kodachrome 64 still hangs in our dining room.
Jul 21, 2018 07:54:06 #
Jul 21, 2018 07:58:53 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
All, because I research all my lenses. I buy only Nikon Lenses.
Except I don't limit myself to Nikon. I have a Tokina 16-28mm and a Sigma 15mm fisheye. The others are Nikons.Jul 21, 2018 08:08:33 #
frjeff wrote:
Which lens(es) (that you have ever used) were the most surprisingly excellent considering what you paid for it?
I purchased several vintage Minolta md lenses through Facebook not too long ago for very little the 135 mm f2.8 has really impresed me when adapted to fit my canon T1i and my 50d cameras
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.