Whats the best 'bang for your buck' lens you have found?

David Mitchell

David Mitchell

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

I am just wondering, using the massive volumes of gear everyone has had from whenever they started photography, what the best 'bang for your buck' lens is? These are lenses which are pretty cheap to pick up but give really good results or are lenses which are really useful but are undervalued.

So far the best lens I have found is a Helios 44-2 lens, M42 mount so easy to find russian glass that is actually quite well made and shoots some really nice images which are sharp where you need it and slightly softer in the out of focus areas. Mine was included as part of the Zenit photosniper setup as its a Zenit ES (modded version of the Zenit E) which can be used without using the rest of the kit.

I think you can pick up these lenses for around £50 on ebay, I would recommend anyone to get one to try out, its a 58mm lens so is a slightly 'long normal' lens if you use it on a crop sensor camera, also be careful with the rear element as it does move into the camera when focusing.

Another lens I found it actually amazing was attached to a Cosina camera given to me as a gift, its a 50mm f1.4 lens, quite a bit piece of glass but because its a Cosina lens you might be able to find it floating around for sale as it doesn't say Nikon or Canon on it. Really nice lens if you shoot it wide open, quite a heavy lens but also free with the camera lol

What other lenses have other people found?
 
Not quite what you had in mind, but the lens I used on the DIY camera was both an amazing bargain and performs brilliantly. It is a pre-1920 Micro Hess-Ives Corp. 250 mm f1:8, large format lens found on German eBay from Poland and cost 3.50 Euros!

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...format-paper-negative-diy-camera-project.html

DIYCamera-Final-13.jpg


DIYCamIna-1.jpg



:)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Pete Askew said:
f1:8 I'm afraid but that is still not bad for that focal length and age.

It seems you've gotta have an X in there somewhere these days! ;)
Click to expand...

f1.8 is very good these days considering most of the basic lenses are usually around f2.8 lol my LF lenses are f4.7 or f4.5 so a f1.8 LF lens is rather goood :D

Fuji seem to be doing well by putting 'x' in the name of their cameras :D
 
Another point of note is larger max aperture is not a measure of goodness ...

The Helios is a great bang for buck lens ... Mine cost me £13 I think.
My leitz elmar 3.5cm lens cost me £36, that's a pretty good lens despite the fact it needs a damn good clean.
my Meyer 100mm trioplan lens is very impressive for £51

I suppose though if you want a very nice lens for next to no money, maybe some of the old mf kit lenses like the takumar 55mm 1.8. I've never used one my self, but they always read positive ... There are lots of similar options too
 
There is also the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 it seems in M42 fitment - just bid on a Pentax spotmatic with this lens attached, hopefully I win it to have another nice piece of fast glass :D

If not I can get one in average condition for around £40ish:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Super-Tak...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3a81dbcf47

Its cool you can get quite a fast lens for not much, considering the cost of todays fast f1.4 50mm lenses!
 
Last edited:
It's all relative really ... Bang for buck doesn't have to mean cheap.
The Nikon 28mm 1.8 is mind bogglingly good for the £600ish it costs ... Makes its closest 1.4 rival the 24mm Nikon look like someone is have a laugh with the price. Same goes for the 85mm 1.8 vs the 85mm 1.4 ...
 
Then you have the Nikon E series 50mm f1.8 which is awesome lol but yeah, there are some underated lenses out there.
 
All lenses are purchased to meet a specific photographic need, so the question is very difficult to answer. Once the problem is defined, it has always been a matter of finding the best solution—optically and economically. Thus every lens I own has been appropriate for the money the budget allotted for it.

An example would be my now somewhat ancient 200mm f/3.0 Series I Vivitar. I was well aware that its build was no where near as robust as Nikon's 200mm lenses, but I bought it for the specific task of concert photography. I was averaging about a shoot a month, and had no plans on doing it forever, so if the lens wore out, so be it. I also bought a set of watchmakers screwdrivers, so I could tighten it up from time to time. It is rather floppy now—beyond tightening—but still performs well optically. It earned its keep many times over, so if it is time for a graceful retirement, so be it.

I once bought the solid cat 600mm f/8.0 made by Perkin Elmer (Hubble Space Telescope makers) and marketed by Vivitar, for a single shoot. However the shoot involved a very well paying assignment in Las Vegas that covered the cost of the lens many times over. I shoot it now and then—works fine on the D700, though it takes great care to focus.

Perhaps the least bang for the most bucks, is the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. An astoundingly good lens, but for the price, that would be expected. However, if Nikon came out with an f/4.5-5.6 version, I would trade without a moment's hesitation. It is huge, it is heavy, it attracts far too much attention—it stays home far too much of the time. Lest someone sputter "Bokeh! Bokeh! Bokeh!", even wide-open everything is sharp, because of its enormous depth of field. At 14mm, it really does not much need to focus.

The 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor D would certainly rate the title. Superb lens and dirt cheap. I see by tests that for any given aperture up to f/5.6, it beats the much more expensive f/1.4. From f/5.6, they are equal until diffraction makes the comparison moot.
 
If I may include a rangefinder lens, it would have to be the Cassar 45mm in an ancient Ilford Sportsman that I have owned since being a youth. A stunningly sharp lens and it cost me nothing :) One day I shall buy another in good condition and treat it properly.
 
Interesting reading. I have a Tokina 16-28 that has been compared favourably to the vaunted Nikkor 14-24 and I do like it's DoF and colour rendition. Very sharp in the centre but softens noticeably in the image corners. It also cost me ($750AUD) a little under 1/3rd of the price of the Nikkor. My current desktop image on my PC was taken with this lens and at full resolution it really is impressive.

However, my current favourite is a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro that is incredibly sharp. It has a 55mm thread and the outer part of the hood is threaded at 72mm so I have options on where to mount filters! The close focus and focus limiter are a bonus too. All for $150 AUD.
 
Milan Vjestica said:
Interesting reading. I have a Tokina 16-28 that has been compared favourably to the vaunted Nikkor 14-24 and I do like it's DoF and colour rendition. Very sharp in the centre but softens noticeably in the image corners. It also cost me ($750AUD) a little under 1/3rd of the price of the Nikkor. My current desktop image on my PC was taken with this lens and at full resolution it really is impressive.

However, my current favourite is a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro that is incredibly sharp. It has a 55mm thread and the outer part of the hood is threaded at 72mm so I have options on where to mount filters! The close focus and focus limiter are a bonus too. All for $150 AUD.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comment, its always good to find out about gems like that :)
 
The Canon 100 f/2 should maybe fall into this category. A very under rated lens for the money in comparison to the extremely popular 85mm offering.

If you read in between the lines of a lot of the reviews on it, this is one of those Canon lenses that could almost have a Red ring on it... and all for just over £200 quid.
 
Best bang for the buck lens I have is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 A (the most recent one) as Hamish mentioned above with the Nikon 28 f/1.8, it's not a cheap lens but its mind-blowingly good. The only lens I've found that properly resolves the D800's detail and makes the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (at twice the cost) look like someone's smeared petroleum jelly on the front element. I don't think it's been off my D800 for work since it arrived.
 
That's funny, my 24-70 is going to be sold and I was half thinking of buying a sigma 35 1.4 ... Better build than most nikons too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paul Taylor
New camera (I have a problem? Nah...)
Replies
8
Views
339
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Bill Watts
Meyer Optic Orestegon 29mm f2.8 compared to Pentacon 29mm f2.8
Replies
1
Views
711
Ralph Turner
R
Paul Taylor
TTArtisan 75mm 1.5 (Copy of the Zeiss Biotar)
Replies
11
Views
459
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Fired up the printers....
Replies
14
Views
338
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Rob MacKillop
Leica Monochrom Typ 246 with Elmar 50mm 2.8
Replies
13
Views
357
Rob MacKillop
Rob MacKillop
Back
Top