Budget Glass Hall of Fame

benlees said:
I guess I should mention the Vivitar 28mm 2.8 (not the series one) I have in K mount. Love that lens! The helical is cranky and its bokeh would make a "Leica glow" aficionado puke but it produces pictures well enough. Not actually sure where it came from.
Click to expand...

I have this same lens on my Pentax MX. Used to use this combo a lot for hiking trips.

Tom
 
sparrow6224 said:
It has emerged as a general consensus that the lenses we are most interested in are those that cost $~100 or less. We can leave aside the old arguments about Leica pricing/Leica value versus this that or the other. We're talking CHEAP. Budget is the nice word.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, as I see it it's all relative.

So, a bargain Leica lens is one that's cheap compared to the cost of a new one these days. So my coated 50mm f/2 Summitar from the 40's is cheap compared to the modern Leica 50mm f/2. Luckily "Hall of Fame" means going back in to the historic ones.

And the same argument would apply a much lower limit for other lenses, so Praktica's lenses at about five pounds would be the bargain level, surely? Simply by being relative to their original price.

As for consensus views, don't trust 'em. Remember Adolf Hitler was popular at one time. (And democratically elected.)

And consensus views have a lot to do with the makers' advertising budgets and little to do with quality. F'instance, the popular view at present is that film is dead, like manual focusing, and view-finders aren't needed. Point made?

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Hmmm, as I see it it's all relative.
Click to expand...

I think it isn't. If you take that stance, everything can be made to look "budget" just by finding something expensive enough to compare it with or a long enough period to amortize it over. Next thing you see, a Porsche is now a "budget" car because hey, you could have bought a Bugatti instead, couldn't you?

We are looking for budget lenses here. Those are lenses that fit into a tight budget. By that definition, practically no Leica lenses are budget lenses, unless you luck out on a screwmount 50/f3.5 Elmar or something. Live with it. I know that there are some particularly expensive Leica lenses that in comparison make any lens look cheap, but this would smell more like arguing semantics than anything. On the other hand, practically all Praktica lenses are budget lenses. In short, the criterion here should IMHO affordability and not being cheaper than some other more expensive thing, and Leica lenses mostly just aren't affordable by the people looking for budget lenses.
 
Here's one nobody mentioned yet: Helios 103 53mm f/1.8 in Kiev/Contax mount. It's absolutely biggest bang for a buck you can get. I paid $15 shipped from Ukraine 2 years ago.
 
Most of the 1970's standard f2 or f1.8 50mm SLR lenses from almost any manufacturer can be had for a few pounds these days, and most are excellent lenses ... there was a great deal of competition between the makers in that class of lens at the time

A couple of years ago I bought a F3 from a local shop and when the salesman couldn't find a cap for the body he gave me a f2/50 nikkor instead ... now that's a bargain price
 
I can confirm the Nikon 35mm f/2.5 Series E is a sharp cheap lens. Had a really nice look besides being sharp. Rich and bright.

I've had two budget Leica lenses. Four years ago I picked up a 90mm f/4 elmar-C -- an amazingly sharp lens -- for $90. Unfortunately it had an accident and its replacement was close to $200, still cheap.
 
rxmd said:
I think it isn't. If you take that stance, everything can be made to look "budget" just by finding something expensive enough to compare it with or a long enough period to amortize it over. Next thing you see, a Porsche is now a "budget" car because hey, you could have bought a Bugatti instead, couldn't you?

We are looking for budget lenses here. Those are lenses that fit into a tight budget. By that definition, practically no Leica lenses are budget lenses, unless you luck out on a screwmount 50/f3.5 Elmar or something. Live with it. I know that there are some particularly expensive Leica lenses that in comparison make any lens look cheap, but this would smell more like arguing semantics than anything. On the other hand, practically all Praktica lenses are budget lenses. In short, the criterion here should IMHO affordability and not being cheaper than some other more expensive thing, and Leica lenses mostly just aren't affordable by the people looking for budget lenses.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yup that's true but Leica owners can look for bargain lenses, surely? There's more than the (lovely) J-8 out there.

I hoped that by comparing a Summitar and this weeks Summicron in 50mm focal length I was comparing the makers lenses.

As for affordability; you need the right body to go after a lot of the lenses mentioned.

Anyway, I agree with most of the suggestions here; the M42 lenses are a bargain and the Exa versions beat them at times (just look at the Lydith - a lovely lens, often dirt cheap). Ditto the ex-USSR ones in both CRF 39mm and M42.

Regards, David
 
How about some zoom lenses?


Vivitar/Kiron 70-150mm zoom. $19, attached to a Nikomat FTN. Available in most common mounts. Compares favorably to the Nikon E zoom of the same length (also a Kiron product).

041_15 by Greyscale3, on Flickr


Nikomat FTN, Vivitar 70~150mm, Kodak 200 Gold by Greyscale3, on Flickr

Access PM-C 70~210/3.5 Macro Zoom. Most likely manufactured by Sigma or Kiron. I "won" mine for a penny.

Mugwump by Greyscale3, on Flickr


Rikki Tikki Tavi by Greyscale3, on Flickr

Access P-MC 35~70mm Macro Zoom. Another "penny" lens.

041_5A by Greyscale3, on Flickr


025_21A by Greyscale3, on Flickr
 
And any 85 or 90mm lens will work for portraits as the worst of them do that nice soft focus effect the ladies like so much. One of mine cost under £2 because it had been repaired at home and the aperture blades left out but, being wide open all the time, it worked OK for me...

Regards, David
 
Gray-dude, that Kiron is stunning. (With some heavy vignetting wide open, I see...) There is some other famous Kiron macro (100? 105? f2.8? f4? ... can't remember) for Nikon and Canon that now goes for hundreds, as I recall. If Kiron made the Nikon 75-150, is that E series lens the same as the one you're showing here?
 
sparrow6224 said:
Gray-dude, that Kiron is stunning. (With some heavy vignetting wide open, I see...) There is some other famous Kiron macro (100? 105? f2.8? f4? ... can't remember) for Nikon and Canon that now goes for hundreds, as I recall. If Kiron made the Nikon 75-150, is that E series lens the same as the one you're showing here?
Click to expand...
I found this quote regarding that

The Kiron Kid (!) writes: You are correct, this is an excellent lens. Were you aware that it was made by Kiron (Kino Precision Industries) for Nikon? There is a Kiron model, which is a 70-150 f/4, and a Vivitar model, which is a 70-150 f/3.8 All three, are nearly identical, and made by Kiron. However, the Kiron and Vivitar model's do not exhibit the loose zoom-creep as in the Nikon models. We in the Kiron Klub, have tested them thoroughly, and they are pretty much identical in performance. I just thought I'd pass this information along.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.bythom.com/75150lens.htm
 
Kiron was a maker of very good quality lenses. I love those shots from it.

Almost forgot this one. A Tamron 28 200 plastic zoom that I bought w/ a busted filter ring for $12 from KEH years ago in Nikon mount. It made some surprisingly good shots, within it's limitations.

433650






And a shot from that HC 50 2.0 Nikkor I talked about previously. I really like this lens.

464790

Photo-of-Sissy
 
Classique said:
😀 All thanks to you for bringing up the lens! I have been searching for a small prime wide to replace by ultra wide zoom for D700 (full frame) since I rarely used it for it's size and slow aperture (although quite nice during daytime). I am very excited to receive the lens and try it.

By the way, how does it perform on full frame/film? I've read some reviews that the corners are a bit soft, still better than most 24mm primes, but sharpens nicely by f/5.6.
Click to expand...

Since the post, I have received the lens and had some time to play around with it on D700 (haven't shot any on film yet).

WOW I can't believe the quality I get from such cheap lens. Even in backlight conditions, the lens gave sharp results albeit some light flaring was visible. I have since recommended the lens to my colleagues. If you you can grab one under $100, I would definitely advise you to get it.
 
I will vote for the Soligor M42 35 f/2.8.

e-thesis+092.jpg


Got it for £0,50 pence and it perform really really well - to the point that it resides permanently on my IIc.
Here is a picture taken against the sun:

6764524573_d676364b7d_b.jpg


And another at f/4

6732600433_798ed5760a_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom