Budget Glass Hall of Fame

The Tamron "killed" my Canon 100/4 macro lens. I never used the Canon again after having used the Tamron.


2798435-md.jpg
 
Thank you, Stewart. I am so glad that Dana was my model for hundreds similar photos when I did my marathon 50m lens comparions, follwed by wide angle lenses and tele lenses.

The Steinheil has a cool color rendition. I forgot if it is 80mm or 85mm.
 
raid said:
Thank you, Stewart. I am so glad that Dana was my model for hundreds similar photos when I did my marathon 50m lens comparions, follwed by wide angle lenses and tele lenses.

The Steinheil has a cool color rendition. I forgot if it is 80mm or 85mm.
Click to expand...

... yes now you mention it the colour is really nice, halfway between ct21 and Ektachrome
 
The finer details stick out when you look at photos taken by many similar lenses side by side. The Leica and Zeiss lenses are warmer in color.
 
... my daughter Alice, got some Minolta lenses as a set and I was impressed by how neutral they were colour wise, and just how good they are across the range

I think the 60's and 70's leica lenses have a pastel look to them, the more modern ones are a bit too Technicolor for my taste ... Technicolor is probably a bit hyperbolical but you get the idea
 
I know it's already been voted for but the Nikkor 50mm H in F mount takes some beating for £20.
98136713.jpg


Also the 55mm Micro Nikkor ƒ3,5 for £30
102429980.jpg


I think the 50mm H is cheap because it can't always be mounted to digital Nikons.
 
Three gorgeous pics on this page. I got me an 85mm Rokinon F1.4 for Nikon over the summer. Granted I paid $250-ish for it (chipped version) so not sure it this qualifies as "budget" but comparatively spec'd lenses from Nikon (and even Sigma) go for multiples of this (of course those are motorized AF, this is not) - $1000-ish or more, and it is a verrrry good portrait lens imo. I have to downsize some sample pics to post on RFF. Lens money well-spent imo.
 
I have both CV 28s, the 1.9 Ultron and the 3.5 Skopar and they're great, but more than $100.

But for insane value, it's hard to beat my 1974 Jupiter-8, which I bought for $30.00US. Digital, Portra 400, XP2, Ektar, BW400, it seems to love 'em all:


Fallen Colors, October 16, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Mom Thinks Imperial Palace is OK, October 17, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Changes, October 16, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Rubbish, May, 2011 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


On The Move, September, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Fix Prop Mailbox, July, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Umbrellas, Special Olympics Citation Airlift, July, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Beaver Creek, May, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Wise Oven Bakery, Old Cheney Farmers' Market, May 9, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
 
This topic sure seems to be a moving target. Too many definitions;

Compared to more (or much more) expensive alternatives.

Obtained for a uncommonly low price.

Little known gem.

Personally I've found that a manufacturer's slower lenses offer good value. In Olympus OM gear I have built up a modest collection of Zuiko's; 24 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f2 (no slower option here and my most expensive lens), 135 f3.5, and 200 f5 all shopped carefully for a total of well less than $500 over the years.

Other advantages are light weight and a common 49mm filter size.
 
I'll second the Nikon 105/2.5. I got one in a trade for a strobe two years ago. Finally used it in a portrait shoot for a friend and was blown away by it despite knowing its reputation.
 
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