Cheap lenses that wowed you...

nikku said:
People love Olympus OM glass, and for good reason, but the one OM lens that truly and consistently wows me, even compared to my Zeiss and Leica glass, is the humble 50/3.5 macro. Very small size, flare free, distortion free, SHARP, great local and overall contrast, with a smooth transition from in focus to out of focus areas. Plus it does 1:2 macro without extension tubes, making it an extremely versatile walkaround lens. Only drawback is that it is f3.5.

The best thing about it is that it is readily available for <$100, which is not really true for a lot of the best OM Zuikos (e.g. the f2 lenses).
Click to expand...


Another vote for the Zuiko 50/3,5 macro. I have used mine for professional reproduction work with eos 5d mkII.
Besides the difference in resolution between the cameras the quality is only slightly better with Zeiss Planar HC 80mm and Hasselblad H3D.
 
i payed 400 for a whole Rolleiflex...

anyway
the real cheap wow lens i got was indeed a novar-anastigmat as KoNickon says, on my super ikonta iii.
Payed 40$ for it, and it included the working camera and a case, too.

Summicron-c? haha.
 
build quality that wowed: Kiron made Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5.

its a legendary lens from optics p.o.v as well.

cost me about 50 Euros (FD-mount).
 
mao said:
Another vote for the Zuiko 50/3,5 macro. I have used mine for professional reproduction work with eos 5d mkII.
Besides the difference in resolution between the cameras the quality is only slightly better with Zeiss Planar HC 80mm and Hasselblad H3D.
Click to expand...

I'll vote x2 for this Zuiko 50/3.5 macro all day. The other Zuiko I'll never sell is the original salesman sample I got of the Zuiko 35-70 f3.6. This is the only zoom lens I own, considering the amount of working cameras I have.
 
peterm1 said:
I have not tried the off-brand lenses but I certainly agree with your Nikon picks. I have each of the ones mentioned and have been impressed by their performance. In particular I would say the Micro-Nikkor 105 f4 is a hidden gem. Most people overlook it in favour of the f2.8 variant but its a cracker at both micro distances and infinity. In general I have found that pretty well any lens by a major manufacturer in a "standard" focal length (35mm, 50mm, 135mm in particular) and having something other than a super fast speed tends to be good to excellent lens. The other lenses of this sort that I have been impressed by are the old Pentax M42 Screw Mount lenses. It is hard to find one that is anything other than excellent. With the exception of one or two rarities all are inexpensive.

One final thought. A lens I was frankly surprised by when I first tried it, was the Leica Elmar 50mm f3.5 (a cheap and once common lens in Leica's lineup). Then I recalled its design is based on the Tessar design and that as with Zeiss lenses of this type (e.g the color skopar lenses it made for various cameras) this simple basic design (with only 4 elements and developed because in those early days when there were no lens coatings so a simple design was essential) works well within its modest design parameters. A surprisingly good and in Leicas terms cheap lens.
Click to expand...

I included the Nikkors in my list because the three (long with a Nikkor 50 1.4 AI) were a package that I won at a bankruptcy auction many years ago. To make a long story short, I was bidding against two dealers who stopped bidding at $160.00 per lens for the package, and I bid $165.00 per lens and got the four for $660.00. Even thirty-odd years ago , the 105 f4 by itself was worth more than I paid for the package.
And based on their performance, at those prices, they are gems that I use to this day.
 
Contax 45/2 (they are going up, however, so maybe not the deal they once were, although the rendering is so excellent, it is arguably cheap even at $1000.)

Nikkor 70-210 AF-D 4-5.6. As good optically as the 80-200/2.8s, and 70-200 VRs, with quick AF, and not a cheap consumer build. Not fast, but on the other hand...cheap. I paid $60 for mine in near new shape. Gotta get the D version, the pre-D is not nearly as fast AF.
 
oltimer said:
I'll vote x2 for this Zuiko 50/3.5 macro all day. The other Zuiko I'll never sell is the original salesman sample I got of the Zuiko 35-70 f3.6. This is the only zoom lens I own, considering the amount of working cameras I have.
Click to expand...

I have a Zuiko 50/3.5 macro that someone converted to Canon FD mount.
 
I suppose everything is relative when discussing lens image quality versus cost.
One of the best lenses I ever bought was not cheap but when I consider its performance, the price I paid was a bargain in relative terms.
zoom-Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS manual focus.
Only 1,500 made back in the mid 1980's just before Nikon went into auto-focus lens production.
it was listed on ebay (being sold by Henry's Cameras here in Toronto) with an opening bid of $599.00 and no reserve.
I placed a bid at work just before leaving, and by the time I got home the auction had finished, and being the only bidder I had won.
When new they cost over $2,000.00, and even at the time I got mine they were selling for about $1,500.00
Big. Heavy. ED glass. Takes 95mm(!) filters and is sharp as a tack.
Outstanding lens, and even at $599.00 a bargain.
 
Three Minolta MC Rokkors.

Three Minolta MC Rokkors.

The 21mm F2.8 MC Rokkor, with floating front element. Not inexpensive but I got a great deal on this slightly battered one. This lens has replaced my 21mm F3.4 Super Angulon.

The 35mm F2.8 MC Rokkor is highly underrated and has replaced my 35mm F2.8 Summaron.

The 100mm F2.5 MC Rokkor is easily on par with the legendary 105mm F2.5 Nikkor and is one of my sharpest lenses. This lens has replaced my 100mm Canon.

All cheap lenses in useful focal lengths that have WOWED me.
 

Attachments

  • 002.jpg
    002.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 0
Petri 1.8/55 - surprisingly sharp, and doesn't lose sharpness in the center when used wide open. Which is to say it performs better than lenses I've paid a lot more than $15 for.
 
Canon Serenar 85/2. For under $200 shipped I was blown away. 65 years old, but completely useable today. No desire to replace it for anything "better".
 
not sure if you can consider czj 50mm f1.5 sonnar lens cheap.
sometimes you do able to get them at a great deal.
but that is one lens i will never part with
 
I know its not fashionable to talk about SLR kit lenses but I have to mention the lens that came with my Nikon N6006 that I bought new a million years ago and still have. It came with a plastic AF 35-80 3.5 lens. For fun I threw it onto my D610 and UNREAL how good the IQ was and with snappy focus as well. The thing doesnt weigh anything at all and blew me away with its performance. I probably couldn't give the lens away in this market and yet it would destroy many of the so called top SLR lenses I have used. LOL I love it now ... oh and the N6006 still works like a charm!
 
My cheapest lens (that I've bought): AUD$375 for a 1951 Summaron f35 3.5cm Sharp and no distortion. And absolutely tiny. I took a shot today with the camera in my left hand with my index and middle finger straddling the lens and FISON hood, the fingertips stabilising the camera under the baseplate, and my thumb tripping the shutter. Never managed that sort of shot with the left hand before.
 
Spavinaw said:
Dralowid--That Yashica lens was an LTM type identified as YASHINON 1:1.8 f=5cm. As I recall, it and an f2.8 version were the only LTM lenses Yashica made.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info...it was a long time ago. The lens (and camera) got a lot of use when I was a student, must have sold it to fund more BEER!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom