FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Cheap Lineup

Page  123 42>
Author
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6251
Post Options Post Options   Quote Turerkan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Cheap Lineup
    Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:25
For who's short on money than time to spend in dyxum, i think a cheap lineup discussion could be very helpful. I spent long time in building myself the cheapest lineup that delivers good quality and I wanted to share some of my thought with you.
So, if you are short on money my suggestions are;

1- you should know what you want more exactly than the others, because you cant waste money trading lenses until you find the right one

2- choose the lenses according to their uses. Don't try to cover all focal lengths because there are more to lenses than focal lengths. Every lens you purchase should have a specific purpose.

3- Try to maximize your profit (in this case its image quality) with your limited budget. Distribute your money into lenses according to how much you are going to use them. Even better, consider how much of your serious photography is going to be done with them. The lens to be used more can get more of your budget.

4- Know yourself good. Every lens is a compromise, and every photographer can stand different types of compromises. If you know what compromises you can make, you can be satisfied with your lineup for less money. for example, one can give up AF speed while other can give up zoom range..

Lets share our cheap but good performing lenses and our thoughts about them!

here is my lineup:

Zenitar 16/2.8: super wide for $135, i can manual focus, and manual stop down isnt a big problem too
Minolta 28/2: my walkaround lens, best of them all, %90 of my photography is done with it! this is why i decided to make a unusual-for-myself investment into this focal length. its €320. Yet it can be replaced by the $70 28/2.8 if that focal length is not important for you.
Minolta 50/1.7: short telephoto, portrait lens, almost a 85G on aps-c! and i got mine for $40
Cosina 100/3.5 macro: my main telephoto, my macro. Super sharp, contrasty, great bokeh and so on.. great IQ shortly, if you can stand the build quality and can manual focus. i got it for €70
Minolta 100-200/4.5: in case i need 200mm, i usually dont. It goes for around $80 i suppose.
i have the 18-70 too, but don't use it.

The total cost is around $700. It could be much cheaper with a 28/2.8, like around $350

If you made your lineup on a budget, give it a go here:)
No G's allowed:P

Edited by Turerkan - 07 May 2007 at 12:35
 



Back to Top
CTYankee View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 3511
Post Options Post Options   Quote CTYankee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:41
My lineup wasn't budget-oriented ... it was fairly clear to me when I sold my G's & tele primes what I wanted in the way of a good bang-for-the-buck lineup that was fairly moderate in price. The 28/2 is a nice luxury ... I did without it fine for a while and if I needed to sell gear, could live without it again ... obviously, the 400 doesn't fit the budget or moderate mold; it was just the one lens I couldn't part with. So the portion of my 'moderate' lineup that I consider essential would be:

17-35 (over $200 used; can't remember)
28-75 ($199 new :)
100-300 APO ($325 used)

A fun thread might be "what kit would you buy with a budget of $xxx ?" It's easier putting together coverage than putting together a kit that provides functionality (i.e. 18-50 and beercan is a nice kit, but I'd really miss the 28-75 for portraits).

That Zenitar 16mm should be interesting ... inexpensive WA is the tough part for APS-C.
April Foolishness
CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G
Back to Top
richardn View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 February 2006
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 393
Post Options Post Options   Quote richardn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:50
I would throw in the the Sigma 70-300 APO DG, as well. Great for the money. Another under-rated cheapie is the original 35-105, can be picked up for very little and covers a nice range in one lens.

Whilst I do agree with you on the Plastic Fantastic Cosina - it is better than it has any right to be for the cost and build, I can't go with notion of the 50 1.7 being almost an 85G - unless the 85 is on a FF body and the 50 on an APS, then focal length is close but that is where the similarity ends, I'm afraid. However, the 50 is a very fine lens and for the money everyone should bag one.
Back to Top
omerbey View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 December 2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 2516
Post Options Post Options   Quote omerbey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:52
28-75 is (and especially was, as in ctyankee's example) a great value to pass. it's in my opinion THE bang for the buck lens. I have no love for it but I do respect it.

hmmm...
If I were to do a budget photography kit in minolta mount that I would be content with, I guess it would be something like this:

5d
24mm 1.8 sigma , crown lens.
50mm 1.7 minolta
75-300 sony or 70-210 beercan depending on the price.
Back to Top
omerbey View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 December 2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 2516
Post Options Post Options   Quote omerbey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:53
oh and 35-70 is a wonderful and VERY cheap lens as well. If you like the range...
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:54
Before I upgraded my lineup.. I had a cheap but excellent lens line up:

Minolta AF 18-70 ( free with 5D)
Minolta AF 70-210/4 ($90 used excellent barrel, perfect glass)
Minolta AF 50/1.7 ( $50 used. XX version like New.)
Minolta AF 135/2.8 ($ I got it around $160.. virtaully new. Used less than 5 times by the prvious owner and was sttinig there after for so many years)



Edited by mark victor - 02 April 2007 at 21:54
 



Back to Top
Maffe View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 11 November 2005
Country: Sweden
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 11642
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maffe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 21:59
My budget lineup would be:
1. KM/tamron 28-75/2.8 (250€), I think that lens could cover most of my needs...
2. Fisheye if money left Minolta (250€), could save 120€ and go Zenitar.
3. Takumar 50/1.4, Iīm a prime man and this is the s**t! 20€+ m42 adapter 15€

Cost: 535€
Back to Top
Paul07 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2006
Country: Belgium
Status: Offline
Posts: 2072
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 22:03
Originally posted by CTYankee CTYankee wrote:


17-35 (over $200 used; can't remember)
28-75 ($199 new :)
100-300 APO ($325 used)

(i.e. 18-50 and beercan is a nice kit, but I'd really miss the 28-75 for portraits).


Fully agree here. This was exactly what I was thinking of when I read the opening thread.

Although, a second later, I came up with these three :
18-70 kit
70-300 Sigma DG Apo Macro.
50/1.7

I would have a hard time having to choose between both mini-sets...

Edited by Paul07 - 02 April 2007 at 22:03
bα7-II VG 16-35G 24-70G 70-200G 35/2.8 90M ~~~ α6000 Nex-5N 16-70 16-50 18-200 35/1.8 ~~~
α100 50/1.7 24-105 ~~~ HX60V
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 13504
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 22:08
After going wild with too much photo gear in the past (and getting no noticeable benefit from it), I now prefer to keep the tool inventory at a minimum. But even when cost is a limiting factor, the range of specific equipment choices is enormous; and each photographer is unique. It can be surprisingly difficult to figure out what you really need.

There's no reason to think that my personal choices would satisfy someone else, but for those who are curious, they're described here: Tools for a Digital Minimalist
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 22:09
Paul.. I like yours lineup a little better since the topic here is "cheap lineup".. While CTyankee's line up is excellent, it's a moderate line up as he said. :)

Originally posted by Paul07 Paul07 wrote:

Originally posted by CTYankee CTYankee wrote:


17-35 (over $200 used; can't remember)
28-75 ($199 new :)
100-300 APO ($325 used)

(i.e. 18-50 and beercan is a nice kit, but I'd really miss the 28-75 for portraits).


Fully agree here. This was exactly what I was thinking of when I read the opening thread.

Although, a second later, I came up with these three :
18-70 kit
70-300 Sigma DG Apo Macro.
50/1.7

I would have a hard time having to choose between both mini-sets...
Back to Top
omerbey View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 December 2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 2516
Post Options Post Options   Quote omerbey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2007 at 22:37
OK I'll try again

the cheapest and good digital photography

pentax ist DS + kit lens | 350 USD
28 3.5 takumar | 30-40 USD
50 1.4 takumar | 25-50 USD
135 3.5 something | 25-30 USD
55-200 pentax AF | 150 USD

there you go. all for the price of a new compact camera.
Back to Top
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6251
Post Options Post Options   Quote Turerkan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2007 at 01:38
CTYankee: a very usual nice triplet indeed, if only it didnt miss apertures above F2.8. Still i think its a better allaround cheap lineup to suggest to anyone. Mine is just carved for my taste:)

richardn: yes:) sigma 70-300 is one fine lens.. i think the telezoom options for a cheap lineup is either that sigma or the beercan. A third option is the 100-200 for who wants to travel as light as possible (like me)

omerbey: 24/50 is a great combo indeed:) a telezoom complements it fine:)

mark victor: 135/2.8 shouldn't be passed by really, thanks for reminding about it! But i find 18-70 to be a weak option as a walk around lens.. since its going to stay on most of the time, you want a good walk around lens.

Maffe: 16 + 28-75 = 16-80 in my book:) add a fast prime (takumar it is) and you'll be better covered with one less lens..

Paul07: thats too generic:P

sybersitizen: you have one good lineup there, but i think you have too much investment in the 11-18, and too less in the 18-70. May be you could sell the 11-18 and go to a 16-80? you can complete the super wide range with a cheap fisheye (read zenitar)..

lol @ omerbey:) you are right about pentax and m42's:) though getting F3.5 at 28mm is a bit strange (probably redundant too)

Edited by Turerkan - 03 April 2007 at 02:40
Back to Top
Maffe View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 11 November 2005
Country: Sweden
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 11642
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maffe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2007 at 01:44
Two reasons why not the CZ16-80:
1: not FF!
2: Slow
3: Still want a Fish
4: Cost, 823€ in Sweden, 300€ more then my other alternativ...

s**t that was four reasons=)
Back to Top
revdocjim View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 11 September 2006
Country: Japan
Location: Mt. Akagi
Status: Offline
Posts: 8599
Post Options Post Options   Quote revdocjim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2007 at 01:52
Cheap, but pure bread Minolta.

28/2.8
50/1.7
100-200/4.5
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  123 42>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.