Set of lenses on a budget for APS-C format?

StrangeLoop · Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3

I'm looking for the all-star lineup of cheap bang-for-buck lenses, taking into account the crop factor of an APS-C sensor. I'm mostly looking at primes since they they make up the large majority of lenses that fit this criteria, although a well-performing flexible zoom would be great as well. I'd be looking for lenses with equivalent focal lengths of 18, 35, 50, 85, 135, and maybe a tele zoom to take care of everything past that. Also possibly a slow normal zoom as a cheap versatile walkabout lens.

As fast and as sharp as possible is obviously preferred. You lose image stabilization and some light when using MF lenses on a crop sensor, so getting sharp pictures requires a very wide aperture, especially when you apply equivalence to the f-stop. The crop sensor makes it especially hard to find fast lenses in the wide to normal range since they're already pushing the boundaries of optical design.

Any advice on great yet cheap performers is welcome. I've also explored the options of focal reducers like the Speed Booster and Lens Turbo II. The Speed Booster is damn expensive but I've heard the newest Lens Turbo has improved a lot over the first version. If my ultimate goal is image quality, is it more cost effective to sink money into a focal reducer to reap the benefits of full frame equivalence? Or do they degrade the image more than cheaper un-converted lenses? For instance a 50 1.4 equivalent on a crop sensor would need to be a 33mm f/0.93, which would of course be savagely expensive. Maybe it's worth investing in one of the focal reducers as it would benefit every lens in my collection, plus it would offer the option of two different focal lengths per lens.

I bought a couple lenses already on a whim. I'd readily swap them out if there's something better but at least they give me something to work with for now. I've got a Canon FD 50/1.8, Vivitar 28/2.5 and a Kamero 35/2.8. I've been looking at USSR lenses like the Helios and Jupiters, and considering Olympus for good performing wide angles. Apart from that I don't really have anything in mind. Size and weight aren't really a concern.

Let's hear your recommendations!

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 476 Location: Szczecin, Poland

Hi,

First of all you should've told us on what camera you're going to use them. Since you're talking about speedbooster I assume that we're talking mirrorless which gives plenty of choice.

As a good walkaround-zoom lenses I could only recommend:
1) Tamron SP 01A 35-80mm/2.8-3.8 - absolutely fantastic lens, hard to find anything better in reasonable price. If I remember correctly Minolta 35-70mm zoom lens has great reputation as well, but I've never used it.
2) Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm/2.8-3.5 - alternative for above Tamron - it's wider and longer on both sides, but in terms of quality I think it's almost the same as Tamron.

I don't think it's wise to buy anything other than above two's if you're looking for cheap and good walkaround old zoom. I've tried several more (Tamron SP 27A 28-80/3.5-4.2, Kiron 28-85 and a few others) and the only one that I was fond of was Tamron 17A 35-70/3.5 and it's great, cheaper alternative to Tamron SP 01A.

3) Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm/3.5 (Kiron version) - it's the only tele-zoom I could recommend. I've tried plenty of them (Tamron's 103A and 46A, Kiron 70-200mm/4, SMC-Pentax 80-200mm/4.5, Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm/3.5 Tokina version and some more). The above stands out and is better than all of them, however Kiron 70-200mm/4 and SMC-Pentax 80-200mm/4.5 are quite nice as well when stopped down to f/5.6 or more.
4) Kiron 70-150mm/4 - I don't know if the range is enough for you, but it's great, little - compact lens. On equivalent focal length and f-stop it's practically on par with Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm/3.5 (Kiron ver.) zoom, at least my copy is.

As for primes...
You mentioned Vivitar 28/2.5, I have Vivitar Close Focus 28mm/2.8 which I'm very fond of. It's great little lens.
For anything wider than 28mm I think it's better to buy nowaday's AF zoom as good manual primes are quite pricey.

35mm - plenty to choose from, good recommendation would be any sort of Takumar lenses.

50mm, 135mm - almost endless choosing options and I think that every member here could honestly suggest different lens. For cheap 50mm I could recommend Zuiko 50mm/1.8 and any variation of Takumar 50mm/1.8 or 50mm/2. Little more expensive, but still relatively cheap Auto Rikenon 50mm/1.4.

Cheers
Mateusz

clockwork247 · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 79

norland · Joined: 10 Aug 2013 Posts: 165

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

What is you goal? To save money? Then, frankly, I think you can do better with AF lenses. Or you want to play with MF? Then there options to be discussed.

StrangeLoop · Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3

The NEX 7 also lacks stabilization which is what I plan on buying. Good point on the A7 price dropping but it still probably won't compare to the low price of a used NEX 7. The lowest price I've seen a used A7 go for is ~1200, vs 4-500 for a used NEX 7. I really don't want to wait another year before buying a camera, but maybe I'll upgrade once the A7 drops in price enough. I guess it doesn't really make sense to buy a speed booster then, given the price. Maybe a Lens Turbo II will be good enough? even ~$650 total for a NEX 7 + Lens Turbo II is a pretty great price for having a very capable full frame analogue mirrorless camera.

My goal is, as stated, image quality on a budget. MF primes seem to be the easiest path to that destination from my understanding. Not that I'd be vehemently against an AF lens but I do prefer manual everything. I'm not a fan of the cheap focusing rings on most AF lenses I've tried.

With a focal reducer, I'm thinking I can basically spend less than $200 to essentially double the focal lengths I have available. Plus I'm getting the benefit of full frame equivalence. Compare that to the price of even a garbage kit lens, and the Lens Turbo starts to sound like a pretty decent purchase.

trev · Joined: 30 Jun 2010 Posts: 580 Location: North Wales - UK

You could either go with M42 prime lenses which are plentiful, or my favourite is Canon FD/FL which are also plentiful. If you shop carefully you can get samples of either quite cheap really.

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

StrangeLoop · Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3

My experience with kit lenses has been pretty unsatisfactory. Maybe my expectations for legacy lenses are too high. I was under the impression that you could get better image quality than a kit lens in a manual prime for much less money. Are you saying that's not possible? If I sink 200 bucks into a lens turbo, that's going to benefit every lens I own. Assuming I can get a lineup of good bang-for-buck MF performers, the investment in the lens turbo will extend their qualities. I'd rather spend a chunk of change on a decent focal reducer and be able to get away with a bunch of cheap primes than sink it all into a single AF lens. With the focal reducer I can continue to extend my lens collection and try different characters of lenses while still reaping the benefit of that original $200 I spent.

Regarding stabilization, I'm not really concerned with it at all. I'd rather go after fast glass instead. Stabilization can't unblur a fast moving subject.

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

Sharpness is always a factor, but I think the majority of the members on this forum use MF lenses for their character, rendering and bokeh which in most cases are different from modern lenses. I would also recommend the A7, but the Nex 7 should be a good budget choice (several members here have or had the Nex 7).

Lenses, well... I like the Pentax Super Takumars (or SMC) because they have in general good IQ (50mm f/1.4 m42) and a very good build. Pentacon/ Meyers are pretty nice (135mm 2.8 - bokeh monster). Sankor 105mm f/2.5 is a steal, T-mount. Some Carl Zeiss Jena m42 lenses are among my favorites (35mm, 20mm) m42. 85mm tend to be more expensive than other focal lengths so I would go for the Jupiter 9, 85mm f2 (preferable a silver in RF m39 mount with red P).

These are not the cheapest lenses out there like some Soligors, Chinons or Vivitars, but far from the most expensive and good bang for the bucks in my opinion, and most of all, keepers! Very Happy

There are also many good lenses in FD/ FL, AR and K-mount to mention some other mounts...

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Excepting (perhaps) much time & patience to get good deals on better lenses, a set of Pre-AI Nikkors will give best cost/performance ratio today, imho.

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

You have to decide what is that you want the most.

Pentax will give stabilization, and fairly advanced bodies for the prices. It is the only system where you can use legacy lenses in native mount and have metering and automatic aperture on all bodies. However, the AF lens selection blows.

Sony A-mount will have some stabilized bodies, a few decent inexpensive Minolta lenses, plus the knowledge that you are not investing into a dying system. Pretty much no to legacy lenses.

Sony E-mount will give you widest selection of legacy lenses, + focus peaking on some bodies. But you have to decide early on if you want to keep FF option open and if you do, you AF lens selection is small at the moment, and they cost like OMG.

Nikon will give you automatic aperture on legacy lenses, but no metering unless you go with an advanced body and if you do you are limited to Ai lenses, which tend to fetch pretty penny these days. But selection of AF lenses is excellent and if you splurge on a body with a motor drive you can use a lot early AF glass. I am not 100% how MF works but if it's anything like it was on my N90 - it's a great help.

Canon can mount the widest selection of legacy glass among the DSLRs, you get metering, some help with MF if you have chipped adapter. Their AF lens selection is probably even better than Nikon's. Some of these lenses are better bang for the buck than legacy alternatives.

Gardener · Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA

clockwork247 · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 79

RAART · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:34 am Post subject:

Some suggestions that it might give you what you are looking for...

Konica 28mm 3.5 or Olympus
Canon FDn 50mm 1.4 or FD
Konica 135mm 3.2 or Mamiya Sekor Auto 2.8 (M42)

That's what comes to my mind right away... I never compared those to newer lenses but they will give you quality at low price. I really like Konica Hexanon lenses line and will not part with them even I can not use them on my Pentax bodies. At some point I will replace my old PL1 for Sony but until then no use for some great manual glass but I still enjoy all M42 lenses currently.

Have fun!

dnas · Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 488 Location: Japan

There are quite a few options without stabilizer.

For APS-C my suggestion is NEX & Canon M. Canon M is underrated, and works well with MF lenses. You also have the option of mounting Canon EF lenses via a Canon electronic adapter (or 3rd party equivalent) which is quite cheap.

For NEX or A7, again you can use a Sony electronic adapter. The LEA4 adapter has full phase detection AF, and while not cheap, it allows you to use all of the Sony AF lenses, and MOST of the Minolta AF lenses.

So far as MF lenses go, I suggest for good, cheap lenses:

- Canon nFD 50mm F1.4 or the Canon FD 50mm F1.4 ssc
- Minolta MD 50mm F3.5 Macro
- Canon FD 100mm F4 Macro
- Minolta MD 135mm F2.8
- Minolta MC 200mm F3.5

And not so cheap:
- Nikon AI-s 105mm F2.5
- Canon FD 400mm F4.5 ssc
- Canon nFD 200mm F2.8 or Canon FD 200mm F2.8 ssc
- Nikon AI-s 35mm F2
- Minolta MD 100mm F4 Macro
- Minolta MD 85mm F2
- Canon nFD 20mm F2.8

For NEX or A7 AF with LEA4 adapter:
- Minolta AF 24mm F2.8
- Minolta AF 50mm F1.4

Cheap zooms:
- Minolta AF 24-85mm
- Minolta AF 28-105mm

secludedsea · Joined: 01 Oct 2014 Posts: 82 Location: Adelaide, Australia

Modern kit zooms benefit from modern optical designs. They are, in general, far better than just about any cheapo MF lens. There are plenty of top quality old MF lenses, but be prepared to pay for them. They are not dirt cheap anymore. As for a focal recucer: Putting glass of any sort, be it a reducer, a filter or teleconverter, in front of or behind your nice glass will degrade your image quality. You can go out and buy a great quaslity Flektogon, for example, and appreciate the character of the lens. But stick a piece of glass behind it witht a focal reducer and you've just lost a lot of that character in compromised glass!
You don't need Full Frame to get the best out of glass by the way. In fact, on a crop sensor you'll be using the very best part of most old lenses anyway! On my Olympus Pen, I can use a Helios and always use the best part of the glass due to the sensor size. I don't see the fuzzy corners. Similar on APS-C.
So, you want image quality from MF glass? Stick with a crop sensor camera. Sure, the wide end is compromised, but photography is about compromises too. You can't have everything.
I like MF lenses for characater, ergonomics and just for something different and fun. If you want great image quality without blowing the bank, stick to modern AF glass. Modern glass benefits from decades of optical design and science; even the kit zooms. I don't know about Canon, but Nikon modern cheap glass is preatty fantastic in terms of quality. Just how much pixel peeping do you want to do and how big do you want to print?
These are all important questions to know the answers to if you want a strategy.

SonicScot · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:00 pm Post subject:

Newfie · Joined: 04 Mar 2014 Posts: 242 Location: Austin, Texas