The term "cheap" lens

newton · Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA

I am not sure if it is fair to freely use the term "cheap" lens, and I kind of get disappointed when people throw that term around freely. I think every lens, almost every lens, can be used to its optimum depending on the initial conditions.

I would like to suggest that people who throw the term 'cheap' lens around either are referring to something else, as in "I paid nothing for it." or are being very loose with their language, but, hopefully, not derogatory.

I think you can take a great pic with almost any lens, but it really depends on the initial conditions. I would like to venture that the use of "cheap" might mean that the user of that lens simply has not mastered that lens for its optimum conditions or the art...

Just a thought for the careful use of the term "cheap". I have lots of "cheap" lenses that I can make perform well, in general. I also have "expensive" lenses. Most of these lenses were not "cheap" at one time. I am not talking about *all* lenses, of course.

It doesn't matter: take what you have and do something amazing with it. Smile

My idealistic philosophy for now. lol.

WolverineX · Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject:

some lenses are cheap and perform good, others are cheap and perform crappy... i think most users here rarely have anything derogatory to say about them, mostly they warn other users when the lens doesn't perform well

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston

Here's my point of clarification on newton's issue... I do understand that for many on this forum English is a second language, and while some do amazingly well, others are getting by. Either way, I'm impressed with anyone who has multilingual skills. However, there are many subtleties and slangs, and multiple uses of words in the English language that I would think can be confusing or misunderstood. For instance, what is the difference between cheap and inexpensive? While inexpensive is always a relative term, it generally means less costly and is not necessarily a quality indication. However, while people use the word cheap interchangeably with inexpensive, there is a difference in connotation. Cheap can also mean low in quality. For instance, we might develop a perception that something made in Bongoland is cheap, or cheaply made, it will also likely be inexpensive. But then something can definitely be inexpensive without being cheap.

Then there's the relative thing where some people call a $400 lens inexpensive, others call it unobtainable, but it likely isn't cheap by any one's definition.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Many thanks Woodrim! I will try to not forget it and use this term on this way.

revers · Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:57 am Post subject:

Well, for fun I will add to the conversation.

I have three inexpensive, some may call cheap, Sears lenses that produce surprisingly good images considering the cost. So it was not with any hesitation that I bid on another, a 28/2.8, 1:4 macro & won the auction. Well this lens performs OK @ the macro end but when compared to my Vivitar 28/2.8 for regular shots it is soft even @ f5.6 & it sits now in the back of the cupboard. I am not inclined to call it cheap but rather "piss poor". Rolling Eyes

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Cheap is from cheapskate, to describe people like who leave no tip or not enough, when tip is expected, or someone whose kids get no allowance...

Plastic AF lens bodies have a cheap feel to me compared to metal body MF lens -- like manufacturer is cheapskate for using plastic instead of metal, and for skimping on the focus ring throw and ditching the aperture ring entirely.

BUT, Laughing

'I got it cheap' usually means 'it was inexpensive', rarely means 'I feel like a cheapskate', and never means 'I am a cheapskate' Laughing

newton · Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 343 Location: USA

NothingMan · Joined: 02 Mar 2011 Posts: 98 Location: Bosnia Herzegovina

Good question, i recently had a debate about that exact word lol Smile

.

Me personally, I use the word cheap usually for something of poor quality, but then again It all depends on the whole sentence I guess. Sometimes Ill use it and mean inexpensive as well.

But like someone mentioned, It all depends on persons native language, slang and other factors.

As for language skills, Im pretty good with German, and know a fair amount of Turkish (dont ask me why Smile

) and all the contries around Bosnia (former Yugoslavia) speak same language really, I can understand some stuff In Polish, Russian etc etc , so that makes...what 10 languages? LoL

I suck at Math though! Smile

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well many native English speakers forget that other nationalities are reading what they post and it must be confusing to some around the world esp using slang words like "peanuts" instead of "cheap" Wink

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

in my mother language cheap = inexpensive exactly no difference , we have different world for 'cheap' what means same than in English. Always good to learn and improve my English.

ChromaticAberration · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 819 Location: Portugal

I would say that most of the time when people refer to lenses as "cheap" they mean that considering today's lenses prices they were evidently cheap because they did cost a very small sum of money compared with either they're AutoFocus cousins or simply they're real value (either photographically speaking or economical).

RioRico · Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject:

I think context is important, the other words are used with 'cheap'. If we say something is "amazingly cheap" or "a good cheap deal" or "I got it cheap", those are positive. If we say that something is "cheap crap" or "cheap and shoddy", those are negative. But not as bad as "costly crap", eh?

Without such modifiers, the meaning may be neutral. For instance, I may refer to cheap macro tubes and bellows. I don't mean that they are low quality, just that they cost very little, and maybe have limited functions. So we must look beyond 'cheap' and see what else is being said.

Some of my cheap stuff:

* Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 (US$2.25)
* Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro (US$3)
* Tamron BBAR 28/2.5 (US$4)
* silver CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (US$7)
* Super-Takumar 55/1.8 (US$7.45)
* Nikkor 85/2 (US$9)
* SMC F35-70 (US$11.20)
* some fast FD's, US$9 each

All those were "cheap deals". Were/are they "cheap lenses"? Not cheap as in shoddy crap, for sure! Just cheap as in, WOW I REALLY SCORED!

* Schneider Betavaron 50-125/4-5.6 (US$70.45)

That doesn't look like such a cheap deal. But consider that the retail price was US$3500. Well hell yes, that WAS a cheap deal. I REALLY SCORED!

* Pentax SMC-A 35-80/4-5.6 (US$13)

That does not look like a bad price for a Pentax SMC A-series zoom. But the lens is plastic crap -- cheap in the very negative sense. I BOMBED!

Thus, like much of human discourse, a word like 'cheap' may be quite ambiguous, open to various interpretations. And personal perception makes a difference. To me, a US$1 hamburger is a cheap snack. To my sister-in-law (a retired high-level executive), a trifle for US$40 is a cheap snack. To her vodka-swilling husband, US$200 pays for a cheap lens or a very cheap evening at a bar. Cheapness is relative. And some relatives are cheap, but that's another story... Wink

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

This is an interesting discussion. I also think that "cheap" can be misunderstood easily. I often use the term "affordable" instead, knowing that this also is rather relative: Bill Gates would use that term differently from me. Wink

But we perhaps really should avoid the word "cheap" without further explanations.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

Strange, all dictionaries I found translate adjective cheap as a synonim to inexpensive at the first place:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheap
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheap

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Dictionary...

try to translate some words to your mother language for example 'take or get' the worst ones perhaps Wink

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

Like RioRico I, and most of the English people I know, tend to use 'cheap' with a modifier, so we use 'cheap' to mean both 'inexpensive', "Hey, that's cheap" and poor quality, "Hey, that's cheap shit".

It took centuries to make our language so complicated. Laughing

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9098 Location: Houston, Texas

I'm late to getting to this discussion, but I made it at least. I really enjoy it when the members here get into discussions like this. It's the linguist side of me, I guess.

I prefer to take more of a sociolinguistic stance with a discussion like this -- i.e., to me it is most enjoyable to play the role of observer and analyze people's preferences when it comes to various usages. The fact that many, if not most of the people who post here use a language other than English as their primary language makes it all the more interesting.

"Cheap" is a classic example of an English word that has some amount of unalterable ambiguity associated with it because of its semantic duality. This forces either the user to disambiguate, or the listener to attempt to disambiguate through observation. The disambiguation can be brought about by including modifiers, as has been mentioned already, as well as supra segmentals, and even non-vocal cues. Supra segmentals, btw, are vocalized expressions that carry meaning but are not necessarily words. For example, one's tone of voice can indicate sarcasm when one says, "Now that's just great!" The tone of voice used to reverse the meaning of the sentence is a supra segmental. The rising tonal inflection at the end of a yes/no question in English is a supra segmental.

But of course, within the medium of a forum, the use of nonverbal cues and suprasegmentals is not possible, and emoticons are all too often a poor substitute. So in order to disambiguate, the most effective approach is to use modifiers. Often, all it takes is something like an exclamatory adverb to successfully disambiguate "cheap," as in: 'an amazingly cheap lens'. In this example, I doubt anyone would associate a possible lack of quality with the lens and, if anything, would probably do just the opposite.

But honestly, if this situation were to come up for real here at the forum, I would be quite surprised if the meaning weren't determined exactly within the span of a couple of posts. So to me this is a tempest in a teapot. Right up there with the use of "shoot" instead of "take" for recording images with a camera.

As a linguist I will always be in opposition to proscriptive advice and tactics when it comes to language ("you must say this, you cannot say that") because language needs flexibility in order to grow and thrive. So it is best for the writer to be cognizant of a lack of clarity as one is composing one's post and insert such modifiers as is required to make meaning clear . . . or not. Cool

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Hi cooltouch
If on the forum there was a similar set-up but instead of English being the international language we were all speaking German, Russian or Japanese etc ......would there be more or less problems compared to using English?
My guess would be:- there are more slang words and different meanings for the same words, in English, than any other language.....the Oxford dictionary site says:- 600,000 words added in a 1000 years.

ramiller500 · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject:

If a word you use like "cheap" will be understood by your main audience in the sense that you mean it, there's no problem. If it's likely to be taken in the wrong sense by many in your audience, clarify how you mean it or use a better understood substitute.

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9098 Location: Houston, Texas

ramiller500 · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:10 pm Post subject:

To me, a cheap lens is one I have some chance of buying. Ideally, it could give me "professional quality" results in what I do with it, despite its low price.