[everythingConnected]

What do people reckon are their best lenses at 'realistic' prices?

I bought a Nikon D80 on fleabay and some standard lenses - the 18-55VR and 55-200VR, but later got the 50mm f1.8 which has blown me away in what it can do compared to the other lenses.

I know Lord Rockwell has this list: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm but he doesnt include any non Nikon lenses such as the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tokina 16-50/2.8 as alternatives to the Nikon 18-55.

I guess what I am wondering is what dream lens sets would be recommended and have been most used, without going silly and spending thousands on pro lenses.

[dave]

The 50mm 1.8 is a fantastic lens on either DX/FX/film and dirt cheap. The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is supposed to be stellar, though it ain't cheap. I've also got a 100mm series-E which cost me fuck all and is excellent. Any nikon 24mm is also great on a film body, shame there's no equivalent on bobby digital.

[Adam Lincoln]

10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.

[cofe]

The Canon 50mm f1.4 should be in every Canon owner's bag. It's significantly better then the mk1 and mk2 1.8s, and competes with the f1.2 for most uses.

[Johnny Brown]

The only real bargains nowadays are old primes. New primes are too expensive and, for some reason, enormous. New zooms are mostly pretty boring things - either small compromises or great honking bricks.

[cofe]

10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.

Tokina don't do a 10-20, baby.

[Adam Lincoln]

10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.

Tokina don't do a 10-20, baby.

Sorry, 12-24!

[Paul B]

The Canon 50mm f1.4 should be in every Canon owner's bag. It's significantly better then the mk1 and mk2 1.8s, and competes with the f1.2 for most uses.

damn, I've got a Mk 2 1.8.... Since buying that I've hardly had my kit lens on the body.

[cofe]

they're still good Paul, something to upgrade to in the future for not that much coin.

[Paul B]

I have to admit when I went in to look at one I was blown away by it compared to the results I was getting with my kit lens. I'd tried taking a few portrait shots of Nat when we were out and about and they were fairly shit. After the purchase they're not quite so shit.

Having said all that glass is damn expensive compared to things like off camera lighting. My recent purchases in that direction cost ~150 and I'm made up with some of the results (JB hasn't replied to my PM of the images so I'm assuming they offended his eyes).

(Whats lens do you find yourself reaching for most of the time Cofe?)

[cofe]

50mm or 12-24. Glass is pricier, but that's what makes the photos.

[Johnny Brown]

No offence Paul, I've just been busy with other stuff. And I don't consider myself at all expert in portrait photography.

I wish I had a 'favourite' lens on my Nikon, but I don't. They're all pretty dull, but they do the job. On my old OM-4, I loved most of them - the 90mm/2, the 21mm/3.5, 28mm/2.8, 50-250mm/5 etc, and on my Mamiya I like using the 80mm/1.9 and the Hartblei 45mmTS. Though not all of those are bargains. I guess the more lenses you use, the better they have to be to impress. Small, sharp, fast primes do it for me but not Nikon it seems.

[dave]

Nikon do a bunch of good primes, its just that you've got to be shooting FX or film to use them. Galen didn't do bad with his 20mm f/4,  24mm f/2.8 and his 85mm f/2. It'd be almost worth selling all my DX shit to pick up a D700 to use with my 24/50/100 combo next time I'm in the market for one, except I'd prefer a D700 guts in a D70 sized body. Would be better than having a compact Dx body crippled with a huge zoom. Or I could just paint an extra zero on the body.

The great thing about primes is that whatever you've got in your hand feels like the best lens you've ever used. You find a shot that fits the lens you have in hand, rather than standing with your feet anchored to the ground racking the zoom ring in and out until you conclude you need to spend another demigrand on a zoom that's a little bit longer/wider/half a shop faster.

[Johnny Brown]

Nikon did a bunch of great primes, but the last fifteen years has seen them take them in an uninteresting direction. Galen's clutch were from the same era as my OM lenses.

Can't see them making a compact FX body no more than a brilliant DX prime. The 10.5mm was a great start, then what happened?

[dave]

What really puzzled me was with all the gaping holes in the DX lineup (like a 13mm, 16mm, 50-150mm etc) they keep ploughing out shit like the 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 AFS,  the 60mm macro and the new 85mm, which are just really rehashed existing lenses for bottom drawer bodies with no focus motors, and generally a step backwards in terms of build and size. Its almost like they want you to drop a couple of kubricks on an FX body or something.......

Its enough to make a homie look at the sony alpha range, except they gave it a queer flash shoe.

[cofe]

I think if Nikon did bring out a 50-150 I'd sell up and get a D300.

[Johnny Brown]

HEAR THAT NIKON?

Throw in some decent DX primes and I'll buy ANOTHER D300.

The 85mm was a massive dissapointment. Like when Oly brought out their 8mm e-fisheye - it showed the designers had totally lost touch with the lines' appeal.

[tlr]

I think if Nikon did bring out a 50-150 I'd sell up and get a D300.

Can I have your 50mm 1.4 then please.....?

[Bonjoy]

I have an Optimus Prime on my G005.E . It's so sharp you get paper cuts just reading the manual with your eyes!

[cofe]

You should try reading it with my eyes yoot.

[Paul B]

can someone explain something. I saw this set on a Flickr link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/sets/72157622017435308/
(granted they're a bit of a cliche)
Out of interest I googled the lens in question and it costs serious dollar. Is there any reason why you can't get the same out of a 50mm prime? Is the main difference just the way it handles the bokeh?

[everythingConnected]

Interesting that no obvious lenses stand out from the crowd given that many on this site will really be after similar stuff. ie. decent glass, standard zoom ranges, not too heavy to take out climbing and not silly money. And also interesting how many people rate primes. My 50/1.8 simply blew me away and suddenly made me realise what the camera could do. I guess wanting that sort of result in any kind of a zoom without buying pro lenses is a bit of a tall order...

[Johnny Brown]

Out of interest I googled the lens in question and it costs serious dollar. Is there any reason why you can't get the same out of a 50mm prime? Is the main difference just the way it handles the bokeh?

In short, yes. The longer the lens, the less the depth of field. The bigger the sensor/ film area, the less the depth of field. The wider the aperture, the less the DoF. On all three counts he's beating your 50mm/ DX combo.

Whether any of those is necessary to get nicely rendered out of focus areas is a totally different question. With your kit, you can stand closer, and have the background further away, to get a similar effect.

If you can get a longer lens, that will make a bigger difference than sensor size or lens speed. The long lens crops a tight field of view, which gives you more control over what  background is included. How far away from the subject it is is then the main control on its sharpness.

In short, don't worry about fancy kit, its about 20% of the result. You could have shot those at f2.8 on a much cheaper lens and seen no difference, or used your kit and found a better shot.

[Johnny Brown]

Interesting that no obvious lenses stand out from the crowd

My 16-85 is an amazing lens for what it can do, it really makes one lens photography very easy and has expanded the possibilities of what I can shoot. But its not especially inspiring to use, whereas fast primes are. I think this is down to two things - first, what Dave said about fitting the shot to the kit, not satnding still zooming in and out. The second is the viewfinder experience. The brighter the viewfinder, and the more you can see of the focus effects, the more you are drawn into composing carefully. If you get to use a medium format or FX body with a nice prime you'll see why so many pros use them and not DX - its all about the view.

[Paul B]

Oh don't worry I wasn't planning on spending the notes, especially as thats more than my car is worth .

I have been assesing what I've got though, as I've got nothing particular that I feel I need I'm going to (understandbly) wait until that changes.