[JohnR]

Having just returned my second EBay lens purchase in a couple of months, I'm thinking I might try a different tack - and just buy some cheap lenses to try out for fun. I was looking on KEH at the prices of some of the good but not "highly desirable" lenses... geez, talk about cheap! $43 for a 50/2 AI -- a lens that Bjorn Roslett gives a "5" rating?? Come on...!!!

Anyway, so I've picked out a range of lenses in this class. All primes, all under $100 each. Anyone interested in seeing how well these work on a D40?

[Bob in St. Louis]

OOOHH, PICK ME! PICK ME! 

I'd really like something a little larger than my AF-S NIKKOR 55-200 1:4-5.6D ED.

Do you have a link John?
Thanks for the heads up.

Bob

[JohnR]

By larger, do you mean longer? Long glass is always $$, altho I may have found a bargain below... we will see...!

I'm getting these from keh.com, all "bargain" grade.

Anyway here's what I've just ordered, with prices -

Nikon 28/3.5 AI $69
Nikon 50/2 AI $43
Nikon 135/3.5 AI $43
Tamron 300/5.6 $62+19

[Bob in St. Louis]

Yea, longer... Sorry 'bout that.
I'm also looking a wider lens than the D40 kit came with.
I didn't know KEH.com was used stuff(some). Thanks for the link John, I'll check them out right now.
Good stuff! 

Bob

[Bob in St. Louis]

When I say longer, I mean looooonger:  aa

[mcullinan]

Primes are a good choice. Some have been around for a while... and they may be cheap, but not necessarily bad. Post some shots.
Mike

[Bob in St. Louis]

Looking at that site, I quickly realize I know less about lenses (and photography in general) than what little I thought I knew.   

Bob

[Bob in St. Louis]

One that peaks my interest is a 70-300 F4-5.6 G.
Depending on condition they range from $79 - $94.
I'd really an AFS though. But the price quadruples for the lazy feature.
Might have to talk to the wife about the unit anyway. A "300" for less than $100, sounds like it would be fun to play with.

Mixed reviews here though:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00P2P3

Bob

[Goosepond]

You guys are throwing your money away. You've invested in a good Nikon DSLR. Now go out and get some good glass. All you're gonna find out buying the cheap stuff is they take crappy pics.

Look around the Fred Miranda site and learn what the good stuff is. And then buy ONE zoom with decent range. The results will be well worth the money.

Find out what kind of pics you like to take. Do you mostly take wide-angle walk-around landscape shots. I've got a Canon DSLR and use a 24-70 zoom a lot. I think Nikon has something in a similar range.

Primes are great but far less useful than a good zoom, unless you are a pro or really know what you are doing.

Just some advice from someone who has spent far more on my photography hobby than my audio hobby.

And I still can't take a pic worth shit! 

Gene

[F-100]

One that peaks my interest is a 70-300 F4-5.6 G.

I used to own this lens and it's very slow and not sharp at all. Don't bother buying that lens, save your money and get the 80-200 f/2.8. That is one heck of a lens, very sharp and super fast focus. See review here.

[Bob in St. Louis]

$900+ and it still won't auto focus. 
Too rich for my blood anyway. I've got too many high dollar desires as it is.
My wife would crap herself if I came to her with this one.

[Randy]

JohnR - will AI lenses use the meter and autoexposure on the D-60? according to Rockwell they won't on a D-40.   http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-performance.htm#lenses
I have a bunch of AI lenses which would be nice to use on a D-60 if I get one, but I don't want to be guessing on exposure.

I have no problem having to manual focus.

[drphoto]

hate to sound like a troll, but I've got an 80-200 2.8 AIS (not D) I'll sell cheap. (KEH wants $525, I'll go way lower)

glass is very good. hood has a few scuffs. (yes, it has the optional factory metal hood)

 Seems like the focus 'binds' or gets a bit tight when you go down to macro, but fine otherwise.

Also have the very sharp 180 2.8. in good cosmetic shape w/ excellent glass. for all you fixed lens fiends. 

[JohnR]

You guys are throwing your money away. You've invested in a good Nikon DSLR. Now go out and get some good glass. All you're gonna find out buying the cheap stuff is they take crappy pics.

No no, that's not the intent of this thread! The lenses I listed ARE good lenses! At least, they should be and I'm about to find out They're cheap because they're "slow" - nobody wants them when you can get "fast" lenses for a couple three hundred. You don't need to buy the latest AF XYZ whizbang lens to get good glass

[Goosepond]

You guys are throwing your money away. You've invested in a good Nikon DSLR. Now go out and get some good glass. All you're gonna find out buying the cheap stuff is they take crappy pics.

No no, that's not the intent of this thread! The lenses I listed ARE good lenses! At least, they should be and I'm about to find out They're cheap because they're "slow" - nobody wants them when you can get "fast" lenses for a couple three hundred. You don't need to buy the latest AF XYZ whizbang lens to get good glass

Yes John,

I did exaggerate a little. 

Fast lenses can get very expensive, very fast. But once you realize what those fast lenses give you, the itch begins. As in all things, the balancing act of compromise also begins.

Gene

[ooheadsoo]

JohnR - will AI lenses use the meter and autoexposure on the D-60? according to Rockwell they won't on a D-40.   http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-performance.htm#lenses
I have a bunch of AI lenses which would be nice to use on a D-60 if I get one, but I don't want to be guessing on exposure.

I have no problem having to manual focus.

No, they won't meter/autoexpose, but the problem isn't as big as it seems.  With digital, you just shoot, review the picture, and adjust exposure accordingly.  Once you set up for a situation and get yourself into the ballpark, you can compensate manually, and you won't really miss the automation.  Don't forget that you can also easily manipulate exposure to get things just right, digitally.  Even a good meter won't always get it perfect.

[JohnR]

hate to sound like a troll, but I've got an 80-200 2.8 AIS (not D) I'll sell cheap. (KEH wants $525, I'll go way lower)

glass is very good. hood has a few scuffs. (yes, it has the optional factory metal hood)

 Seems like the focus 'binds' or gets a bit tight when you go down to macro, but fine otherwise.

Hey Joe, is this it? What a beauty of a lens.



But what's this about a macro mode? I can't find anything about that anywhere.

[WerTicus]

I have to agree with the people saying don't bother, cheap lenses will not produce good photos!  The lens is more important than your camera body.

Ill even show you an example: 

5d (12mp)  420mm f2.8 L lens, with 1.4x extender (i think this was an IS lens also)



350d (8mp) (far inferior camera)  with 300mm L lens. (camera is 1.6x crop so the result vs the 5d looks very much the same as the 5d has more pixels)



and now a cheap lens:

70-300mm that comes in a kit with the pentax k20d (ie a 200 dollar lens)
the camera itself is somewhere between the 5d and 350d but not far off the 5d in quality really. (14mp)


so as you can see a crap lens really makes for crap photos.


and before you say the last shot looks like it was taken by hand, it wasnt it was on a tripod and the FIRST photo was by hand!

[JohnR]

so as you can see a crap lens really makes for crap photos.

Um, yeah, OK, but this thread is not about crap lenses, it's about good lenses...

[JohnR]

When I say longer, I mean looooonger:  aa

Bob, Bob... just promise to call me before hitting that "Buy" button, OK?