Your lens of choice for 300$ (or less)...

A

Androwski

Active member
Let's say you lost all your zoom and prime lenses and you could afford to buy one second-hand lens for 300$ (or less) to shoot your next D90 short film or music video, which one would it be and why?
 
It depends on your shooting style. If your going hand held, go for the 28. If you have steady hands, sticks, or a rig, maybe go for the 50.
 
If I could have only one lens, it would be the manual Ai-s 28mm. 2.8. Go for the 2.0 if you can find it for $300.

But, renting a lens for a week is only 30-50 bucks, so I would rent a 50mm, or buy a 50mm and rent a wide. You can do it through the mail with these guys-- http://www.rentphotostuff.com
 
Hey,

A while back I asked about lenses and you guys were nice enough to post which lenses a guy should get. I've since got a 28mm and a 50mm, but now I can't find that thread and I'm wondering what should be next ont he list?

Thanks.
 
[1] Standard = Nikon 50mm f/1.8 $100
[2] Wide = Nikon 35mm f/1.8 $199 or Sigma 28mm f/1.8 $269
[3] Zoom wide = Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 $299
 
depends on what ur shooting but an 85mm or 105mm would probably be the next logical step. the 105mm f/2.5 is a great lens and not too pricey.
 
Definitely an 85. I'd also get a 24 and lose the 28. The 28 is often not wide enough so you'll eventually need something wider, while the 24 is wide enough for most situations that don't require an obvious wide angle look.
 
Thanks guys but nobody answered the important part of my question!

WHY would you choose (enter model name here) over any other lens in that price range? Is it just because it is what it is ("wide" for instance) or does a particular characteristic (like sharpness or contrast) make it interesting? Or do you like it because it makes your hamsters dance lambada in the kitchen? Give me something... and a reply like "take a 28" only interests me if you add a model name to it...

Unlike many of you guys I don't have the luxury of testing out several different lenses for a long enough period of time to make a verdict by myself... :dankk2:
 
we're talking mostly nikon glass ai or ais, best optics for least money. canon make good glass but it won't fit a D90. zeiss is too expensive.
 
If it's only one lens, for less then $300, given the criteria I would go for the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX. Brand-new the street-price is $255-360; I've also seen used examples for as low as $200.

The 24mm will give you 36mm equivalent on a D90, which should be adequate for most occasions. The lens is also relatively fast at f/1.8, a good stop over the Nikon equivalent. In addition to that, the lens can be used extreme close-ups due to its minimum focusing distance being a mere 18cm/7 inches.

Some shots using this lens:
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/009KEJ

800px-Sigma_24mm_f18_EX_DG.jpg
 
Steve Castle said:
If it's only one lens, for less then $300, given the criteria I would go for the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX. Brand-new the street-price is $255-360; I've also seen used examples for as low as $200.

The 24mm will give you 36mm equivalent on a D90, which should be adequate for most occasions. The lens is also relatively fast at f/1.8, a good stop over the Nikon equivalent. In addition to that, the lens can be used extreme close-ups due to its minimum focusing distance being a mere 18cm/7 inches.

Some shots using this lens:
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/009KEJ
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this lens all winter long. I wish I could see some video using one on a DX frame. I heard its soft at 1.8, but not sure if that only meant at the corners - which wouldn't matter for a cropped frame D90.

Any video samples of this?
 
DanDOF said:
I've been wondering about this lens all winter long. I wish I could see some video using one on a DX frame. I heard its soft at 1.8, but not sure if that only meant at the corners - which wouldn't matter for a cropped frame D90.

Any video samples of this?
Click to expand...

Its a good lens given the price, I've used the lens sporadically, and I own the 20mm f/1.8. At 1.8 its fairly soft, but comparable to many fast wide lenses at that stop, it has a nice rich bokeh. Stopped-down its sharp, and I've found myself using the macro feature frequently. Given the price, its a solid piece of glass.

For stills, keep in mind, the Nikon version is a bayonet mount so it'll work on the D90 for AF, but for the D5000, which is AF-S only, it will be manual only for focusing in stills.

I haven't seen any video examples, but I would assume it to be comparatively good.

DanDOF said:
What about the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (24mm equivalent on a D90)?
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has this for the Canon EF mount. I wouldn't say its a quality lens. I know its cheap but optically it has much to be desired.
 
Last edited:
If you are considering 24mm, keep in mind you will have some perspective distortion. It's why most folks are using 28mm.
 
lasvalley said:
Would that still be the case on DX, given its the equivalent of 36mm?
Click to expand...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From my understanding it would be Modest falloff and distortion[/FONT]. The lens shows barrel distortions at around 1.7% on a 35mm

on 28mm it would be more... and on 24mm would be alot more noticeable.

However, It will all boil down to taste @ the end of the day. ;)

Cheers
 
Since finding it, the Tamron 28-300 3.5 is hard to beat in terms of value. If I really needed low light though, like many others I'd have to go with a 50mm 1.4 of some kind.
 
you can't really shoot people up close on a 24mm if you want them to look normal, it does distort the perspective quite a bit. for everything else it looks very natural though.

/matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top