Cheap lenses

NikonN8 · 09/26/2018, 09:47 AM

What are the group thoughts on cheaper lenses, ala Rokinon etc? I hear good things about substantially lower defects and coma so it sounds like most of the savings come in from flimsier build quality and the lack of motors for AF. Specifically I'm looking for an ultra-wide for astrophotography but am curious about others' experiences and thoughts as well.

Misled · 09/28/2018, 05:13 PM

I only have a few inexpensive lenses, two Sigmas and a Tokina. One of the Sigmas used to be a fairly good carry lens before I got my 24 to 70 Nikon. It also had a macro switch. While it wasn't a "true" macro, it was an added feature. No motor, but about 40 bucks on ebay. The other Sigma was a 50mm mini wide and it is a true macro. I highly recommend it if you can find it. No motor either, but I found it on ebay for 30 bucks. It had a cracked apt lens, but who really cares about that. I still use it. The Tokina is a 11 to 16, and is not made for FX bodies, but I use it on my old D300. It's a beautiful lens and it's very sharp. Still use it too.

Having Pro bodies makes me not care about motors in the lenses. While the screw focus is a little slow, if all other aspects of the lens are good, I'll still use it.

I forgot, I also have a Sigma, (seeing a pattern here), 70 to 200. While it can't compete with my Nikon, it has the advantage of a shorter focusing distance. I use it, but not that much.

cody6766 · 09/28/2018, 09:19 PM

I have a Rokinon 16mm F 2.0 that I bought to shoot the Aurora while I lived in AK. It's an all manual lens and I got some great shots of the lights. I don't know how good it will be for stars, but it was solid for the aurora.

09/26/2018, 09:47 AM	#1
NikonN8 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 89	Cheap lenses What are the group thoughts on cheaper lenses, ala Rokinon etc? I hear good things about substantially lower defects and coma so it sounds like most of the savings come in from flimsier build quality and the lack of motors for AF. Specifically I'm looking for an ultra-wide for astrophotography but am curious about others' experiences and thoughts as well. __________________ My name's Nate, not Nikon. In case it wasn't clear.

09/28/2018, 05:13 PM	#2
Misled RC Mod Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 11,440 Blog Entries: 11	I only have a few inexpensive lenses, two Sigmas and a Tokina. One of the Sigmas used to be a fairly good carry lens before I got my 24 to 70 Nikon. It also had a macro switch. While it wasn't a "true" macro, it was an added feature. No motor, but about 40 bucks on ebay. The other Sigma was a 50mm mini wide and it is a true macro. I highly recommend it if you can find it. No motor either, but I found it on ebay for 30 bucks. It had a cracked apt lens, but who really cares about that. I still use it. The Tokina is a 11 to 16, and is not made for FX bodies, but I use it on my old D300. It's a beautiful lens and it's very sharp. Still use it too. Having Pro bodies makes me not care about motors in the lenses. While the screw focus is a little slow, if all other aspects of the lens are good, I'll still use it. I forgot, I also have a Sigma, (seeing a pattern here), 70 to 200. While it can't compete with my Nikon, it has the advantage of a shorter focusing distance. I use it, but not that much. __________________ Jesse I'm not saying I'm Batman. I'm just saying nobody has ever seen me and Batman in a room together.

09/28/2018, 09:19 PM	#3
cody6766 Super Best Friends! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: OKC, OK Posts: 3,772	I have a Rokinon 16mm F 2.0 that I bought to shoot the Aurora while I lived in AK. It's an all manual lens and I got some great shots of the lights. I don't know how good it will be for stars, but it was solid for the aurora. __________________ "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." - John Galt Current Tank Info: Cadlights 60G Arisan II mixed reef with 2x MP40s and 24" ATI