Best "hidden gem" inexpensive lenses for Nikon DSLR's?

daveminnich

Senior Member
Everyone talks about the 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8, etc. But what other awesome inexpensive lenses (new or used) are out there that don't get talked about as much?
 

Zeke_M

Senior Member
Nikon 70-210mm f4 AF. Made from 1986-1988. $208.00 last time I checked.

2ioz0o.jpg
 

pforsell

Senior Member
Everyone talks about the 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8, etc. But what other awesome inexpensive lenses (new or used) are out there that don't get talked about as much?

Hidden? Not really. The word is out in the open and the quality and desirability is reflected in the price. If manual focus isn't a problem, then I'd suggest you have a look at Nikkor AI 50mm f/1.8 and AI 105mm f/2.5 or Micro-Nikkor AIS 55mm f/2.8.

Nikon 70-210mm f4 AF. Made from 1986-1988. $208.00 last time I checked.

That isn't a gem either. You may have a good copy, but the lens really is a p.o.s. Check Rorslett's review or Photozone's measurements. On a DX body something small and cheap like 55-200VR mk2 wipes the floor with it in every respect.

Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/4 - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
 

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I had bought a cheap lens on ebay a few years ago for $25. A 35-70/3.3. i was going to get rid of it, due to poor quality on my d300. When I got my D610, it cleared up the quality and I used it quite a bit. I ended up giving it away to someone in need of a lens. I ended up buying another one last year, around the same price. Still a good travel lens.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I use my 17-35 F2.8-4 Tamron wide angle lens a lot and am very happy with the performance. It is the precursor to Tamron's very highly touted (and high priced) 15-30mm.

For a Fisheye I like my Lensbaby 5.8mm. It is all manual but it's a fisheye so not a problem and far less than many other fisheyes out there.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I have a Nikkor 28-105mm-D "macro" lens (it's 1:2 macro, not a true 1:1) that I use for flowers, butterflies and such things. I don't remember exactly what I paid, maybe around a 150.00 dollars, but I really like the colors that it produces .

_DSC9567-Edit.jpg
 

daveminnich

Senior Member
My 17-50mm Tamron is surprisingly good for an inexpensive lens.
My 28-75 mm Tamron stays on my camera most of the time. In the broad spectrum of lens pricing, it is relatively inexpensive.

17-50mm 1:2.8.
https://www.keh.com/shop/tamron-17-...cus-lens-for-nikon-aps-c-sensor-dslrs-67.html
i-Jc2q4hq-L.jpg

I have a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 that I love. That 28-75 sounds interesting, though. Especially since the Nikon 24-70 is way up there on the price scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I've got 2 gems.

1- Nikkor 28-80 3.3-5.6 that I got for 50 $. It's light, sharp and snaps to focus very fast.

La Florida - copieweb.jpg


And the Tamron 28-200 3.8-5.6 (here mounted on the Df) that is also light and sharp. This one I got for 125.00 $. Both these lenses lack the VR but the weight is reduced because of this as well.

16972702734_810dd19e39_b.jpg
[/URL]Flashy rooftop in Qc by Marcel Carey, sur Flickr[/IMG]
 

carguy

Senior Member
I've watched a few videos by on true 'hidden gem' Nikon glass. Downside, the videos are a few years old and the prices are already up online :)

Check out Ken Wheeler aka 'The Angry Photographer' if you haven't already. There may be a little '[FONT=&quot]profanity'. :)[/FONT]

Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Earlier this week I stopped by Allen's Camera to AB a 300mm f/4 AF (screwdrive) lens against a 300mm f/4 AF-S lens. Initially I purchased the screwdrive but decided I really wanted the faster AF capability of the AF-S lens. They have 2 copies of the screwdrive model although one of them had a problem with the button to switch from manual to AF. As far as sharpness, I couldn't tell any difference between them. Their price on the screwdrive is $399 which beats B&H's used price ($499) and Keh's used price ($549). I don't know which copy of the lens had the problem with the button though.

Just look for the two lenses called Nikon AF 300mm f/4 ED (USED) from the link below. These screwdrive lenses have a built in UV filter that is inserted partway down the barrel (in the middle of the barrel). If you ever buy one of these lenses, make sure it includes the filter. These take an 82mm front filter.

Allen's offers a 7-day return with online purchases, but when buying in store, they only take returns if the item is defective. Fortunately since they know me, and I went back the next day, I was able to upgrade to the AF-S model of the 300mm f/4. But if you can live with slower autofocus, the IQ of the screwdrive is amazing!

Allen's Camera & Video | Shop Used

Below is an image of this lens.


D3R_7047-1200.jpg
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Like Sue, I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and it is a very sharp lens. I found it for $200ish used.
 

ejronin

New member
One of my favorites is the Nikkor Micro-55mm f/3.5 AI lens

I bought it online from Goodwill this year for $42, in the original box with original instructions. I expected it to have been "well loved" but... I'm not entirely certain it left the box after initial purchase. Everything was still in the box. I'm also blown away that it went for $42.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Check out Ken Wheeler aka 'The Angry Photographer' if you haven't already. There may be a little 'profanity'. :)

Oh man, a "pro" guy who can't decide whether he wants the job done quick and insured via new technology or to mess with the bargain glass because its "the best"...... I want to say that profanity and comic relief is the only real useful thing about him.

#1 thing I still notice lots of people fail to mention is their subject/environment per lens needed/wanted. MF is perfectly fine for non-action and low-light situations, for example, or for f/2.8 and lower while say AF newer lenses excel in these conditions.

One of my favorites is the Nikkor Micro-55mm f/3.5 AI lens

I bought it online from Goodwill this year for $42, in the original box with original instructions. I expected it to have been "well loved" but... I'm not entirely certain it left the box after initial purchase. Everything was still in the box. I'm also blown away that it went for $42.

I got my Sigma 24/2.8 for $45 shipped when they were easily going for 100+ a few years ago, and it was in immaculate shape minus the hood that was a very easy and sturdy fix.

All that said, Sigma 12-24 v1 is a mad bargain considering how good it is to step into the ultra wide angle game. Got mine for 400, but they can be had for 3-350.
 

Samo

Senior Member
Oh man, a "pro" guy who can't decide whether he wants the job done quick and insured via new technology or to mess with the bargain glass because its "the best"...... I want to say that profanity and comic relief is the only real useful thing about him.

#1 thing I still notice lots of people fail to mention is their subject/environment per lens needed/wanted. MF is perfectly fine for non-action and low-light situations, for example, or for f/2.8 and lower while say AF newer lenses excel in these conditions.

I guess no photographer on Earth could get a decent action shot before AF? LOL

I always wondered what Zeiss was about releasing all these new high dollar manual lenses nowadays. Those Leicaphiles do not have a clue either I guess.

The eye behind the lens is the gem people.
 
Last edited:

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I guess no photographer on Earth could get a decent action shot before AF? LOL

I always wondered what Zeiss was about releasing all these new high dollar manual lenses nowadays. Those Leicaphiles do not have a clue either I guess.

The eye behind the lens is the gem people.

Again, all depends on the conditions and stakes you have to work with.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
And the 70-210 AF 4-5.6 that I got for 25$

Used with an extension tube it does great close-up shots.

attachment.php
 
Top