Absolute best bang-for-the-buck AF 35mm setup?

[PeteGM]

Hi all, new user here. It's been about 12 years since I last shot film. I sold my gear (Minolta Maxxum 7 and some great lenses) and have been happy with digital. Lately I've caught the film bug and have had the urge to shoot some B&W, which is the only part of film I missed. I recently scored a mint Minolta XD11 & 50mm f1.2 combo for a really good price on eBay (gotta love when sellers don't list out the specifics of their lot). While I like it and will enjoy adapting the 50mm to my Sony, I'd prefer an autofocus system.

The main gear I'd want is an intermediate level body, a fast 50 and something fast around 85-135. Then maybe 24/28/35 and a midrange zoom if there are any cheap hidden gems out there. Main subject matter would be portraits, and urban/street scenes. No landscape. So while I want good glass, I'm not excessively worried about maximizing edge-to-edge sharpness. I'd also be interested in "character" or "sleeper" lenses.

So assuming you wanted to build a simple, cheapish AF 35mm system that still gave high-quality results, what would you go with?

As a Minolta fan, my first inclination was something in the Maxxum family. With some careful shopping I can get a Maxxum 5, 50 1.7, 28 2.8, and 35-105 for less than $100. The 50mm 1.4 might add an additional $100. The fast 85 and 100 are a little pricey though. Though the selection is not great, Sony A-mount lenses seem to be among the best value in AF SLR lenses today. And if I decide to grow the collection, the Sony/Zeiss primes are all priced great compared to their MSRP (or the Sony e-mount equivalents).

On the other hand, bodies like the Canon Elan 7 or Nikon N80 offer a better foundation and would open up a greater selection of lenses and access to more good third-party lenses.

I am not concerned in any capacity with "cool factor" or the looks of a system. Just usability, the resultant images, and affordability. So, have at it! What brand would you choose if you were me?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nikon F100, the best camera Nikon built without the weight or cost of the Nikon F6.

 

[Two23]

Another vote for the Nikon F100.


Kent in SD

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, F100 with any AF-D lens.

 

[PeteGM]

Nikon F100, the best camera Nikon built without the weight or cost of the Nikon F6.

Another vote for the Nikon F100.

Kent in SD

Hmm. That's actually what I had first considered, since I spent some time with Nikon DSLRs. All of the good condition F100s I've watched have either been pretty beat up or sold for $200 (or both!) which is a little more than I wanted to spend. Maybe I'll keep trying to score one at a more reasonable price.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh yes

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I saw the thread title and thought, “well, that’s got to be the F100, I’ll click on and suggest that.” It’s a lot of everything for $200. There’s Leica hoods that cost that much.

 

[Moose22]

Hmm. That's actually what I had first considered, since I spent some time with Nikon DSLRs. All of the good condition F100s I've watched have either been pretty beat up or sold for $200 (or both!) which is a little more than I wanted to spend. Maybe I'll keep trying to score one at a more reasonable price.

No offense, but if you can't afford $200 for a tool the quality of an F100, can you afford film? Portra 160 is $12 a roll now, slide film is $20. Before processing.

It's a ridiculous camera. I wouldn't sell you mine for $200 and I don't even use it regularly, it's the backup for my F6 -- which is only 6 or 7 oz heavier, so I don't know what Sirius is always on about. They handle almost the same. The F100 has a couple fewer focus points, but the AF is as good in general, the exposure is as good (which means the best there ever was -- this was the pinnacle of Nikon's film camera metering) and it's more than fast enough for everything else you use it for. The things that are special about my F6 over the F100 are really obtuse crap I use like the datalogging that require a lot of effort to set up and use. The F100 just... works.

If you want to amend your "bang for the buck" proposition to also include cheap, I'm going to suggest two cameras. I got an N75 from a user here. He got it from goodwill. We're talking about a sub-$50 camera. It's plastic, you may have to use some rubbing alcohol to get the sticky back clean, but it's a GREAT cheap camera. They can often be had for $35-45. I bought mine for a friend but am secretly annoyed she likes it so I never got it back. It's modern, exposure metering is as good as 35mm ever got, and it even drives G lenses and VR lenses. Only drawback is DX encoding is needed to pick film speed, but what do you want for $40?

The other alternative I might suggest is the N80/F80. It is the same era, will work with G lenses and VR, feels a little more like the F cameras. I dunno what they cost now, used to be $75. Good camera that lets you use any Nikon AF lens.

Anyway, either of those will drive an AF50 1.8 (new for $100, used for less) or 1.4, and any long lens or zoom you want.

 

[250swb]

In what I believe is the spirit of the OP's question I won't say F100 (although it would be nice to recommend this fine camera) but instead say.........a Nikon F55/N55 kit. You can almost buy them new-in-box on eBay and the short tele lens is surprisingly good. And looking around the internet it gets great reviews.

 

[Nitroplait]

Nikon F90/90x or F801/801s (N90/N8008) are killer cameras and very cheap.

 

[ericB&W]

Nikon F80 / N80,
has about the same features of F100 but costs 1/3 on average,
obviously is less professionally build and must use AF lenses or you'll lose metering functions.

 

[PeteGM]

No offense, but if you can't afford $200 for a tool the quality of an F100, can you afford film? Portra 160 is $12 a roll now, slide film is $20. Before processing.

It's more about minimizing upfront expense for what will potentially be an occasional hobby. I may not have been as clear in my message as I should have—I'm trying to find the sweet spot between maximum features/quality and minimum cost. No doubt the F100 is a stellar camera that I have previously lusted over. But if an N80 gets me 98% of the way there for casual photography, then that would be closer to my goal.

Still, I appreciate your passion for the F100! I actually just missed a decent-priced one on Offerup a few weeks back and I'm watching a couple on ebay right now. If fortune turns my way, that might be what I end up with.

And thanks for the heads-up on the N75. Using G lenses would be a big deal if I go Nikon, and I'd previously assumed only the N80 or better could do that.

 

[PeteGM]

In what I believe is the spirit of the OP's question

Haha yep! I think I rambled too much and muddled the crux of my question. If you've ever seen Top Gear's Cheap Car Challenge, that's kind of how I'm approaching this. How can I spend as little as possible to get the maximum usability and image quality.

I've looked at the N55/65/75, but it seems like N80 offers a significant jump in features for maybe $20 more. And doesn't lose out on much compared to the F100, which costs at least twice as much. That feels like the sweet spot I want to end up at.

 

[film_man]

In the UK I can get a Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000 in the US) for £5 on ebay and a 50/1.8 STM for £70. Total cost less than 5 rolls of Portra and process/scan.

Literally all the camera you'll ever need with all the bells and whistles and if you ever have more than $200 you can put a 50/1.2 L on it and it will still work. You could even splash out on the latest EOS 300V or 300X for a whooping £10 though I like the retro look of the good old plain 300.

 

[radiant]

But if an N80 gets me 98% of the way there for casual photography, then that would be closer to my goal.

Any of the Dynax series will do that. You can get for example Dynax 500si for 20-40 euros.

20 euros lens+body: https://www.ebay.com/itm/175188568810?LH_BIN=1

That is your best bang for the buck, for sure. I've used 500si for many many years and done all kind of photography with it, studio, gigs, commercial work.

 

[gone]

I'd suggest a small Pentax SLR w/ a 50 f2 or 50 f1.7, and an 85 f1.8 lens. Cheap to buy, small and light to carry, you get high quality images, and it's easy to replace the body for peanuts vs getting an expensive CLA. The N80 won't meter w/ third party lenses and the viewfinder is like a DSLR....small and darkish, not gonna work for anything but AF lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

I cannot disagree than a Minolta A mount body with some really good lens are the best bang for the buck. Which is the reason I built out a Minolta system, took 10 years. Unless you shoot action, the 7000 and a 50mm and 28mm can be had for under $200. Other options are the Minolta 5, the 7xi, for that matter a 9xi. Early lens like the 35 to 70 and 70 to 200 F 4 beer can lens can be had a decent price. One lens I like the 24 to 85. If you had Minolta you know that other than the 50 and 28mm primes the other fast primes still fetch a good price.

On the other hand if I had to do all over again I would go with Canon. Every full frame Canon EF lens will on every Canon film body. As Canon was the big dog in AF film camera days there is a huge selection of used lens. But I still sports and wildlife and would have like to used newer Sony A mount glass, only the Minolta 7 and 5, don't know about the 3, were designed to work with SSM lens. My Minolta was will not, needed to be sent to Minolta for an upgrade.

 

[Light Capture]

F80 (F75 and F100 as alternatives). Tons of lenses to work with with some compatibility inconsistencies. They can be found in manuals.
VR works on them as well if needed.

If no previous investment in Nikon, Canon EF is a good alternative. Typically even more lenses available.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nikon F100, the best camera Nikon built without the weight or cost of the Nikon F6.

I also have the N75 and N80. the F100 has all the bells and whistles so barring dropping it off a cliff or other failure, it would be the last camera that you would buy.

 

[MattKing]

Buy a later version Canon - the 7N or 7e are really nice - and get a grip that permits use of AA batteries.

 

[Huss]

I also have the N75 and N80. the F100 has all the bells and whistles so barring dropping it off a cliff or other failure, it would be the last camera that you would buy.

Or back door snapping like they are wont to do.

Just check out ebay and see how many broken F100s there are for sale.
Compare that to how many broken F6s are for sale...

Aside from the F100 being so fragile (broken diopter or meter switch anyone?), one of the things I really prefer about the F6 is that it can hold the AE lock as long as you want. With the F100 it cancels after one shot.

 

[Helge]

Hi all, new user here. It's been about 12 years since I last shot film. I sold my gear (Minolta Maxxum 7 and some great lenses) and have been happy with digital. Lately I've caught the film bug and have had the urge to shoot some B&W, which is the only part of film I missed. I recently scored a mint Minolta XD11 & 50mm f1.2 combo for a really good price on eBay (gotta love when sellers don't list out the specifics of their lot). While I like it and will enjoy adapting the 50mm to my Sony, I'd prefer an autofocus system.

The main gear I'd want is an intermediate level body, a fast 50 and something fast around 85-135. Then maybe 24/28/35 and a midrange zoom if there are any cheap hidden gems out there. Main subject matter would be portraits, and urban/street scenes. No landscape. So while I want good glass, I'm not excessively worried about maximizing edge-to-edge sharpness. I'd also be interested in "character" or "sleeper" lenses.

So assuming you wanted to build a simple, cheapish AF 35mm system that still gave high-quality results, what would you go with?

As a Minolta fan, my first inclination was something in the Maxxum family. With some careful shopping I can get a Maxxum 5, 50 1.7, 28 2.8, and 35-105 for less than $100. The 50mm 1.4 might add an additional $100. The fast 85 and 100 are a little pricey though. Though the selection is not great, Sony A-mount lenses seem to be among the best value in AF SLR lenses today. And if I decide to grow the collection, the Sony/Zeiss primes are all priced great compared to their MSRP (or the Sony e-mount equivalents).

On the other hand, bodies like the Canon Elan 7 or Nikon N80 offer a better foundation and would open up a greater selection of lenses and access to more good third-party lenses.

I am not concerned in any capacity with "cool factor" or the looks of a system. Just usability, the resultant images, and affordability. So, have at it! What brand would you choose if you were me?

It doesn’t matter if the body is cheap, if the lenses cost an arm and a leg. That is the problem for both Nikon and Canon SLR lenses.

Minolta system has the best of both.
Inexpensive good bodies and great glass.
The Sony camera system that uses the Minolta AF mount lenses is extinct, so there is less competition.

Pentax AF could also be worth a look, though I know little about it.

Olympus AF never really seemed to have been popular so it’s probability hard to find.

One great unconventional option though, would be to get the Olympus IS 3000 or 2000 or 1000. Much the same camera.
They use a non exchangeable zoom lens and is part of the extinct group called bridge cameras.
They are actually very, very good. The lenses might be pretty slow (as zooms are), but the flash system is absolutely magnificent. Extremely advanced for the class. Especially with the external G40 flash.
The lens is a masterpiece the goes from 35mm to 180mm with extremely impressive performance end to end.
Add on lenses add 300mm, 28mm and real macro, where only the 28mm and macro really makes sense. The tele converter just drops the speed too much to be useful.
The macro is not just simple diopters but at duplets with a close up flash diffuser.
Highly recommended overall.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or back door snapping like they are wont to do.

Just check out ebay and see how many broken F100s there are for sale.
Compare that to how many broken F6s are for sale...

Aside from the F100 being so fragile (broken diopter or meter switch anyone?), one of the things I really prefer about the F6 is that it can hold the AE lock as long as you want. With the F100 it cancels after one shot.

We talked about this many times before. I do not use any camera as a hammer, so I have never in over 60 years had such a problem. You may want to trade in your extra thumbs for fingers.

 

[Charles Escott-New]

A mint Canon Eos 55, 28-90 kit lens, 17mm Vivitar series 1 and a faded Lambretta shoulder bag all for under £100 , and a set up that gave me a lot of fun and decent, for me, photos. The best build in this price range surely is the F90x, with a lens ,for under £100. The F80 is excellent and the F100 is superb, but Mr. Glass, many careful owners have experienced the rear door problem with an age-expired plastic catch. In the main it is not their fault. Mr. Huss, we are lucky to own the F6, I had to sell my F5 to finance the deal and my old camera was the real pro machine but the F6 will be with me to the end.

 

[ColdEye]

Just get a Minolta AF, so you can use the AF with your digital bodies. What matters are the lenses anyways. F100 is nice, not as amazing as it is hyped up to be. I use mt F5 more. With a sling strap the weight is a non issue.