Not my best lens, but I got an Industar 61 LD for 5 euros. It's a pretty decent lens, quite sharp if you stop it down and has some interesting colour rendition.
What's the best cheap lens you've bought?
-
A
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Nikkor50mm f/1.8 Eseries for €35; a steal.
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 longnose for $90
The 50mm f/1.8 Series E is an inexpensive expendable lens that produces high quality images.
I paid $45usd for it in 2010.
50mm Series E on left by Narsuitus, on Flickr
I paid $45usd for it in 2010.
50mm Series E on left by Narsuitus, on Flickr
If you shoot rangefinders, the Leica Summars can be had for good prices. I had one that had lots of fog and haze, so it was sent off to Focal Point Optics to be cleaned. $100 later (this was some time ago) it came back, and it was one of the sharpest lenses I'd ever owned, with lots of character, and sometimes even 3D.I
I think Summars got a bad reputation for being soft and dreamy from lenses that had haze. In reality, they're one of the better lenses that Leica ever made, and that's saying something.
I think Summars got a bad reputation for being soft and dreamy from lenses that had haze. In reality, they're one of the better lenses that Leica ever made, and that's saying something.
OP
OP
Shhhh. Someone will hear you and the asking prices will double!
Maybe not. They're the red headed stepchild of Leica's family. Everyone wants a Summicron or Summilux, while the poor little Summar sits over there on the side, probably screwed onto some crummy Zorki, or worse, a fake Voigtlander Bessa R, w/ it's crude aperture settings and teeny tiny optics. I mean, how could such a little lens be any good? NO one at Starbucks will be impressed, so why buy a Leica lens?
OP
OP
I saw a local CL listing titled "Bag of Pentax" for super cheap. You can tell from the plastic shopping bag presentation just how cheap . . .
Untitled by Les DMess, on Flickr
In it were crumbling lens cases containing the following lenses . . . as well as a Pentax K1000SE and MX.
Untitled by Les DMess, on Flickr
So cheap, I wasn't even sure the lenses were worth using but I ran a few rolls of Kodak Gold 100 and turns out they were all very good except for the "Focal" and that tall no-name zoom.
So my curiosity was piqued and I ran a roll of Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol through them and was not surprised to see just how high resolving they were. In fact I can't tell which component was the weak link was it the lens, the film, my setup or the test target I used.
Untitled by Les DMess, on FlickrIn it were crumbling lens cases containing the following lenses . . . as well as a Pentax K1000SE and MX.
Untitled by Les DMess, on FlickrSo cheap, I wasn't even sure the lenses were worth using but I ran a few rolls of Kodak Gold 100 and turns out they were all very good except for the "Focal" and that tall no-name zoom.
So my curiosity was piqued and I ran a roll of Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Technidol through them and was not surprised to see just how high resolving they were. In fact I can't tell which component was the weak link was it the lens, the film, my setup or the test target I used.
Cheap is very hard to quantify.
One that can be consistently had very cheap, is the Auto Chinon 50 1.7.
Just beautiful rounded rendering with some wonderfully Oof rendering.
When it’s in good condition, mechanically it’s also swell.
Some say it’s the same lens on the Electro 35.
One that can be consistently had very cheap, is the Auto Chinon 50 1.7.
Just beautiful rounded rendering with some wonderfully Oof rendering.
When it’s in good condition, mechanically it’s also swell.
Some say it’s the same lens on the Electro 35.
Got a 50 Summicron M for free from a friend!
I paid about $8 for a later version Nikon 50/1.8 Series E in 2017. It's been a great lens for me.
Would that mean it's made by Yashica? I have to say, I am slightly worried about that my Chinon 50 1.7 is actually the radioactive Yashinon 50 1.7, it has a quite distinct golden coating (Thorium?). I know some folk here are happy to live with radioactive lenses, but I personally would rather avoid as much exposure as possible
If that's an M42 or Nikon AI or pre-AI, I'd happily store it safely for you. I already have a radioactive Super Takumar 50/1.4, I can put them on the same shelf.
Seriously, though, the amount of radiation from a thorium glass lens isn't anything to worry about if you don't a) crush and snort the thorium element, b) sleep with the lens (off the camera) next to your head for decades, or c) use the lens as a loupe several hours a day for years.
Check out these pages regarding radioactive lens and the different radioactive particles: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses and https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basi...01/what-are-different-types-of-radiation.html
Yea, thorium oxide lens isn't that bad unless you are putting it directly next to your eye. It does not emit gamma particle which is the most dangerous one. Like Donald said, unless you're sleeping with it you shouldn't have to worry about anything. Since the thorium oxide part of the lens is in the opposite direction of the camera viewfinder, it should be safe enough for usage.
There is more radiation from smoke detectors and CRTs and sun flares on earth, than there is on with a radioactive element lens.
It’s absolutely harmless.
Even more so, the bulk of the radiation is alpha (helium nuclei), and the camera and lens structures do a fine job of blocking that. After several years or decades of decay, you can also get some beta (electrons) and gamma (very high energy electromagnetic radiation, like X-rays on PCP), but the levels of those in thorium decay products (and the amount or thorium originally present in the glass) are low enough to be no significant hazard. If you had significant gamma, it would fog your film...
As I said, I understand people's opinion on radiation may be different, but I personally would rather avoid exposure as much as possible. I do own some radioactive lenses, therefore the less I own the better. Just wanted to clarify though, on a quick search, an Am-241 smoke detector appears to give a dose to a normal home owner of 10-50 nSv in a year. A single Yashica lens, at around 1 meter, and according to camerapedia, is 762 nSv in just one hour.
Quick edit: I just realised that is probably not fair to compare different radiation sources since they may decay differently etc. and the type of emmisions may be different. But as a biologist, I think people should be a bit more aware of trying to minimise radiation sources to the minimum when possible. There is a very good video on the topic on Simon's utak channel on youtube, nevertheless I don't think we should stray away from the topic of this post too much.
Last edited:
NanoSeiverts. That's a billionth of a Seivert, US industrial annual "safe" dose is 50 milliSeiverts per year, about a million times what the smoke detector produces, or ~7000 hours of exposure to that lens (you probably spend most of your day much more than 1 meter from it, so you're getting a lot less 762 nSv/hr on average). FWIW, natural background radiation (the irreducible minimum dose) runs as low as 1.5 mSv per year, or up to about that maximum industrial safe dose of 50 mSv per year.
I have a 7-element 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar lens that I like because the radioactivity creates a built-in yellow filter.
However, even though I know the level of radioactivity is extremely low, I will not sleep with that lens like I sometimes do with my other lenses.
However, even though I know the level of radioactivity is extremely low, I will not sleep with that lens like I sometimes do with my other lenses.
Speaking of radioactive thorium lens, does anyone know how the yellowness affect the wavelengths? Like, does it function similar to a yellow filter by blocking off certain wavelength and if so to what extent?
I'm curious because I want to shoot a roll of EIR with my Olypmus Zuiko 55m f1.2 and am not sure if this yellowness of the lens can place the need for a yellow filter (I just got an orange filter too so not sure if this can lead to some "stacking" effect with the filter).
I'm curious because I want to shoot a roll of EIR with my Olypmus Zuiko 55m f1.2 and am not sure if this yellowness of the lens can place the need for a yellow filter (I just got an orange filter too so not sure if this can lead to some "stacking" effect with the filter).
If one reads the post as - best value for lens purchased? I would assume the OP is soliciting comments on lenses that any one here could shop for currently and purchase themselves, rather than the buy of a lifetime or something gifted.
With that said:
Several here have mentioned Takumars and I would agree.
I would also add OM Zuikos. The appeal of either is that they are not LARGE like Canon/Nikon optics.
A 100f2.8 OM or 135f3.5 are really quite tiny and for $40-80 would seem excellent value (with NO fungus / haze). easily adapted if so desired to mirrorless digicams.
If left long enough fungus will eat into the coating and be impossible to remedy. sort of like dirt/grease left too long on a digicam sensor.
With that said:
Several here have mentioned Takumars and I would agree.
I would also add OM Zuikos. The appeal of either is that they are not LARGE like Canon/Nikon optics.
A 100f2.8 OM or 135f3.5 are really quite tiny and for $40-80 would seem excellent value (with NO fungus / haze). easily adapted if so desired to mirrorless digicams.
If left long enough fungus will eat into the coating and be impossible to remedy. sort of like dirt/grease left too long on a digicam sensor.
The yellow coating on your OM lens will have no effect on any film. For infrared a dark Orange filter will suffice.
More on EIR:
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/227029-kodak-eir-a-roll-of-film-no-amount-of-piggies-can-buy
Thanks, I was going into the rabbit hole of online posts/videos saying how they saw some yellow tint when shooting slide films. Gonna give it a go with the orange filter in the future when I have more time.
There is yellowing of the glass itself that occurs in thoriated elements -- it's apparently caused by the alpha particles knocking atoms out of their place in the glass. Fortunately, it's corrected by prolonged exposure to high levels of UV -- in the case of my own Super Takumar, I wrapped the back end of the lens in aluminum foil (to provide a reflective surface as well as protect the rear element) and left it on a windowsill that received partial day direct sun for, as I recall, about three weeks. The yellowing was greatly reduced. It has never had any visible effect on either B&W or color photographs -- in the case of B&W, it would at most act like a mild yellow filter, and for color, it would be easily corrected out during printing or scanning. I don't recall every shooting chromes with that lens, but those would tend to pick up a mild cast.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |