What's the best cheap lens you've bought?

[Horatio]

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.

Best value for the least spent is what I was getting at.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

My interest in this topic is in regards to lenses that were made to be cheap in the first place -- lenses that sold new for, say $50, and perform well beyond their price-point. The Nikon 50mm E-Series and 28-80 f3.3-5.6 G come to mind.

Then there are the high performing lenses that may have sold new for a lot of money but are now all over ebay for pennies on the dollar. M42 lenses fit this category (or used to).

The 'buy of a lifetime' $5 thrift store Summicron is interesting in the 'How lucky can you get?' vein, but they are not really cheap lenses that the rest of us can buy everyday at that price.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

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.

Thanks for the explanation Donald, I'll give the EIR a go in the near future. So far I've shot it with a Wratten 12 filter on my LX and the images were way too blue so that's why I'm gonna try it with an orange filter.

 

[drkhalsa]

An Ugly Nikkor 28mm f3.5 Ai'd for $16 plus shipping from KEH.

 

[Helge]

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.

The lens is incased in metal on five sides. Put a metal cap on the front if you are worried.
The alpha and beta radiation is very easily stopped, by just about any case.
And the square law of course also applies.

Smoke detectors are in living areas and radiate into free space.

 

[darkosaric]

I picked up one of these recently for $30. It’s mounted to my N2000. Small world!

the N2000 is among the best street cameras.

Same here, with 100mm E series as well, not just 50mm .
Am I the only one that thinks that F301 (N2000) feels like a rangefinder camera? It is strange, I have many nikons, many range finders, and F301 "feels" like a range finder while using it on the street.

 

[abruzzi]

In 35mm, probably my Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 for $70. I really like that lens and the fact that it is not AI compatible (otherwise it would have been $300.)

in other formats, I got a $60 Fujinon 105mm f8 for large format, and it’s my favorite wide.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Smoke detectors are in living areas and radiate into free space.

Every smoke detector I've opened (to replace batteries) had the americium alpha source about 80% encased in metal (needs to have air circulation through the sensor cell), with the remainder still inside the plastic housing of the alarm unit. That should amount to about 95% or higher shielding for alpha. Hence the exposure from one being comparable to background in a low-background region.

 

[cullah]

Every smoke detector I've opened (to replace batteries) had the americium alpha source about 80% encased in metal (needs to have air circulation through the sensor cell), with the remainder still inside the plastic housing of the alarm unit. That should amount to about 95% or higher shielding for alpha. Hence the exposure from one being comparable to background in a low-background region.

Hello, All,
I bought or traded a truly beat-up Summar a while back. It was hazy and it is coated. I sent it off to Sherry Krauter who worked her magic and really cleaned it up. I tested the lens from f/2 to I think f/12.5. As others have mentioned at f/2 it was a soft image, perfect for portraits. Stopped down It is extremely sharp...razor sharp. What a suprise!

 

[Helge]

Every smoke detector I've opened (to replace batteries) had the americium alpha source about 80% encased in metal (needs to have air circulation through the sensor cell), with the remainder still inside the plastic housing of the alarm unit. That should amount to about 95% or higher shielding for alpha. Hence the exposure from one being comparable to background in a low-background region.

Exactly.
I’d still say there’s a higher chance of getting bad effects from alpha and beta radiation from a smoke detector than from a lens, in one way or another.
They are vented to air. And it is well know that they contain some “fun” stuff. So kids breaking up a bunch to make their own atomic pile, could get sick.
No one breaks open a lens voluntarily to use the elements.

 

[NB23]

Every smoke detector I've opened (to replace batteries) had the americium alpha source about 80% encased in metal (needs to have air circulation through the sensor cell), with the remainder still inside the plastic housing of the alarm unit. That should amount to about 95% or higher shielding for alpha. Hence the exposure from one being comparable to background in a low-background region.

ok please educate me. I have many smoke detectors all over the place, those things save lives and I have first hand experience. Can’t love those things enough.

There are 2 in my darkroom, one of them right near my forehead where I standat least 4 hours a day. Should I move it somewhere else?

And oooh! believe it or not, on my right side about 3 feet from my head at eye level there is a Aero-Ektar looking right at me, with its radioactive element. Haha this is crazy.

Speaking of which, the Aero-Ektar 178mm were widely available for 5-10$ some 10-15 years ago and before. I remember reading forums where that particular lens was despised... Now that was a bargain! I purchased my 2 copied in the 350$ range, which I do not consider a crazy deal, but a good deal nonetheless.

 

[juan]

Not 35mm, but I found a funky looking LF lens on eBay. It clearly had hand labeled f/stops scratched in to the shutter front. Seller specified that the shutter did not work. $15.50 including shipping.

it turned out to be a B&L Rapid Rectilinear triple convertible. I removed the little plate with the scratched on f/stops and turned it over. On the other side were the original factory US stops for all three focal lengths. I used it as a barrel lens for awhile, then sent it Grimes to have it mounted in a shutter.

 

[Helge]

ok please educate me. I have many smoke detectors all over the place, those things save lives and I have first hand experience. Can’t love those things enough.

There are 2 in my darkroom, one of them right near my forehead where I standat least 4 hours a day. Should I move it somewhere else?

And oooh! believe it or not, on my right side about 3 feet from my head at eye level there is a Aero-Ektar looking right at me, with its radioactive element. Haha this is crazy.

Speaking of which, the Aero-Ektar 178mm were widely available for 5-10$ some 10-15 years ago and before. I remember reading forums where that particular lens was despised... Now that was a bargain! I purchased my 2 copied in the 350$ range, which I do not consider a crazy deal, but a good deal nonetheless.

It’s incredibly unlikely that you’ll have bad effects from smoke detectors. Though they work best in areas with with ventilation and that connect two or more rooms. So directly above you in a place where you spent much time may not be optimal, apart from having a cosmic chance of giving you any kind of health problems.

Just turn the Ektar around or put a metal cap on it. Done.
Alpha and beta particles are stopped by very little material.

 

[NB23]

It’s incredibly unlikely that you’ll have bad effects from smoke detectors. Though they work best in areas with with ventilation and that connect two or more rooms. So directly above you in a place where you spent much time may not be optimal, apart from having a cosmic chance of giving you any kind of health problems.

Just turn the Ektar around or put a metal cap on it. Done.
Alpha and beta particles are stopped by very little material.

Thanks. For a moment I got scared I might have been living a dangerous life without even knowing it

 

[KinoGrafx]

I picked up an old Vivitar 28-70 f3.5-f4.8 manual zoom (nikon ai mount) for a few bucks and found it to be pleasantly “glowy” wide open, but razor sharp stopped down even 1 stop, plus it’s tiny and very lightweight. Vivitar also made a 2x tele-macro converter that turned an olympus 50 1.8 into an even sharper 100mm macro, don’t ask me how, but it worked great.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have many smoke detectors all over the place, those things save lives and I have first hand experience. Can’t love those things enough.

There are 2 in my darkroom, one of them right near my forehead where I standat least 4 hours a day. Should I move it somewhere else?

And oooh! believe it or not, on my right side about 3 feet from my head at eye level there is a Aero-Ektar looking right at me, with its radioactive element. Haha this is crazy.

The steel and plastic in the actual detector and housing of a smoke detector, plus the air in between, should be enough protection to bring the dose from a smoke detector, even directly above your darkroom sink or enlarger, down below background level.

And the Aero-Ektar is basically the same situation as the Super Takumar I have -- the lens structure itself blocks beta where it covers, and the glass of the thoriated element absorbs most of what it produces; only the outer couple millimeters of the front element would be of concern (I don't know which element in the Aero-Ektar has the thorium). Even then, a few feet of air brings the actual dose down to background level. If it worries you, store it in something -- even a shoe box -- and you'll block the rest of the beta from the thoriated element.

 

[Horatio]

I picked up an old Vivitar 28-70 f3.5-f4.8 manual zoom (nikon ai mount) for a few bucks and found it to be pleasantly “glowy” wide open, but razor sharp stopped down even 1 stop, plus it’s tiny and very lightweight. Vivitar also made a 2x tele-macro converter that turned an olympus 50 1.8 into an even sharper 100mm macro, don’t ask me how, but it worked great.

From what I've read some Vivitars are highly desirable now and their value has increased. I've yet to see any locally, but I'm looking.

 

[SilverShutter]

I picked up an old Vivitar 28-70 f3.5-f4.8 manual zoom (nikon ai mount) for a few bucks and found it to be pleasantly “glowy” wide open, but razor sharp stopped down even 1 stop, plus it’s tiny and very lightweight. Vivitar also made a 2x tele-macro converter that turned an olympus 50 1.8 into an even sharper 100mm macro, don’t ask me how, but it worked great.

I have that 28-70 in a Minolta branded version that came as a kit lens with an X-300. My copy was pretty terrible, I think it may have been damaged at some point. The overall feel of the lens was pretty crummy and the zoom ring was difficult to turn. I attempted to dissasemble it and to my shock the whole aperture system was filled with at least 20 tiny ball bearings holding it in place, never seen anythign like it, which obviously became disengaged and came flying and entered every crevice in the lens, including one that became stuck between the lens elements. Tried to put it back together and it won't focus to infinity at 70mm. Straight to the for parts bin it went.

 

[removedacct1]

I've acquired some spectacularly good lenses for a modest price, but my current favorite for 5x7 work is the Kodak Anastigmat 161mm f4.5 in a fully functional Supermatic shutter I bought recently for $45
Sample photograph made on Ilford FP4 (expired in 2008) with the Anastigmat mounted on my B&J Watson. Exposure was 1 second at f5.6

 

[xtolsniffer]

Tamron adaptall 28mm. Flares easily but super sharp and lovely warm rendition.

 

[albada]

I picked up an old Vivitar 28-70 f3.5-f4.8 manual zoom (nikon ai mount) for a few bucks and found it to be pleasantly “glowy” wide open, but razor sharp stopped down even 1 stop, plus it’s tiny and very lightweight. Vivitar also made a 2x tele-macro converter that turned an olympus 50 1.8 into an even sharper 100mm macro, don’t ask me how, but it worked great.

I have one of those Vivitar focusing macro teleconverters. It's much better than a typical cheap 3-element doubler; I'll guess it has 7 elements. And my test showed that it doubles a 50mm lens (making it a 100mm macro) with no perceptible loss of sharpness.

 

[ronwhit]

I have one of those Vivitar macro teleconverters in Canon Fd mount in the for sale classifieds if you are interested. Price is $25.00 plus shipping.
ronwhit

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Back when I started, I got a free hands-me-down Praktica L that would jam once every month or so, but it came with a lovely 50mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar for it, that I regret having sold when I switched systems.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Sample photograph made on Ilford FP4 (expired in 2008) with the Anastigmat mounted on my B&J Watson. Exposure was 1 second at f5.6

What a beautiful negative or print. Well done. And even exposed on "useless" out of date film.

 

[removedacct1]

What a beautiful negative or print. Well done. And even exposed on "useless" out of date film.

Thanks. There are some exceptionally fine lenses available, some of which can be had for a very modest sum. This was perhaps the best $45 I have spent in ages.