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.
Cheap lenses
- Thread starter NikonN8
- Start date
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.
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.
