[kh1234567890]

The M135/3.5 is a non-expensive gem too, mine was GBP39 in original box.

+1

But you'd paid over the odds

[robjmitchell]

I'm Going to say the 43ltd!
Best pixie dust to price ratio of any lens ever made!

[crewl1]

Best value for me means cheap, great IQ and useful on the DSLR with minimal effort.
That points to the Pentax A series 50mm f1.7.
For even less the A 50 f2.0 is just a touch behind in wide open sharpness but steps right up at f2.8 and beyond.
Really any of the A era 50mm kit lenses from any manufacturer are great.

[hjoseph7]

16-45mm ! This was my first lens so I may be partial. I purchased it on eBay for less than $250. I was expecting to be disappointed, but this lens performs well at all apertures and focal lengths and covers a significant amount of territory. Of course when pixel peeping, I did notice that my 35mm limited which I purchased later, was sharper across the frame meaning corners, but for every day shooting (not too contrasty) especially out of my car window, this zoom does the trick.

---

Last edited by hjoseph7; 11-11-2014 at 06:03 AM.

[schnitzer79]

best bang for buck is probably the F35-70 ($20-$30)

[Ikarus]

best bang for buck is probably the F35-70 ($20-$30)

True, that! However, I have one and almost never use it, mostly because it's a bit slow and doesn't cover much ground in both short and long direction relative to the fast 50 that's always with me anyway. Out of all the <100$ bargain lenses I have (stopped counting at about a dozen or so), the one getting the most use by far is the Super-Takumar 50/1.4, so that gets my vote.

I just saw that I had already posted to this thread in 2011 endorsing the DA-L 55-300mm. I still stand by that, if $100 is not the limit.

[schnitzer79]

True, that! However, I have one and almost never use it, mostly because it's a bit slow and doesn't cover much ground in both short and long direction relative to the fast 50 that's always with me anyway. Out of all the <100$ bargain lenses I have (stopped counting at about a dozen or so), the one getting the most use by far is the Super-Takumar 50/1.4, so that gets my vote.

I just saw that I had already posted to this thread in 2011 endorsing the DA-L 55-300mm. I still stand by that, if $100 is not the limit.

you might have a point there actually but I think its a great street lens. also true for the 55-300 (DAL version). it dropped dramatically after the HD version was released and its a fantastic lens.

[hidden_au]

What are your opinions on the BEST value for money Pentax lens?

Probably the 16-45 can be had brand new for AUD $249 atm or the DA 50/1.8

[HYS]

I think that many Pentax lense could be labeled as "best value".

[Dangermouse]

I'm going to throw something unexpected in:

The Takumar-A 28mm f2.8

Yes, I know the Takumar Bayonet lenses are not well thought of, but the 28mm prime isn't bad by any means. They're clones of the later Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 and the A series version of the same lens, just with simpler coatings. Thanks to the reputation the rest of the range brought (and there were some horrors, like the 28-80mm zoom) they go for a lot less than an M or A series lens. Use a hood and they're very capable lenses.

I understand that the 135mm f2.8 isn't too shabby either, but it seems hard to find.

[ivanvernon]

For sharpness and rendering, I cannot imagine a better value than my M50 1.7 especially since I paid only $15.00 for it.

[Mr Bassie]

There are loads of takumars you can get for very little money but my favorite cheap lens I use is my Helios 44.

[ivanvernon]

There are loads of takumars you can get for very little money but my favorite cheap lens I use is my Helios 44.

I have to agree because I love my Helios 44K-4 58 mm f 1.2. The problem is that I paid $45 for it plus freight, insead of only $15 for the Pentax 50-M f 1.7. If the question was, which is your best cheap lens, the Helios would be my winner too.