Originally posted by davids8560 As the original poster, I want to clarify that the question "what is your best lens" was meant to be taken at face value. What is your best lens?
In my case it is the 16-45 f/4. It's certainly not the greatest lens, it's not a limited star HD super-duper lens. But I think for the moment it is the best lens I've got.
Now, I just took delivery of a couple of M primes, plus a M42 Super Takumar 55 f/2, IIRC. I still have to learn how to use them, because I'm a newbie, as they say.
But from what you guys have told me, and from what I'm now beginning to understand, it might turn out that one of these old primes I just bought may in fact be better built and have better optics than the 16-45. One of them may in fact be my new best lens. I dunno yet! But ironically, none of them cost me more than $50! Given my budget I'm doing my best to get the best quality optics I can find within my means.
So I guess that's why I asked. I wanted to try and figure the best optics I could aim for in an overall sense. And you guys gave me plenty to think about!
So! What is your best lens?
Best built, best performer, as the case may be.
And that's it! No right or wrong answer.
Which of your lenses belongs front and center in your starting line-up, however rich or humble?
Incidentally, yesterday I received the basic DA L 55-300 I got in very slightly used condition for $125 off eBay. I took a few pictures with it. I'm happy. It doesn't have the metal mount etc but I think it'll do just fine for now! The Great Elders around here have assured me it's just as good in most respects as its big brothers.
Also, I'm bidding on Vivitar Series 1 135 f/3.5.
I got that idea from you guys.
PS the eBay lens seller I got the primes from says I can use them with my Sony NEX too, with an adapter. Anybody know what the adapter model number or whatever is, by any chance? And is it a good idea to use them with a Sony too?
��
If you've got pretty much any pentax or other major-brand lens from before the mostly-plastic era, it's going to feel better-built than the plastic-bodied lenses today. But it might not have (any)MC, and just not be that great a design. So really you have two separate questions - better-performing, and better-built.
I once had a bunch of SMC Takumar primes, and probably they were better-performing than the zooms that replaced them, although in the film era that was much,much more difficult for a typical user like me to evaluate. But they didn't always fill the frame, so the overall net performance of the zooms seemed as good.
I've enjoyed my 16-45 too, but I wouldn't put it in the best-built category, given the barrel wobble (and more fringing than I'd like, in terms of the performance category, although overall performance seems very good, when not affected by the wobble.) If it could be de-wobbled, it would definitely pick up a few points, and the range (on the bottom end) is very useful.