Cheap Lenses, why is it.

Oscar1 · 02-19-2010, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Because lenses are what is between the sensor and the subject at the moment of exposure.
They should be chosen somewhat with care, and should be of good quality if one wants consistently good results.
The camera body is far less important than the lens unless some particular feature trumps all.

Ding, Ding, Ding, We have a winner.

reeftool · 02-19-2010, 10:11 AM

Cheap doesn't always mean bad. When I bought my K10D, it was a "cheap" body compared to similar features on the competition. Maybe the word "less expensive" is much more in order. There have been some very inexpensive lenses made through the years that have turned out to be real jewels and some rather high priced models that were mediocre. Most of us would agree that the lens is much more important than the camera body. The lens is the "eye", so to speak. That said, we all know that photography can become an expensive hobby so any chance to save a little is welcome. The nice thing that we have in modern times is that in forums like this, we can see posted shots and the comments from owners and get a very good idea of how a particular lens performs.

Finn · 02-19-2010, 10:34 AM

A $25 Super-Takumar 50/1.4 is hardly out of its class sitting on a $1000 K-7. And some of my favorite shots were taken with an FA 31/1.8 on an old K1000.

And that Toyota 4cyl will go 250k mi -- how about that Ferrari?

Cost often has little to do with inherent quality.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cheap lenses?	wizzard	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-18-2009 10:44 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM
Cheap lenses.	magnum1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	12-30-2007 02:14 PM
cheap lenses vs expensive lenses	WMBP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	12-19-2006 11:08 AM

02-19-2010, 10:01 AM	#16
Oscar1 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 231 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield Because lenses are what is between the sensor and the subject at the moment of exposure. They should be chosen somewhat with care, and should be of good quality if one wants consistently good results. The camera body is far less important than the lens unless some particular feature trumps all. Ding, Ding, Ding, We have a winner.

02-19-2010, 10:11 AM	#17
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	Cheap doesn't always mean bad. When I bought my K10D, it was a "cheap" body compared to similar features on the competition. Maybe the word "less expensive" is much more in order. There have been some very inexpensive lenses made through the years that have turned out to be real jewels and some rather high priced models that were mediocre. Most of us would agree that the lens is much more important than the camera body. The lens is the "eye", so to speak. That said, we all know that photography can become an expensive hobby so any chance to save a little is welcome. The nice thing that we have in modern times is that in forums like this, we can see posted shots and the comments from owners and get a very good idea of how a particular lens performs.

02-19-2010, 10:34 AM	#18
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	A $25 Super-Takumar 50/1.4 is hardly out of its class sitting on a $1000 K-7. And some of my favorite shots were taken with an FA 31/1.8 on an old K1000. And that Toyota 4cyl will go 250k mi -- how about that Ferrari? Cost often has little to do with inherent quality.