[Auzzie-Phoenix]

I'm not good at writing very coherently these days, but I'm going to give a try at making a guide for us broke people out there (here goes for better or worse... lol):

I'll admit it... when it comes to just about anything, I'm a cheapskate... (i'd use another term but don't wanna be on the wrong side of the forum rules about profanity). As much as I'd LOVE to be able to waste my savings on things that cost several hundred to several thousands of dollars, I just can't justify those types of expenses due to my paygrade and the whole reason I'm saving money in the first place (liberation from the state of PA). This leads to being cheap not just as a policy, but out of necessity. Enough whining. Now we get to the real meat of the post, how to help others with similar finances construct a cheap as hell, yet effective photography kit that leaves few gaps in the kit's overall focal ranges.

The first order of business to get out of the way is to determine what is "cheap". To some people out there a $700 lens would be considered a steal given it's focal range, pedigree, condition, etc.... That is not even remotely cheap for this discussion. Try instead thinking sub $200 or better yet, sub $100. That was just an example. When deciding on a dslr camera, I did over 3 months of research on camera models and pricing. The stark reality was that I could only afford about $600 at a maximum which put me in the range of about 3 current models between canikon and pentax. Well pentax won out due to features and capability over canikon, the pricing was icing on the cake. The biggest draw was the ability to use old glass. This becomes quite a prominent feature of the discussion as old glass is where we're saving the most money. With that said, let's take a look at the most basic principles of building the kit...

1.) What do I primarily want to photograph?
2.) What is my budget (or lack thereof) like?
3.) I'm a cheapskate.

This in and of itself mirrors the principle of building a computer. Build for the necessities, anything else is a bonus, do it as cheap as possible while retaining acceptable quality/reliability. Since I'm the one writing the OP of the discussion on this, I'm using my own kit as an example. The answers to the above principles are as follows:

1.) Landscapes and astroscapes w/occasional wildlife.
2.) Barebones... at most $250 in any given month if I spread it out between paychecks.
3.) I'm the cheapest person I know.

Now... I purchased the basic K-50 kit which gave me the body and a starter lens. This started my kit and established my basic platform. The kit lens is good for general shooting, but wasn't suited very well to principle #1 of my self assessment. It is good for adverse conditions though, so always good to keep around and is definitely no slouch. I may not use it much, but I'd never get rid of it. The kit cost me 2.25 months worth of disposable discretionary spending, fortunately of which I had been saving during my camera research. After that purchase I also realized that I needed certain accessories. Which the principles are a simple what do I need vs what do I have onhand/available to me scenario. The key principles would look like this list below:

1.) What do I absolutely need?
2.) What do I have on-hand/available to me?
3.) What falls into the "nice to have" category?
4.) Can I jury-rig substitutes?

What is #4? If you've spent any amount of time looking at the mini-challenges subforum, you might have seen a thread I started for repurposing items to use with your kit, which evolved from idea #4 over time after getting my photo kit initial setup done. The answers I came up with to these 4 principles or criteria are below:

1.) Camera bag, spare battery pack, tripod, lens cleaning cloths.
2.) Tripod stored in closet that nobody ever uses.
3.) Shoe mount flash, remote control, AA adapter, filter kits, lens hood.
4.) Yes I can.

Now to the main points. The above was just me using an example and setting up principles you should ask yourself. Hopefully the theme you caught onto was "What do I want to do, what do I absolutely need, and how much can I afford if I'm broke as hell...". After all, the biggest thing you need to have when building a cheap kit is self assessment of your situation. Let's get to the actual list of basics. I'm going to assume from this point on that whoever is reading this has already purchased a camera body or a kit so that we can skip the discussion of cheap body good glass, or kit vs body only, etc... I am also going to assume that the reader has already determined what areas they want to focus on most for their subject materials in terms of what they want to shoot.

Lenses:

If you want a fairly cheap kit, you're gong to be looking at older glass and nothing at either extremes of the focal length scale. Super zooms/super tele primes cost an arm and leg, old or new... the same goes for ultrawides and anything with a motor in it. Rather than randomly throwing your money at every cheap lens you spot from every manufacturer under the sun, focus on lenses for your desired subject matter first and foremost, then look up reviews for the lenses you see. Once you have an idea of which lenses you want, devote quite a bit of time to bargain hunting for the glass on auction sites, local equivalents of craigslist, trader's guides, donation stores like goodwill/salvation army, and any applicable photo equipment retailers such as the site sponsors KEH, Adorama, or B&H. BE PICKY! Find the best glass samples you can find at the lowest prices... read the descriptions and look at the pictures with a discerning eye trying to spot haze, fungus, mold, discrepencies vs description, etc... Do not shy away from manual lenses, as these will usually cost less unless they have some sort of collector's allure to them. As an example of this, I managed to find a 50mm f/1.4 super takumar 7 element lens in excellent condition as a buy it now listing on ebay for $60 when others were selling for $80+. If you are patient you will find deals, and patience is the biggest factor in doing so. If you are on a very tight budget, try to keep your lens spending to under $90 per lens, and don't buy a lot of lenses at once. The more common a lens is, the better chances that it will cost less as well (example: 28mm f/2.8 can be had between $30-50 depending on brand, mount, rarity, reviews, etc...). Need a long zoom? consider an older model of the current lens.... (example: sigma DL 75-300 is regarded well and cheap, sigma 70-300 dg apo is more expensive and seems to get less favorable reviews at times... both cost less than $150, but the DL would be approx. $60-75).

Accessories:

Most utilitarian accessories are fairly cheap to begin with, especially off-brand ones that aren't made by your camera manufacturer. Just determine what you actually need immediately or if it's something you can make due without or make a substitute from things onhand or using supplies that are cheaper than the accessories you are looking at. Accessories meant for protection of lenses or equipment should be listed more towards priority needs (extra lenscaps, body caps, lens pouches, etc...).

Maintenance:

DO NOT SKIMP ON MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES. Make sure you have a blower, some microfiber cloths, and a lenspen or lens brush. Finding budget friendly tools and supplies is fine, but don't go without. Also, keep the little silica packs from everything else you buy around in a container and put a few into your camera bag and lens pouches to fight mold and fungus growth caused by humidity. You get those packets free in just about everything sold, so think of them as an added bonus when you buy something.

Now that I've outlined basic advice let's see how it translates to my basic kit as an example:

1.) What do I want to take pictures of? (astrolandscapes, landscapes, and occasional wildlife)- This translated into 2 lenses and a tripod at first (kit lens not included). (28mm f/2.8 Pentax-M cost USD $37, Sigma DL macro zoom 75-300mm f/4-5.6 cost $69, tripod had one stored in closet, but bought one with more features... initial cost- free later cost $49). Estimated total: $106 (shipping/tax not included)- basic setup. $155 - after new tripod.

2.) What accessories do I need? (this translated to camera bag- cost about $20-30 usd, larger memory cards- I had had several smaller ones lying around but bought new 16gb cards on sale for less than $9 each x4 about $36 usd total, basic cleaning- microfiber cloths at first.. came free with spare battery pack and used canned air to in place of a blower, spare battery- $10 for generic non-pentax). Estimated total: (factoring high on camera bag @ $30 usd) $76.

The grand total of my basic kit (camera not included in pricing): $182 usd before new tripod. $231 after new tripod.

By tailoring the kit to what I wanted to do, I saved quite a bit of money in the long run. I could have spent a small fortune on lenses and accessories if I hadn't taken the time to think about needs vs wants and find the cheapest solution to my goal.

Suppose you only want to take general pictures and some wildlife with your kit.... what happens then? The kit lens covers your narrow to mid range focal lengths, so just add a cheap zoom like a 55-200 or a 75-300. Find a decently regarded zoom with similar or same focal lengths, and find the best bargain you can. Tailoring the kit isn't hard to do. I did list general rules of thumb for categories above, there are pros and cons always. Being cheap can both be good and bad in a way, it's just a matter of what you're willing to sacrifice or put up with.

Lenses Pros:

Can get nice or at least acceptable glass for cheap.

Lenses Cons:

Cheap always has a cost: extra weight, cosmetic imperfections, sluggish aperture, outright mold covered, potential for getting a non-functioning lens (if you get a bad seller or don't read the description properly), lacking features that newer lenses might have such as autofocus, etc... - These are all examples.

Accessories Pros:

You can find some really good accessories cheap.

Accessories Cons:

In the case of batteries you might not get equivalent use time compared to manufacturer branded ones.
Accessories might not be fully compatible (lens hoods, filters, etc...)

With healthy amounts of patience and due diligence you can put together a cheap photography kit without destroying your bank account. The best part is that you can always expand your kit over time. It is possible, photography isn't only for the rich, you too can be a cheapskate and still get some decent results. With some innovation, you can repurpose items into things that you would normally have to pay much more for that would serve the same purpose. This will also save you plenty of cash at the expense of some time and some materials. And with drive, you can bring it all together and then go out and take plenty of nice pictures with your affordably priced budget kit.

Thanks for reading my rambling even if half of it doesn't make sense or sounds too self-centered. Also, yes... my writing isn't very good anymore and the personal examples in the first half are probably considered confusing/slightly irrelevant, sorry about that.

Please feel free to add to this, but be mindful of the target audience and theme of the discussion. For an example, this is hopefully a guide on building a super cheap kit... don't go suggesting someone buy a $350+ zoom (ie- the 18-135 wr) just because it fits several focal ranges, when one or 2 much, much cheaper lenses (sub $90 each) would fill the void easily at the expense of having to swap the lenses out on the body (convenience/inconvenience factors).

[redcat]

very useful information, thanks for sharing your epxerience

[LensBeginner]

Interesting read-up.
I'd rather not use "canned air" (both from a can and a compressor) because of the risk of blowing too strongly and/or spraying propellant/oil over the lens/sensor.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece about why photography really doesn't have to be an expensive hobby. Here's what's in my usual Dartmoor walk-around bag:

Samsung GX-10 version of the K10D: £119 ($182)
Zenitar 16mm/2.8: £69 ($105)
Super Takumar 20mm/4.5: £169 ($258)
SMC Takumar 35mm/3.5: £35 ($53)
Super Takumar 55mm/2.0: £29 ($44)
Sekonic L-308S: £99 ($151)

I own other lenses for low light and telephoto shooting, but that's my standard walk-around kit. The Super Takumar 20mm has been my most expensive single purchase and is worth every penny.

What are the limitations? There's no autofocus, obviously, but I don't feel any need for that. And the K10D clone gets too noisy above ISO800, although I rarely need to go that high. 10 megapixels is enough for any print size I'm likely to make, and the colours from the CCD sensor at ISO100 are just glorious.

Would I like to be shooting with a K-3 and a set of limiteds? Of course I would. But that's not going to happen, and the fact is that I derive enormous satisfaction from getting the results I get with the equipment I own. There's no better feeling than having a Canon 5Diii owner complimenting you for one of your prints, then watching his face fall when you tell him it was shot with a second-hand Pentax and a 40 year old lens.

[ChristianRock]

My entire Pentax setup is worth less than 1000 dollars.

K20D w/kit lens - 200
K-r body - 150 (is what I paid for it last year - might be worth 200 I guess)
P30T body - 25 (in pretty good shape, everything works well)
Rikenon 28mm 2.8 - 20 (badly dented filter ring)
Rikenon 50mm 1.4 - 30 (dented filter ring, barrel shows heavy use)
Auto Sears 50mm 1.7 - 30 (good very good condition)
Pentax K 55mm f2 - 30 (actually paid 24 dollars for it at KEH but it's probably worth a bit more, it was a BGN but it's in great condition)
Pentax DA 35 2.4 - 100 (it's been used a lot but glass looks great. bought it new for 180 in 2013)
Pentax M 50 1.7 - 20 (very heavily used, filter rubber band is loose, barrel was engraved)
Pentax A 70-210mm f4 - 50 (zoom creep)
Pentax A 135mm 2.8 - 100 (and 100 is probably a stretch for a lens nobody really wants these days, I've had it for sale on Craigslist for 100OBO and never had a single offer for it)
Tokina 19-35mm 3.5-4.5 - 100 (actually paid 90 but it was on special at KEH)
Tamron 70-300mm LD DI - 50 (plastic filter ring is broken off, that was my fault. bought it in EX condition for 80 dollars)
Pentax AF280T flash - 30
Zeikos AF585T flash - 60 (is what I paid for it, now it's probably worth nothing as it decides to fire at random)

Total worth 935 dollars. I actually paid less than that because the two A lenses and the AF280T were essentially freebies and the P30T cost me all of 12 dollars (with a lens I gave away and a flash I didn't even list here as it's probably worth 5 bucks - but it works! unlike my Zeikos I bought new...) Other freebies included a few camera bags and more filters than I need... and a couple broken film bodies.

So yeah it's possible to do photography on the cheap. In fact, if all I had was the K20D (150 dollars for a body these days) and the DA 35 2.4 (100 now used) I could still get great results for about 250 bucks. Even less if you use a K10D which is a magical camera.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Photography really doesn't have to cost what many people think it does and in fact a lot of times, it's just inflation. The 50mm f/1.4 super tak's are a prime example. The only reason they're so expensive is because people have been talking up "nifty fifties" and the m43/nex crowds can adapt old m42 mount lenses easily, so lens resellers bought up tons of them and started charging a hefty markup. I have no problems shooting with manual glass, in fact I actually prefer manual and turn off AF almost always. But as I said, patience is the key factor to finding gear cheap with some luck. You don't need the latest and greatest to get great shots. I saw the price on the new pentax superzoom... over $2k... yeah... nope... no way. This is exactly why lens manuf's aren't making sales vs old glass. The market isn't bearing the cost. Photographers with the type of disposable income to buy stuff like that keep the pricing high though. As with all things there is a limit to value retention, even with lenses.

Amateur studio photography is no different.... you can make backdrops out of cheap sheets, reflectors from umbrellas soft lights from old coffee cans with semi-clear white lids... etc. Portrait and macro are two areas of photography where you can really luck out with cheap setups due to repurposing items. It's great. The wealth of older model secondhand dslr's makes entry into the hobby even more affordable than ever as well.

CR, as for that zeikos flash unit, you're overlooking the easiest fix solution out there. Hand it to one of DeVRY's ET 2nd year course students and ask them to fix it for a few bucks.

[Richard F]

Some good advice and interesting comments here.
My first digital SLR was the K10D, but I waited until the K20D was on the dealers' shelves and watched as the prices of the K10 fell. Next on my wish list was the K30, it took quite a while for the price to drop after the K50 but my patience was rewarded. The only worry is that all the old stock might be sold before I pounced with the money in my hot little hand.

Regards,
Richard F.

[ChristianRock]

CR, as for that zeikos flash unit, you're overlooking the easiest fix solution out there. Hand it to one of DeVRY's ET 2nd year course students and ask them to fix it for a few bucks.

A few bucks would probably get me another AF280T

But that might be an option, I should look into that.

[clackers]

Refreshing antidote, this gear thread, to all the 'latest and greatest' ones.

Prices have gone up for the really good discontinued film lenses (FA24, K55 1.8, etc) as the upcoming full frame will use these very happily, but it leaves a lot of affordable legacy stuff.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Quite honestly, I find that I like the old super takumars the best.... they may not have the largest focal lengths, or the fastest apertures, or all the bells and whistles like AF or HD coatings, but the feel of them is superb if you get a good copy with no loose parts. That smooth buffered action, and the nice crisp aperture rings, and then there's the ability to go razor sharp or super dreamy in the same lens. And who's going to argue an SMC M 28/2.8 as someone's first astro lens? It's incredibly cheap and hard to beat without spending a fortune. On top of that, most people seem to dismiss the 18-55 WR kit without giving it much of shot. If you look in the kit lens club thread, some of the images are outright amazing. The kit is definitely an understated lens.

Earlier this week I lost a bid on a lens on ebay... I read the reviews for it, and they weren't that forgiving. The lens in question was a NOS Sigma 135mm f/2.8 pan-tele or something like that. The reviews say it loses all IQ wide open, but someone with the right attitude could play around with it and possibly come up with some sort of use for that dreamy look or find the lens' actual strengths. As it is, it's a good thing I lost that auction, because I found a super tak 200 f/4 nice and cheap and snapped it up on buy it now. One of the big problems that people face when they start shooting is that they're bombarded with all this information stating X lens would be perfect for almost everything and that lens ends up being some $500-800 monstrosity, but nobody tells them about the lenses that came before that are similar quality for much less.

The biggest hurdle to get over is sticker shock. Once you assemble a cheap kit and realize that you can eventually expand it or go after the more expensive stuff you're good. After all, the most important thing isn't planning to shoot or dreaming about shooting, it's actually getting out there to shoot. If you get bogged down in gear reviews and planning that "perfect" kit, you'll spend all your time at the computer not shooting. Like the advice I give people about fishing, "you can't catch if you don't cast". Helps get my co-workers out from behind their computers and off to the lake if I say it enough. Someone on the forum has stated previously that our current gear is better than a lot of the stuff the pros were using years ago. Then there's the other saying that the best camera is the one you have with you at any given moment. Both of these are great sayings and they can't be stated enough.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Quite honestly, I find that I like the old super takumars the best....

Same here. There's something about the rendering of Super Takumars that suits my own needs perfectly. They tend to give a more analog, film-like look that's exactly what I'm aiming for. Sometimes the later SMC lenses are almost too contrasty for my taste.

The truth is that pretty much any camera or lens can produce good results if you work within its limitations. The trick to low-budget photography is to learn what your equipment can and can't do, and then to make sure that you work with its strengths rather than its weaknesses. The advantage of expensive high-end equipment is that it has more strengths and fewer weaknesses, so that you can get good results in a wider range of situations. But a legacy prime lens on an older model Pentax DSLR is still a combination that can produce high quality results.

A person wanting to learn photography on the lowest possible budget could start out with a K10D plus a legacy 28mm or 35mm prime for a total of not much more than $200. And that person would learn more about technique by being forced to shoot manually, and learn it faster, than they ever would with the latest camera set to full auto.

[ChristianRock]

Same here. There's something about the rendering of Super Takumars that suits my own needs perfectly. They tend to give a more analog, film-like look that's exactly what I'm aiming for. Sometimes the later SMC lenses are almost too contrasty for my taste.

I completely agree, and that is why I love a lens that is, I believe, the definition of quality on the cheap... the DA 35 2.4. It's as sharp as any Pentax prime, but people with Limited lenses frown on it because, basically, the colors aren't quite as rich, and it's not quite as contrasty... in comparison with, say, the DA 35 2.8 Limited or the FA 43 Limited, the difference is quite obvious. But I - and this is just me personally - prefer the plastic fantastic look. The others - to me - are just too contrasty. Especially the 43 - when I see a picture taken with it on film, it's impressive but it also doesn't even look natural to me. When I see a picture of the DA 35 2.4 on film, I think, this is the best lens out there - period. It reminds me of the Takumars in its look.

A person wanting to learn photography on the lowest possible budget could start out with a K10D plus a legacy 28mm or 35mm prime for a total of not much more than $200. And that person would learn more about technique by being forced to shoot manually, and learn it faster, than they ever would with the latest camera set to full auto.

Which is what I said earlier, and also what I did... by the time I added the DA 35 2.4 and a couple other AF lenses, I had already used manual lenses to the point that shooting in manual felt natural. Up to that point, all I had was the kit lens and its results were pretty lame compared to my manual Pentax lenses I had at the time, even ones that weren't as good and I ended up getting rid of. Like, for example, the Takumar (K-mount) 70-200mm f4 non-SMC lens. It's actually a pretty decent lens, I sold it for 15 bucks when I got the A 70-210 f4 which just happens to be superb for my type of shooting. But it was a cool little lens and its pictures had a nice look. It was even decently sharp wide open!

[Lowell Goudge]

for me, it is all about the glass. I have LBA, OK i admit it, but over time, i have picked up a great assortment of M42 lenses. I use this as an example because at last count, my M42 collection cost me about $1400.

So what does $1400 get you (or perhaps what did it get me, because no one can guarantee the price of used lenses)

16mm F2,8 Zenitar Fisheye
24mm F2.5 Tamron Adaptall II
28mm F2.5 Vivitar
35mm F2.0 SMC Takumar
50mm F1.4 Super Takumar (8 element version)
50mm F4.0 SMC- Macro-Takumar
55mm F1.8 Super Takumar
55mmF2.0 SMC Takumar
58mm F2 Helios M44-2
85mm F1.9 Super takumar
90mmF2.5 Tamron Adaptall II Macro
105mmF2.8 Vernon Edonar (preset)
135mmF2.8 Tele Lentar (preset)
135mmF3.5 SMC Takumar
135mmF3.5 Super Takumar
180mmF3.5 Tele Tokina (Preset)
200mmF3.5 Takumar (preset)
200mm F4 SMC Takumar
200mmF4.5 Tele Coligon (preset)
300mmF4.5 Nikkor H Modified to M42

So for the price of one high end zoom, you can have a whole kit of lenses. Clearly i could "cull the herd" a little but i think the point is pretty clear. you dont need a lot of money to have reasonable lenses. Note that the biggest areas where new lenses have an advantage over legacy lenses are, a) control of CA, b) control of purple fringing, although many of these lenses do not seem to exhibit this problem, and c) contrast, due to better coatings, although a good hood can go a long way.

note that except for the 85/1.9 ($200) and the zenitar 16mm fishere (which i bought new at $175) there is not a single lens on this list that cost more than $100

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

That's a nice list there Lowell. I just added a super tak 200/f4 in EX+ condition to my lineup for $45 this week, so I'm itching to try it out (just arrived 30 min ago... woke up when someone brought it upstairs).

[Lowell Goudge]

That's a nice list there Lowell. I just added a super tak 200/f4 in EX+ condition to my lineup for $45 this week, so I'm itching to try it out (just arrived 30 min ago... woke up when someone brought it upstairs).

Having shot both it and the takumar 200/3.5, I believe the 200/3.5 is the better lens. Less CA sharper and faster, plus. I like the way presets work using AV mode. It is much easier to move the aperture ring when mounted on the front of the lens, as opposed to moving the A/M switch or stopping down with a rear aperture ring on the super tak. Just a personal preference.

In addition, the round aperture of the preset has much nicer Out of focus rendering than that of the super tak