I need cheap Pro Lenses

khphoto

I currently shoot occasional portraits, car photography, sometimes landscape and sports. Currently I have a Nikon d90 and Nikon d5000, SB-600, 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6 VR, 55-200mm f 4-5.6 VR, 50mm f 1.8, and a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8.

i wanted to get maybe a Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8, or a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (a push-pull or two ring older model) or even cheaper a Nikon 70-210mm f4 . (money is tight right now)

I want to get a Nikon 28mm f 2.8 prime but not sure if I should get that one or another

I want to get a shorter telephoto something like the Tokina 11-16 f 2.8 or a Sigma 17-50mm f 2.8 or a Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8, unless there is a cheaper alternative older Nikon lens within this range.

gabbott66

So what are you trying to accomplish with a new lens that you can't get done with your existing lens? It's hard to give advice without knowing what the specific usage for a new lens might be.

The only thing on your list of subject matter that really requires a f/2.8 lens is sports, IMHO. And the wide angle f/2.8's you list as possible alternatives don't make sense for sports shooting.

donaldejose

"Cheap pro lenses?" That is tough. You can get a generation or two older used Nikon pro glass for about one fourth to one half the price of the current version. You can get third party "pro" glass for about half the price of Nikon's current version. But most likely you will not have the "best" of the pro glass because each new version offers slight improvements. Look at the older lens tests to find good quality glass. I have and old 80-200 f2.8 and an old 35-70 f2.8 which still produce very sharp images. I have the new 70-200 f4 which is very good as long as you don't really need f2.8 because of low light. Since you already have the 50mm f1.8 and 35-70 f2.8 you might want to first add an 80-200 f2.8 (get the newer two ring model) for sports and portraits or add the new 70-200 f4 if you feel you won't need to shoot at f2.8. Both of those are cheap pro image quality lenses.

shawnino

"I need cheap Pro Lenses."
I need to lose 50 pounds and stop going bald.
I like your odds better than mine, but only slightly.

Of the ones you mention, I've shot the following on DX:
Nikon 80-200mm 2.8: I got pretty good results. I didn't need VR, and it served me well. I ended up getting rid of it to go mostly-primes.
Nikon 28mm 2.8: I got results I wasn't happy with. Ordinarily I chalk this up to my crap technique, but I go pretty well with the 20mm 2.8, which I like, and it jumped to FX with me.

If you're fairly happy with your 35-70 and wanted to hold it, something you might consider is the Tokina 16-28. I don't own that one but I rather wish I did sometimes. I tested it on FX, it's very good, and on DX it's going to be great too (and can always be complimented by the 11-16 you mention).

framer

A cheap top pro quality 28mm f2.8 could be an old 28mm f2.8 AIS version. Yes it manual but I'd put it up against any other out there.

The 80-200 f2.8 AFd is also a great lens.

framer

macsavageg4

I am gonna chime in with my view on the "cheap" pro lenses. The best "cheap" pro lens is going to be a "broken" pro lens. Now I put it that way because there are various grades of things being "broken" my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF had a very small spot of fungus in it when I got it for really cheap from Adorama. Fixing it involved removing the front element and cleaning it then bathing it in a nice UV light for a night. I have that as a backup to my other "broken" 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D that had a gummed up AF screw drive system. After a partial tear down of the AF screw drive system it has been working great ever since. I still haven't gotten any AF-S lenses to sort out yet but I know eventually here I will.

So if you are able to track the information on how to tear down a lens and are brave enough you can get some really really good glass for next to nothing provided you can sort out whatever is wrong with it. I have been kicking around flipping some of this nice older pro glass but have been to busy taking pics with what I have. So that is my 2 cents on the concept of "cheap" pro lenses.

donaldejose

Great idea if you have the skill to fix problems.

Msmoto

"Cheap pro lenses" is an oxymoron...

Gitzo

I agree with you on that Msmoto;
khphoto; You're making a couple of basic mistakes here; you're seeking help from others with more experience, but you still haven't determined (in your own mind), exactly what you A. want, or B. need
until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to really help you. I will never "tell" someone WHAT they need, but I will help anyone try to find what they are looking for, after THEY have determined what it is they want / need.
I can also give good advice about what I have experience with;

The Nikkor 80-200 mm /f 2.8 AF ED My advice is; forget the Tamron; go with the Nikkor Now; that lens was built in two "flavors" with a focus motor, and without a motor; obviously, the model without the motor is less; (a lot less in fact) Your D 90 has a built in motor, so you need not get the one with a motor. the lens is a TANK ! it's quite heavy, it built like a Hummer, it focuses fast, and it's quite sharp; it was built before Nikon even thought about offering VR; ( so if you need to take a lot of dimly lit photos at 1/10 sec, plan on a HEAVY DUTY tripod. I think it's great that Mac (up above) has the skill and ability to repair lenses; I still do my own brakes and oil changes, but I have yet to tear a lens down; (fortunately, I haven't needed to YET) (Can't rule it out though, but I would advise against it to most people ); (not all, just "most")
If you are really determined to own this lens, and you go about it right, you should be able to score one on eBay for no more than $450. I know, it's a lot of money; it's also a lot of lens. I suggest buying one in pristine condition; (which usually takes a bit longer) ( the "door stop" models you can find immediately)
If you really apply yourself and spend some time at it, you may even get as "lucky" as i did when I bought my 80-200; the seller left a fabulous 77mm Heliopan brass circular polarizer on the front end; I even emailed him and tried to return the polarizer, but he insisted I keep it. (and people would stone me if I mentioned what I gave for it)

BTW; I'm fully aware off the fact that Nikon has long since come out with the 70-200/ 2.8, then the VR model of that, and so on and so on. I'm also aware that a careful, knowledgeable "worker" can produce photos with the "ancient" 80-200 /f 2.8 that no one on this forum can distinguish from one made with the newest model 70-200; ( and have far less invested in the necessary hardware ) (hey, I'm lucky......when I started taking pictures, lenses had no automatic apertures, auto-focus was only discussed in sic-fi books, and even "match-needle" exposure was still "on the horizon" ; as a matter of fact, 35mm SLRs hadn't "come out" yet ! Be very glad you decided to "go with Nikon"; there are thousands of old Canon shooters still harboring a closet full of EXCELLENT Canon FD lenses; (which make groovy paperweights, because that's all they're good for since Canon came out with EOS lenses ); ( while Nikonians are still taking great pics with glass that was 20 yrs old when Canon switched over to digital and EOS. ( I love to spring that story on a room full of unsuspecting Canonites !)

macsavageg4

BTW; I'm fully aware off the fact that Nikon has long since come out with the 70-200/ 2.8, then the VR model of that, and so on and so on. I'm also aware that a careful, knowledgeable "worker" can produce photos with the "ancient" 80-200 /f 2.8 that no one on this forum can distinguish from one made with the newest model 70-200; ( and have far less invested in the necessary hardware ) (hey, I'm lucky......when I started taking pictures, lenses had no automatic apertures, auto-focus was only discussed in sic-fi books, and even "match-needle" exposure was still "on the horizon" ; as a matter of fact, 35mm SLRs hadn't "come out" yet ! Be very glad you decided to "go with Nikon"; there are thousands of old Canon shooters still harboring a closet full of EXCELLENT Canon FD lenses; (which make groovy paperweights, because that's all they're good for since Canon came out with EOS lenses ); ( while Nikonians are still taking great pics with glass that was 20 yrs old when Canon switched over to digital and EOS. ( I love to spring that story on a room full of unsuspecting Canonites !)

Was the main reason I actually wanted to shoot Nikon. Back in Oct. I shot a bunch of cool stuff at the Houston space center with a lens from the same period as the Apollo stuff they had on display on my D800. My avatar on here is a picture of a Nikon F built for NASA with a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 built for Nasa. I took that picture with a 55mm f/1.2 (use to be fungal infected worse lens I have ever cleaned with for the level of infection) built in the same year set. I also finally fully figured out how distance scales work while working in low light that day. Anyway yeah the massive year span such an awesome thing that is really nice about the Nikon system.

sevencrossing

If you are happy with Manual exposure and manual focus. There are some superb Professional Lens on e bay;
for example;
Nikon's best ever portrait lens, the beautiful 105 f2.5 can be had for under £100
or a 200mm f4 for £166
the excellent 28mm f 2.8 is going to be over £200

for cheap professional lens I would forget zooms

NSXTypeR

If you are happy with Manual exposure and manual focus. There are some superb Professional Lens on e bay;
for example;
Nikon's best ever portrait lens, the beautiful 105 f2.5 can be had for under £100
or a 200mm f4 for £166
the excellent 28mm f 2.8 is going to be over £200

for cheap professional lens I would forget zooms

That 28mm 2.8 is going for $539 at B and H.

I kind of want one...

I fell in love with MF lenses after using the 50mm 1.2 on the D7000.

Don't we all want cheap pro lenses? Your best bet would be to find well used examples.

adamz

for cheap good quality tele You have only one choice: N70-300 vr

Tabazan

Cheap AND pro ? Ha, ha, ha ...
The "I want it all and I want it for free" syndrom ?

Are you cheap or are you pro is the right question !

Sorry but if you want pro gear, become a pro, work and try to make a living. If you just want cheap gear, you don't need no advice.

Nothing personnal. Just angry.

Msmoto

OK, I do remember way back in the 1960's...on my "F" I had a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor and wanted some reach. So a Soligor 3X extender...made it an f/12.5 900mm lens which I shot handheld. It was cheap, now about $25 used. And, the image was soft.

Sometimes the actual content is more important than the quality. Not every image is composed, focused, and exposed perfectly. In our purchase of equipment, and in our development of our photographic skills, we pass through many phases. At times we think we can find the very best equipment and not spend a lot of money. Occasionally this might be true in the used equipment. But, most often we have to spend the money to get the goods.

And, even the very best photographers will publish photos which are not perfect, but the content supports the publication of the image.

proudgeek

A lot of the rental places sell their pro lenses used, at a decent discount. You can pretty much count on the fact that they've been handled with less than perfect care, but you can also count on the fact that they've been maintained well. We're not talking dirt cheap, but you could save a few bucks here and there.

donaldejose

"Cheap and Pro" don't have to be in conflict, if you replace the word "cheap" with "less expensive." Just go back a generation or two in the pro gear and you will find much less expensive prices and still great optics. For example, the current 24-70 f2.8 costs about $1,700. The prior generation 28-70 f2.8 used costs about $1,200. The prior generation 35-70 f2.8 costs about $500.

heartyfisher

yeah i have one of those 35-70 F2.8.. its a great portrait lens on DX cameras .. on FX ( i still use film ! ) its a very nice 35mm landscape lens .. sharp as ! and i found it in a corner of dinky old camera shop and offered 150 for it ! :-) .. there was a 70 - 200 VR in another shop for less than 1000.. but i missed out .. :-(

taken with that 35-70 :-)

shadowlands

I bought a used, clean 17-55 F2.8 for $800.00, and a used, clean 80-200 F2.8 (two ring) for $700.00.
Love 'em both!!!!

Cankere

Hi, guys who are in love with the photography world! I know this thread is old but I'll add just some thoughts to share my experience with you. Maybe, it'll be helpful for somebody someday.

Pro lenses are so damn good, and they're very likely to easily outlast the camera body. And quality optics really are not that cheap. Polishing, preparation, design of the elements .... and some people wonder why compacts don't tend to give SLR type results.

And you don't have to buy from Canon/Nikon/etc., you can easily buy from Tamron or Sigma:

So far I've resisted the expensive lenses, just making do with a 50mm F1.8 (which is gorgeous) and a 28-300 Tamrom that I picked up on holiday (when my 18-70 died).

The old mantra 'camera bodies come and go but lenses stay with you for life': https://getawaychief.com/lenses-for-sports-photography-nikon/

This unless you shoot Canon, where it seems every new body requires a different mount!

Sigma does an awesome 10-20mm wide angle for not very much cash:

I also have this one.

retread

I have the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 and the sigma 17-50 2.8. Very good lenses for the money. The only DX lenses in my every day kit. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is also said to be good but I went for a little more reach to overlap the 17-50.

Pistnbroke

Everyone is pussy footing about ..you need a new camera ..a pro lens on a d90..? If you hope to sell any of this stuff you need to upgrade. Bit like putting alloy wheels on a car that has a leaking radiator.

I been caught out again a 2013 post Arrrgh

spraynpray

LOL!

FreezeAction