I've been shooting DX since I started using DSLRs because my budget didn't allow me to go FX. My original idea was to buy a Nikon DSLR so that I could use my old MF Nikkors, but that didn't work out well with the 1.5x crop factor and no metering prong on the D3x00 and D5x00 bodies.
Last year I got a Sony A7 and a dumb adapter for cheap. With them, I did get to resolve every one of those 24 million pixels as sharp as I never could on DX with the native lenses I had (even sans AA filter), but the RAW files weren't much better in noise and DR than those out of a D7200 or even a D5500 and worse the colors were a nightmare to handle, also native Sony AF lenses are crazy expensive, so I dumped that setup and carried on with DX.
Nowadays D600 bodies are finally being sold used with low shutter counts for about $600, the same price as a similarly used D7200 (which is in my opinion the best DX body in terms of IQ), so I bought one and it's now on its way. I want to again try to get some use out of my MF Nikkors on the D600 but I want to also buy some really nice and cheap AF lenses, that's how I found out that there is a plethora of really inexpensive but optically superb pre-AF-S lenses out there that don't seem to get much love nowadays but that should work perfectly fine mated to my "new" D600.
So for starters, since my widest MF Nikkor is the 24mm Ai and that's not wide enough for my taste, I bought a 20mm 2.8 (pre-D) AF, the cheapest UWA AF lens ($100, needs a CLA) out there which also happens to be "legendary" sharp. I'm also eyeing the 50mm 1.4D for conquering the dark, either an 85mm 1.8D or a Micro 105mm 2.8D for portraits, and the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for a walk around, do it all zoom. Each of these lenses can be bought in great shape for about $200 and each is a "legendary" (but mostly forgotten) lens on its own.
What do you think? What other "legendary" AF lenses being sold for $200 or less begging to see the daylight again do you recommend a cheapskate to buy?