bargain SLR lenses at bargain prices

[gypsymoth]

www.ritzcamera.com has the following "Factory Re-Freshed" lenses for Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax mounts. Link

Quantaray - 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Hight Speed AF Lens - $39.95

Quantaray - 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 High Speed AF Lens - $49.95

Quantaray - 100-300mm F4.5-6.7 Zoom AF Lens - $49.95

Quantaray - 70-210mm f/4.0-5.6 Zoom MF Lens - $49.95

Chieh

 

[DigDug]

Is quantary any good?

 

[ROTC1983]

I would be interested...but like digdug said, is Quantary any good?

 

[TwiceOver]

Originally posted by: gypsymoth

Quantaray - 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 High Speed AF Lens - $49.95

Quantaray - 100-300mm F4.5-6.7 Zoom AF Lens - $49.95

Chieh

Neither of these seem to be available for Minolta Cameras (Only choice for the 100-300)... Bummer, I'd at least check it out if one of them were in stock.

 

[dew042]

generally -- any lense that is f4 and above is not going to be a good lens. most variable aperature lenses are junky to begin with. quantaray has pretty poor record for lens quality.... dew

 

[shekondar]

Originally posted by: DigDug
Is quantary any good?

NO!
Just check any photography forum - the overwhelming opinion is that Quantaray == CRAP.

 

[shekondar]

Originally posted by: dew042
generally -- any lense that is f4 and above is not going to be a good lens. most variable aperature lenses are junky to begin with.

I think you mean variable focal length... almost all lenses are variable aperture. There are many good F4 lenses, and there are many good variable focal length lenses. But, some are better than others, and most pros will tell you that fixed focal length is better than zoom. And, going up to faster (i.e. F 2.8) lenses generally gets you better quality.

quantaray has pretty poor record for lens quality.... dew

This is true...

 

[ROTC1983]

cool, thanks everyone

 

[dew042]

Originally posted by: shekondar

Originally posted by: dew042
generally -- any lense that is f4 and above is not going to be a good lens. most variable aperature lenses are junky to begin with.

I think you mean variable focal length... almost all lenses are variable aperture. There are many good F4 lenses, and there are many good variable focal length lenses. But, some are better than others, and most pros will tell you that fixed focal length is better than zoom. And, going up to faster (i.e. F 2.8) lenses generally gets you better quality.

quantaray has pretty poor record for lens quality.... dew

This is true...

no -- i do mean variable aperature, ie: f4 on the wide end and 5.6 on long. a sign of a lens that has had some thought put into its design and function is a constant f stop through its zoom range. as with any lens the only way to judge a lenses' quality is to use it and test it out, but i wouldn't touch these for anything.

rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

dew.

 

[IBuyUFO]

If you want quality then look somewhere else, but if you settle for ok then Quantaray is for you. These lenses are not the best and may not take tack sharp pictures in the middle and long end but they'll do the job if you're not critical of quality. I bought one of these, paid $200 new and wished I had saved that money for an OEM lens.

 

[Woozle]

Originally posted by: dew042

Originally posted by: shekondar

Originally posted by: dew042
generally -- any lense that is f4 and above is not going to be a good lens. most variable aperature lenses are junky to begin with.

I think you mean variable focal length... almost all lenses are variable aperture. There are many good F4 lenses, and there are many good variable focal length lenses. But, some are better than others, and most pros will tell you that fixed focal length is better than zoom. And, going up to faster (i.e. F 2.8) lenses generally gets you better quality.

quantaray has pretty poor record for lens quality.... dew

This is true...

no -- i do mean variable aperature, ie: f4 on the wide end and 5.6 on long. a sign of a lens that has had some thought put into its design and function is a constant f stop through its zoom range. as with any lens the only way to judge a lenses' quality is to use it and test it out, but i wouldn't touch these for anything.

rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

dew.

You might be right about the constant F stop through the zoom range but the maximum possible aperature will always be greater at the wide angle end than the telephoto end of the zoom. The only way they can be equal is if the lense elements and body increase in diameter at the telephoto end, which isn't possible.

 

[shekondar]

Originally posted by: dew042
rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

An amusing quote from over on dpreview.com:

I read an interesting story the other day...

An amateur photographer was invited to dinner with friends and took along a few pictures to show the hostess. She looked at the photos and commented "These are very good! You must have a good camera."

He didn't make any comment, but, as he was leaving to go home he said "That was a really delicious meal! You must have some very good pots."

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Woozle

Originally posted by: dew042

Originally posted by: shekondar

Originally posted by: dew042
generally -- any lense that is f4 and above is not going to be a good lens. most variable aperature lenses are junky to begin with.

I think you mean variable focal length... almost all lenses are variable aperture. There are many good F4 lenses, and there are many good variable focal length lenses. But, some are better than others, and most pros will tell you that fixed focal length is better than zoom. And, going up to faster (i.e. F 2.8) lenses generally gets you better quality.

quantaray has pretty poor record for lens quality.... dew

This is true...

no -- i do mean variable aperature, ie: f4 on the wide end and 5.6 on long. a sign of a lens that has had some thought put into its design and function is a constant f stop through its zoom range. as with any lens the only way to judge a lenses' quality is to use it and test it out, but i wouldn't touch these for anything.

rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

dew.

You might be right about the constant F stop through the zoom range but the maximum possible aperature will always be greater at the wide angle end than the telephoto end of the zoom. The only way they can be equal is if the lense elements and body increase in diameter at the telephoto end, which isn't possible.

Not so at all. Many good zoom lenses have a constant aperture.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: shekondar

Originally posted by: dew042
rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

An amusing quote from over on dpreview.com:

I read an interesting story the other day...

An amateur photographer was invited to dinner with friends and took along a few pictures to show the hostess. She looked at the photos and commented "These are very good! You must have a good camera."

He didn't make any comment, but, as he was leaving to go home he said "That was a really delicious meal! You must have some very good pots."

this is true in mostly everything...sports... especially..its the skill before the equipment...id say 95% skill 5% equipment.

 

[discopalace]

If you are at least advanced enough to look at additional lenses for your SLR, I would suggest hanging out at some photo forums like photo.net or photographyreview.com. They often have several reviews of specific lenses, as well as sample shots taken from the lenses.

As for the non-constant max aperture recommendation, the problem is that you have to shell out a few bucks to get everything you want. Someone who is not that serious should certainly consider investing in an inexpensive all-purpose zoom. No, it won't be ideal, but would you care enough?

When I first bought my camera, I went with the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Looking back, the lens wasn't great, but it surely kept me entertained enough that I was sure I wanted to become a more serious photographer and invest more money into it. There was no way I could justify spending $500+ on a lens when I was just beginning.

If you are looking for a third-party manufacturer, consider Sigma or Tamron. They seem to make some decent lenses. Some are better than others, of course. And they won't compete well against the higher-quality lenses from the OEMs (at the higher price ranges). I read some good reviews on the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX, for example.

Here's another story for you all: Quite a few people have been awed by the size of the camera I have brought along. I have this large 72mm wide-zoom lens. They always say something to the effect of "Wow, that is a huge camera - it must really nice!" I wanted to tell them that my tiny prime lens is a much nicer lens than that zoom... Perhaps it's not the size that really counts, though chicks dig it anyways?

 

[dew042]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: shekondar

Originally posted by: dew042
rule of thumb -- the glass you put in front of the camera body should be a lot higher quality, and thus more expensive than your camera body itself -- since its really what creates the image.

An amusing quote from over on dpreview.com:

I read an interesting story the other day...

An amateur photographer was invited to dinner with friends and took along a few pictures to show the hostess. She looked at the photos and commented "These are very good! You must have a good camera."

He didn't make any comment, but, as he was leaving to go home he said "That was a really delicious meal! You must have some very good pots."

this is true in mostly everything...sports... especially..its the skill before the equipment...id say 95% skill 5% equipment.

well -- i'd say that's a load of crap. a crappy lense with a very talented photographer perhaps will result in a interesting image -- but it will be low contrast, have barrel distortion, have major vignetting and lack sharpness. equipement is very important. so is skill and technique. a technically and artistically sound image relies on a many, many variables.

long story short -- extremely cheap lenses are a waste of money.

dew.