El-Cheapo Lens - Test Results

Destin

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
1,377
Location
Western New York
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I posted a thread a while back looking for an old, cheap, general purpose zoom to use while backpacking to save weight over my 24-70. I ended up picking up a Nikon 28-80 af-d for about $25 shipped to my door.

It arrived two days ago and my first impressions were that it felt extremely cheap and fragile. I didn't have high hopes for it's performance, to say the least. Photo of the lens below; sorry about the poor quality but I don't have the lens with my at the moment to get a better shot.

Lens Photo by Destin Danser, on Flickr

I wanted to test it out, so I went hiking to check out some waterfalls. I left every other lens home and took nothing but a tripod, this lens, and my D810.

Surprisingly enough, I'm extremely satisfied with the results of this lens. Is it as sharp or easy to use as my modern professional lenses? Absolutely not. Will it give me acceptable images to share with family and social media from my backpacking trips? Definitely. And it's saving me about 2 pounds out of my back, which is a huge amount in the backpacking world.

To me, this is a reassurance that it's the photographer and not the equipment being used.

Here are three waterfall shots I took with the lens yesterday:

1.)
Excelsior Glen by Destin Danser, on Flickr

2.)
Eagle Cliff Falls by Destin Danser, on Flickr

3.)
Taughannock Falls by Destin Danser, on Flickr
 
Pretty darn respectable. I'm guessing they might not hold up to pixel-peeping, but for screen display? More than satisfactory.
 
Yup....I've been using one since around 2006...surprisingly decent, especially where I shoot it, which is at f/7.1 or f/8, most often with flash...
 
Destin,

If you do a lot of hiking, have you thought about going down to a lighter FX body (D7xx or D6xx) or a smaller sensor size camera? A lighter FX body + 28-80 would be even lighter than your D810 + 28-80.

I was thinking similar, to get the bulk and weight down, of dropping down from my D7200 to a D5600 or D3400 + the small 18-55 lens. But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
 
Great images with solid technique and composition. Lens is doing its job well and you'll be happier with the lighter weight! I travel ultralight with a Fuji x100t, fixed focal lens and no tripod. Can I take every picture I could with a complete kit? Absolutely not! But I take more pics within the camera capabilities because the camera is always there.

Good job, thanks for sharing your experience
 
Destin,

If you do a lot of hiking, have you thought about going down to a lighter FX body (D7xx or D6xx) or a smaller sensor size camera? A lighter FX body + 28-80 would be even lighter than your D810 + 28-80.

If I buy another body to hike with it’ll be a mirrorless setup from Fuji. But that just isn’t in the budget right now.

Also, the motivating factor behind many of my hiking trips is the awesome locations I can get for landscape photography that many others won’t bother going to.. and I want my professional landscape body there with me to take those images. The 28-80 will be used for action shots my myself and my friends on the trail as well as general shots of camp, signs, etc. I’d use my iPhone for this, but I tend to prefer the longer focal length for many of these images. I’ll also be carrying a 20mm 1.8 lens for wide angle landscapes and astrophotography, and I’m still looking for a high quality telephoto lens that’s light enough to carry while providing solid image quality.. I’m definitely not carrying my 70-200 on these trips.
 
But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
I think the best decision I made was to buy an Oly EM1. With the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, it's weather resistant, so I have no qualms about taking it out in the rain or near water/snow/sand/etc (to a certain degree, of course). Their travel-friendly 14-150 f/variable zoom is even weather resistant with the body, which is awesome. That 12-40 f/2.8 is super sharp, though. Well worth it.
 
But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
I think the best decision I made was to buy an Oly EM1. With the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, it's weather resistant, so I have no qualms about taking it out in the rain or near water/snow/sand/etc (to a certain degree, of course). Their travel-friendly 14-150 f/variable zoom is even weather resistant with the body, which is awesome. That 12-40 f/2.8 is super sharp, though. Well worth it.

How does it do in low light? For astrophotography I need/want really good low light performance.
 
But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
I think the best decision I made was to buy an Oly EM1. With the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, it's weather resistant, so I have no qualms about taking it out in the rain or near water/snow/sand/etc (to a certain degree, of course). Their travel-friendly 14-150 f/variable zoom is even weather resistant with the body, which is awesome. That 12-40 f/2.8 is super sharp, though. Well worth it.

How does it do in low light? For astrophotography I need/want really good low light performance.
First, I quite like the images you took with the "cheap" lens! Very nice!

Second, I didn't really mean to derail this thread. But since you've asked: low light is pretty darn good, especially hand-held. The IBIS is great.

Some people have been able to get several seconds of handheld shots, but I can't do that. Handheld at 1/15 of a second and still sharp:
Capital Tour-25 by Wade, on Flickr

I've never taken any astrophotography, but from what I've seen, it has great performance for both landscape and deep space. A couple examples of both below, neither of my work.

Astrophotography:
Camping under the stars

Deep space:
Orionnebel (M42)
 
Destin,

If you do a lot of hiking, have you thought about going down to a lighter FX body (D7xx or D6xx) or a smaller sensor size camera? A lighter FX body + 28-80 would be even lighter than your D810 + 28-80.

If I buy another body to hike with it’ll be a mirrorless setup from Fuji. But that just isn’t in the budget right now.

Also, the motivating factor behind many of my hiking trips is the awesome locations I can get for landscape photography that many others won’t bother going to.. and I want my professional landscape body there with me to take those images. The 28-80 will be used for action shots my myself and my friends on the trail as well as general shots of camp, signs, etc. I’d use my iPhone for this, but I tend to prefer the longer focal length for many of these images. I’ll also be carrying a 20mm 1.8 lens for wide angle landscapes and astrophotography, and I’m still looking for a high quality telephoto lens that’s light enough to carry while providing solid image quality.. I’m definitely not carrying my 70-200 on these trips.

A simple prime tele would be my choice for keeping the weight down.
Like the old Nikon 135mm f/3.5 or 200mm f/4, or the 75-150 E.
Too bad there isn't a pool of GOOD 3rd party lens companies that there used to be.

(edit, all 3 suggested lenses are manual lenses)
 
Last edited:
But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
I think the best decision I made was to buy an Oly EM1. With the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, it's weather resistant, so I have no qualms about taking it out in the rain or near water/snow/sand/etc (to a certain degree, of course). Their travel-friendly 14-150 f/variable zoom is even weather resistant with the body, which is awesome. That 12-40 f/2.8 is super sharp, though. Well worth it.

Right now I'm trying to keep the m43 size and weight down, or I might as well carry the DX camera, hence I'm looking at the 12-60 f/3.5-5.6. Otherwise, the 12-100 f/4 would be a very attractive GP lens, which I still may get one of these days.
 
But then, I decided to go down even further to a micro 4/3 camera, where I could use lens with a wider zoom range and still keep the weight and size down. So I got an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1 + getting a Panasonic 12-60 (16-80 DX equiv, 24-120 FX equiv). This kit is just bit lighter than the D3400 + 18-55, and the zoom has a wider range. Granted 16MP on the Olympus vs. 24MP on the D3400.
I think the best decision I made was to buy an Oly EM1. With the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, it's weather resistant, so I have no qualms about taking it out in the rain or near water/snow/sand/etc (to a certain degree, of course). Their travel-friendly 14-150 f/variable zoom is even weather resistant with the body, which is awesome. That 12-40 f/2.8 is super sharp, though. Well worth it.

Right now I'm trying to keep the m43 size and weight down, or I might as well carry the DX camera, hence I'm looking at the 12-60 f/3.5-5.6. Otherwise, the 12-100 f/4 would be a very attractive GP lens, which I still may get one of these days.
Makes sense. In the sole case of reducing strictly for size/weight, it'd probably be better to step down to the EM5.2 or even the EM10.2.

That 12-100... I'm going to get it one day.
 
I posted a thread a while back looking for an old, cheap, general purpose zoom to use while backpacking to save weight over my 24-70. I ended up picking up a Nikon 28-80 af-d for about $25 shipped to my door.

It arrived two days ago and my first impressions were that it felt extremely cheap and fragile. I didn't have high hopes for it's performance, to say the least. Photo of the lens below; sorry about the poor quality but I don't have the lens with my at the moment to get a better shot.

Lens Photo by Destin Danser, on Flickr

I wanted to test it out, so I went hiking to check out some waterfalls. I left every other lens home and took nothing but a tripod, this lens, and my D810.

Surprisingly enough, I'm extremely satisfied with the results of this lens. Is it as sharp or easy to use as my modern professional lenses? Absolutely not. Will it give me acceptable images to share with family and social media from my backpacking trips? Definitely. And it's saving me about 2 pounds out of my back, which is a huge amount in the backpacking world.

To me, this is a reassurance that it's the photographer and not the equipment being used.

Here are three waterfall shots I took with the lens yesterday:

1.)
Excelsior Glen by Destin Danser, on Flickr

2.)
Eagle Cliff Falls by Destin Danser, on Flickr

3.)
Taughannock Falls by Destin Danser, on Flickr

Hmmmmm... nope. Not doing it for me. Sorry, I don't care for the photos.

However, if you would have told me this was a thousand dollar lens, I would have liked the images very much!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top