Gizmodo's List of "Budget" Lenses

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://gizmodo.com/5707140/the-best-budget-camera-lenses' target='_blank'>http://gizmodo.com/5707140/the-best...t-camera-lenses</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"If you're shopping for a new lens of some sort, you've come to just the right place. Here's ThePhoblographer's list of the best lenses you can get your hands on without breaking the bank."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1291746006.usr15670.jpg" /></p><p><em>Defnitely a budget lens: Nikkor DX AF-S 35mm f/1.8G</em></p><p>Alright, I know it's hard to write articles (else I'd do some more myself), but I wish some writers would write more for their target audience than for themselves. While some of the lenses in the list are indeed budget (normal lenses are usually not expensive), they're all prime lenses. I'm thinking a general techblog on this topic should include some budget but quality zooms in the list (Tamron's 17-50 comes to mind). Also, when going through the list, note that there's no distinction between the use of the lens on APS-C-sized and 35mm-sized sensors for Nikon and Canon systems. There's no mention of other systems, but hey, I guess they don't count in today's market.</p><p>And really, the Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D? The neutered version from the manual focus version that drops two elements and CRC (Close Range Correction System) is hardly what I call legendary. Budget certainly, but not my favourite wide angle Nikkor, which is hardly wide once you mount it on a DX camera; see my point on not making distinctions on sensor sizes when discussing lenses.</p>

[Jason Dunn]

Ridiculous article - the author clearly has an overriding love for prime lenses and name brand lenses. No mention of Tokina, Tamron, or Sigma in a budget article shows huge bias.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

There is *one* Sigma; but only because Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds lenses are stupid expensive (I can rant all day about why a 20/1.7 is so expensive compared to a 50/1.8).

[ptyork]

Definitely a silly set of lenses to include in your "budget" grouping. 'Course the whole concept of "budget" is subjective, anyway. Should have been defined. I'd think that the article would be targeting those who get a <$1000 crop sensor cameras for Christmas and want to start a list of "must have" lenses. I mean, do you really care about budget lenses if you're shooting on a $2500+ full frame body?

Regardless, completely ignoring zooms and a plethora of good third party-lenses is inexcusable. At least when you try and sell yourself as writing an article about budget lenses presumably for the typical DSLR consumer. Heck, some of the third-party lenses that are considered perennial budget favorites for the crop cameras (like the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8) don't even have close name brand equivalents.

So there's a challenge for you Yuan. Put together a REAL list of bargain lenses and post it for us. I know I'd value your expert opinion on the matter.