Lenses are primordial, yet many photographers tend to attach mediocre entry-level zoom glasses on their camera when there are plenty of affordable quality lenses on the market. Here is a personal selection of some of the best optics that can be found under $300.
Jack of all trade master of none. That’s what I see on regular basis with many beginners who tend to spend most of their budget on a camera body to finally end up with an insipid kit lens. Entry level lenses are not necessarily bad but they are slow and don’t offer much creative options for the users. What’s the point of buying an interchangeable lens camera if you can’t play with depth of field and focal length?
I always recommend to spend less on the camera body and save this money to purchase a fun lens that opens new possibilities. There are plenty of options and a good lens doesn't necessarily have to be expensive. The basic but effective 50mm f/1.8 lens for Canon and Nikon only costs $130.
But even seasoned photographers don’t always need the ultimate lens. As a landscape photographer, I mainly use wide-angle focal but I sometimes need to shoot with a telephoto lens. Due to my limited use, I decided to go with the affordable Canon 70-300mm which produces great images despite the poor build quality and relatively slow auto-focus. But for my type of shooting style, I can live with that. Therefore, pricier is not always better. Nowadays most Sigma Art lenses perform much better than the native options. Some high-end lenses like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II are notoriously bad for the price.
Finally, the new Nikon Z and Canon R mount are so recent that there is no budget option available at this time and I don’t expect to see any change before at least one or two years as the two manufacturers are engaged in a race to figure out who has the largest… aperture despite ridiculous price tag and weight.
Please note that some of the prices indicated below are based on the ongoing rebate at B&H but these items are regularly on sales throughout the year. Finding them for less than $300 shouldn't be an issue.
Canon EF Mount (Full Frame and APS-C)
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Two great options for portrait photography.
Ultra small and light, this fun lens comes with a modern STM focus system and delivers sharp images. Great glass for video work, travel and street photography.
This lens came out in 1993 but she is still a classic. Small and cheap, the image tends to be on the soft side wide open but the dreamy look disappears when stopped down to f/2.8
This lens comes in two variants: the older and cheaper AF model, and the newer AF-S version which offers several upgrades. The economy photographer can safely purchase the AF one.
Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (AF) - $170
Dirt cheap telephoto lens for Nikon DX camera. It lacks image stabilization and the build quality is basic but this glass is priced accordingly.
A solid option for sports and nature photographers. Comes with auto-focus and image stabilization. The downside? This lens is slow at the long end of the zoom (f/6.3 at 200mm)
Canon EF and Nikon F Mount
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and Samyang 14mm f/2.8. Many third part manufacturer lenses are available for Canon and Nikon mounts.
When wide is not enough, this fisheye lens can cover an entire scene in a single shot. The Nikon version is more expensive than the Canon counterpart due to the implementation of a focus confirm chip.
Samyang 14mm Ultra Wide-Angle f/2.8 IF ED UMC (Manual) - $300
This rectilinear lens has been a long time favorite among astrophotographers over the years. Not everyone can afford a 24mm f/1.4 or 14mm f/1.8 lens. The combination of wide focal and fast aperture helps to capture the stars at night without cranking the ISO or experiencing star trails. The sharpness wide open in the center is good. However, this glass suffers from a complex mustache distortion pattern but it can be corrected in post. Personally, I think that the distortion is not very noticeable for astrophotography.
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro (AF) - $130
It lacks image stabilization and the build quality is not the best but this lens can be found for $130. The image quality is good when stopped down to f/8.
Oliver Kmia is specialized in time-lapse, hyperlapse, and aerial videography. He also works with several drone manufacturers as a marketing and technical consultant. He is the lead brand ambassador of Hello Kitty camera, his favorite piece of equipment. Most people think Oliver is an idiot and they are probably right.
I would never in my life recommend the EF 75-300mm III to anyone, it's seriously a bad lens at the longer focal lengths which is where most beginners will want to be using it. Also the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM easily out-performs the older IS II model and can be found for under $300, even cheaper refurbished, and closer to $150 for a used copy. Finally, with the existence of the 50mm f1.8 STM, the f1.4 USM would be low on my recommendations as well. The extra brightness isn't worth a lot when the image quality is super soft at those wider apertures, so I'd only say pick it up if you need manual focus that isn't focus-by-wire in the STM model.
Can't agree more, with your statement on the 75-300. I have it still as it came with my camera (planning on getting the 50mm 1.8). I used the 75-300 to photography sport numerous times, and it really does suffer at the longer focal range. I found that it produced more purple fringing than other lenses I've used on my camera.
0
0
amplighter[Edited]
Plastic and more plastic.. Back away from the plastic lenses. I hope that Oliver doesn't get paid to right this stuff.. cause someone should stop payments..
Cha ching, more cash-for-comments. I love my Canon 100 f2 for portraits. After renting the Sigma 85 1.4 and shooting side by side, I could not justify spending more money.
Yes, great lens for the price. Unfortunately I couldn't put it here under the $300 mark. The Sigma Art is special but that's another budget and weight and I understand you prefer to stick to the cheaper but good alternative. I do that too sometime.
I purchased this lens and when it arrived, I took it out of the box, looked it over and attached it to my Canon. It felt a little snug but nothing I hadn’t encountered before. I turned on my camera and looked out of the viewfinder to see nothing. I thought, lens cap. Nope. It didn’t do anything. I tried to remove it from the mount and it wouldn’t budge. I tried numerous times to the point of almost panicking and being pissed because I thought my camera would be destroyed as well as the lens. I put it up and the next day, I tried again and off it came. Back it went immediately. Never again.
Yeah it's always a gamble. It obviously worked on this guy's Canon, not sure why it didn't work on yours. If you don't have access to a store where you can try out others, I'm sure it's not as attractive. I'm gonna stop by B&H and try one out on my Nikon. If it works I'll roll with it. Yongnuo makes some good products, but yeah QC is not there yet across the board.
I am surprised why aren't more people getting into manual lenses. I have recently purchased a Russian Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5. A behemoth of a lens, could likely survive a nuclear blast, but the results are amazing. It's a very old school lens with an awkward focusing system, but once you get past the frustration it yields amazing pictures. At roughly $300 it's a steal.
Surprised that the Canon 40mm pancake didn’t make the list! I grabbed one as a nice walk around lens but I’ve found myself using it on a lot of client shoots lately. I’m continuously impressed with the IQ from that lens!
Indeed, it's a great lens, very light and small. STM motors and nice sharpness. I didn't put it because I already included the 50mm f1.8 but she totally deserved to be in the list as well. Thanks for the reminder.
Probably not what you had in mind but I just bought a EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N for about $50. Add a reversing ring for $15 +/- and a step-up ring for about $5 and maybe a bellows for another $50-$75 and I'll be able to do macro photography up to 20:1. I like my macro lens but sometimes I would like to get even closer!
Great list. It annoys me a little when sniffy photographers comment about how you should never buy cheap glass. I live in a forest, spend most of my time scrambling over rocks in incredibly sandy locations with hands covered in chalk. My 40mm pancake and bargain basement niftyfifty are perfect, especially as I rarely need the AF performance and sharpness is not much of an issue. Plus the weight saving is a huge advantage.
Agreed. Content, lighting, and post-processing matter much more than absolute lens sharpness. The Canon primes mentioned here are more than sharp enough for professional use.
Am I the only one eho hates the 85 1.8 ? I had 3 copies. Gave them a try, I wanted them to be good. Everything about that lens wasn't good imho. Contrast, fringing, focus... It made me hate this lens. But so many people love that lens.
I picked up a Sigma 85 Art; first shot, looked at the camera display, and fell in love with the look of it. Its not the 1.8 vs 1.4; it's just a feeling.
Same for the 50mm. the 50mm 1.8 is okay, the 1.4 was a mess. Picked up the Sigma Art one, instant-love.
The 75-300? Acceptable...compared to smartphone digital zoom xD
The EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM? yep, I'm on board. Bought this lens for my 5yo son (gave him my old 70D) and think it's a great lens for starters with acceptable results.
This just coming from my personal experiences so maybe I was super lucky with mine, but my copy of the EF 85mm f1.8 is excellent. It's easily the fastest-focusing lens in my kit with no front/back focus issues, tack-sharp in the center even when shooting wide open, and sharp corner-to-corner when stopped down to ~f4-5.6. The color fringing is certainly a big detractor, so I try not to use it wide open in bright conditions if I can help it, but I was able to snag a used copy for a song and still use it regularly to this day. In the studio where I'm stopped down to ~f8-11 I have a hard time seeing the difference between it and the newer 85mm f1.4L IS.
I would also recommend shooting vintage lenses as a cost savings alternative to some of these lenses. I compared a 45 year old vintage SMC takumar 85 1.8 (m42 mount) to a canon 85 1.8 USM and found the results of that experiment to heavily favour the vintage Tak. The comments on that video (a few hundred) overwhelmingly agree.
Not to mention the build quality of the vintage stuff is so good. Optics are much better than some of these cheaper brand lenses as well.
ONly thing you really miss is auto focus but since I shoot mostly video with these anyway, I’m all manual all the time. Plus it’s amazing how good you can get with a littlest focusing experience.
My entire vintage set of fast prime lenses from 24-135, over 10 different lenses cost me less than my one Canon 24mm 1.4
With full frame mirrorless being picked up by the major photography brands, I don’t see why anyone wanting to experiment or experience a super affordable option wouldn’t consider those over these.
Helios 44m 58 F2 : $32 on eBay, plus $10 adapter and you have a fast 58 with a truly unique look (swirly bokeh wide open).
Take what you learn from vintage and invest smart on modern to what you know you want from a lens/focal length you like to shoot.
Just my thoughts, always enjoy a good photography for less type article, especially for people who are just starting out....it’s a great way to learn as you see first hand the results of dialing in your settings on the lens, vs using a index or thumb wheel.
If only Canon had one of these: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 STM (AF) for the same price as the EFS, I would be very happy. Wide angle on Canon has a very high price curve...
I also recommend the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (Used) which hovers around 300. Its APS-C but its crazy good for events and landscapes.It stays in my Kit at all times.
Also, the Nikon 18-105. One of my go to's for events. It does surprisingly well capturing colors in situations that I need flash.
The 40mm is a nice compact pancake. But the image quality lacks contrast and is not terribly sharp towards the corners. It's good for street photography mostly because it is small. But it's not terribly fast in terms of F stop. And the focus by wire thing makes it a bit annoying to use if you are into manual focus for your street photography. Most Canons timeout of their active mode after a few seconds. So you have to half press the shutter release to 'wake up' then manual 'focus by wire will work. Wait, you did configure back button AF right? If you didn't then you will be fighting AF when you want to manual focus in aperture priority mode.
The 85mm F1.8 OTOH is one of my favorite lenses. Affordable, great contrast and color. Fast enough AF (though not the fastest by a long shot). And while it is a little bit on the big and heavy side, it's nowhere near what the 85L series lenses are.
The 50mm 1.4 is also great. Much better than the 40mm 2.8. It's a decent size. And quite fast for the price! My only complaint on the 50mm 1.4 is that it is hard to rationalize next to the 50mm 1.8 for less than half the price. Though the 1.4 does feel better in the hand when focussing.
I'm suspecting English is not the authors first language. I know what that's like. Still, if this is going to be your craft, at least use something like Grammarly for the benefit of your readers.
"Lenses are primordial" (this statement doesn't make any sense)
"Jack of all trade master of none" (not a complete sentence, misspelled "trades" and missing comma)
"Entry level lenses are not necessarily bad but they are slow and don’t offer much creative options" (missing comma after "bad" to separate two independent clauses -- "much" should be "many")
"I always recommend to spend less on the camera body and save this money to purchase a fun lens that opens new possibilities" (someone who knows more about conjunctions and tense can explain what's wrong with this)
"I mainly use wide-angle focal but I sometimes" (missing determiner "a" before "wide-angle" -- missing a comma before "but" -- "focal" should be followed by another noun like "length" or "lens")
"Finally, the new Nikon Z and Canon R mount are so recent that there is no budget option available at this time and I don’t expect to see any change before at least one or two years as the two manufacturers are engaged in a race to figure out who has the largest… aperture despite ridiculous price tag and weight." (run-on sentence)
Several other sentences begin with a conjunction ("But" or "That") which is generally considered sloppy writing. In general, this reads like something put through Google Translate.
Damn. OK, I see the point. English is not my native language so I guess I did not see those right away. Run-on sentence is not technically wrong, just not elegant. I'm a frequent offender myself. As for determiners (a, the, etc.) I don't believe I know any person who was not born into English language and gets those 100% right. My native language has no concept of determiners for example.
I see the point thou. Journalists should be held to higher standards. Unfortunately, if you look at the web content it's quantity over quality any time of day or night.
Yeah, I do research in linguistics and none of these are wrong. Try learning about dialectical differences or even the prescriptive/descriptive divide before commenting on "grammar".
Really? Where can I study this dialect? Is there a degree program anywhere in the world where one can major in the dialect where saying “lenses are primordial” is a meaningful statement?
It would be good to mention that for those two systems (and particularly Nikon since mount compatibility goes a bit further) there is a huge supply of used glass circulating on the market which means one can save even more money.
I would never in my life recommend the EF 75-300mm III to anyone, it's seriously a bad lens at the longer focal lengths which is where most beginners will want to be using it. Also the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM easily out-performs the older IS II model and can be found for under $300, even cheaper refurbished, and closer to $150 for a used copy. Finally, with the existence of the 50mm f1.8 STM, the f1.4 USM would be low on my recommendations as well. The extra brightness isn't worth a lot when the image quality is super soft at those wider apertures, so I'd only say pick it up if you need manual focus that isn't focus-by-wire in the STM model.
Can't agree more, with your statement on the 75-300. I have it still as it came with my camera (planning on getting the 50mm 1.8). I used the 75-300 to photography sport numerous times, and it really does suffer at the longer focal range. I found that it produced more purple fringing than other lenses I've used on my camera.
Plastic and more plastic.. Back away from the plastic lenses. I hope that Oliver doesn't get paid to right this stuff.. cause someone should stop payments..
I get paid by the comment actually. Thanks for your support.
Best reply ever. Here's another one for you. Love my EF 85 f1.8.
Cha ching, more cash-for-comments. I love my Canon 100 f2 for portraits. After renting the Sigma 85 1.4 and shooting side by side, I could not justify spending more money.
Yes, great lens for the price. Unfortunately I couldn't put it here under the $300 mark. The Sigma Art is special but that's another budget and weight and I understand you prefer to stick to the cheaper but good alternative. I do that too sometime.
Some plastics are more solid than metal…
$176 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzrGWBPVdU
I purchased this lens and when it arrived, I took it out of the box, looked it over and attached it to my Canon. It felt a little snug but nothing I hadn’t encountered before. I turned on my camera and looked out of the viewfinder to see nothing. I thought, lens cap. Nope. It didn’t do anything. I tried to remove it from the mount and it wouldn’t budge. I tried numerous times to the point of almost panicking and being pissed because I thought my camera would be destroyed as well as the lens. I put it up and the next day, I tried again and off it came. Back it went immediately. Never again.
Yeah it's always a gamble. It obviously worked on this guy's Canon, not sure why it didn't work on yours. If you don't have access to a store where you can try out others, I'm sure it's not as attractive. I'm gonna stop by B&H and try one out on my Nikon. If it works I'll roll with it. Yongnuo makes some good products, but yeah QC is not there yet across the board.
Thanks for the link Spy Black. I was hesitant to put Yongnuo in the list. Seems that they have QC issue.
I am surprised why aren't more people getting into manual lenses. I have recently purchased a Russian Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5. A behemoth of a lens, could likely survive a nuclear blast, but the results are amazing. It's a very old school lens with an awkward focusing system, but once you get past the frustration it yields amazing pictures. At roughly $300 it's a steal.
Great idea. I also have a bunch of old M42 and FD lenses. I believe you can now get the Helios in native EF mount right?
Yes they do come with an EF mount for Canon right out of the box.
Thanks
Certain cameras struggle to accurately focus on manual lenses. The Nikon D3400 for example. I haven't tested the D800's manual capability yet.
No Sigma 17-50 f/2.8? Fail.
"Lenses under $300" Fail. I didn't consider gray import and item without warranty.
there are so much options for the price now.. and some Chinese/Korean 3rd party lenses are good
The "Best lenses" without any visual proof? It's articles like this that make me wonder why on Earth I read articles like this.
Surprised that the Canon 40mm pancake didn’t make the list! I grabbed one as a nice walk around lens but I’ve found myself using it on a lot of client shoots lately. I’m continuously impressed with the IQ from that lens!
Indeed, it's a great lens, very light and small. STM motors and nice sharpness. I didn't put it because I already included the 50mm f1.8 but she totally deserved to be in the list as well. Thanks for the reminder.
Added ;)
Probably not what you had in mind but I just bought a EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N for about $50. Add a reversing ring for $15 +/- and a step-up ring for about $5 and maybe a bellows for another $50-$75 and I'll be able to do macro photography up to 20:1. I like my macro lens but sometimes I would like to get even closer!
That's very nice.
Great list. It annoys me a little when sniffy photographers comment about how you should never buy cheap glass. I live in a forest, spend most of my time scrambling over rocks in incredibly sandy locations with hands covered in chalk. My 40mm pancake and bargain basement niftyfifty are perfect, especially as I rarely need the AF performance and sharpness is not much of an issue. Plus the weight saving is a huge advantage.
Agreed. Content, lighting, and post-processing matter much more than absolute lens sharpness. The Canon primes mentioned here are more than sharp enough for professional use.
Am I the only one eho hates the 85 1.8 ? I had 3 copies. Gave them a try, I wanted them to be good. Everything about that lens wasn't good imho. Contrast, fringing, focus... It made me hate this lens. But so many people love that lens.
I picked up a Sigma 85 Art; first shot, looked at the camera display, and fell in love with the look of it. Its not the 1.8 vs 1.4; it's just a feeling.
Same for the 50mm. the 50mm 1.8 is okay, the 1.4 was a mess. Picked up the Sigma Art one, instant-love.
The 75-300? Acceptable...compared to smartphone digital zoom xD
The EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM? yep, I'm on board. Bought this lens for my 5yo son (gave him my old 70D) and think it's a great lens for starters with acceptable results.
This just coming from my personal experiences so maybe I was super lucky with mine, but my copy of the EF 85mm f1.8 is excellent. It's easily the fastest-focusing lens in my kit with no front/back focus issues, tack-sharp in the center even when shooting wide open, and sharp corner-to-corner when stopped down to ~f4-5.6. The color fringing is certainly a big detractor, so I try not to use it wide open in bright conditions if I can help it, but I was able to snag a used copy for a song and still use it regularly to this day. In the studio where I'm stopped down to ~f8-11 I have a hard time seeing the difference between it and the newer 85mm f1.4L IS.
The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 is hands down my favorite lens.
So light and small that my D5500 turns into a pocket camera, still very nice images.
And i could snatch it for 150€ when our local photo store closed down.
I would also recommend shooting vintage lenses as a cost savings alternative to some of these lenses. I compared a 45 year old vintage SMC takumar 85 1.8 (m42 mount) to a canon 85 1.8 USM and found the results of that experiment to heavily favour the vintage Tak. The comments on that video (a few hundred) overwhelmingly agree.
Not to mention the build quality of the vintage stuff is so good. Optics are much better than some of these cheaper brand lenses as well.
ONly thing you really miss is auto focus but since I shoot mostly video with these anyway, I’m all manual all the time. Plus it’s amazing how good you can get with a littlest focusing experience.
My entire vintage set of fast prime lenses from 24-135, over 10 different lenses cost me less than my one Canon 24mm 1.4
With full frame mirrorless being picked up by the major photography brands, I don’t see why anyone wanting to experiment or experience a super affordable option wouldn’t consider those over these.
Helios 44m 58 F2 : $32 on eBay, plus $10 adapter and you have a fast 58 with a truly unique look (swirly bokeh wide open).
Take what you learn from vintage and invest smart on modern to what you know you want from a lens/focal length you like to shoot.
Just my thoughts, always enjoy a good photography for less type article, especially for people who are just starting out....it’s a great way to learn as you see first hand the results of dialing in your settings on the lens, vs using a index or thumb wheel.
If only Canon had one of these: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 STM (AF) for the same price as the EFS, I would be very happy. Wide angle on Canon has a very high price curve...
Now the real questions : are there any for Fuji and Sony ?
I'm going to cover MFT and Sony in a next article.
I also recommend the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (Used) which hovers around 300. Its APS-C but its crazy good for events and landscapes.It stays in my Kit at all times.
Also, the Nikon 18-105. One of my go to's for events. It does surprisingly well capturing colors in situations that I need flash.
The 40mm is a nice compact pancake. But the image quality lacks contrast and is not terribly sharp towards the corners. It's good for street photography mostly because it is small. But it's not terribly fast in terms of F stop. And the focus by wire thing makes it a bit annoying to use if you are into manual focus for your street photography. Most Canons timeout of their active mode after a few seconds. So you have to half press the shutter release to 'wake up' then manual 'focus by wire will work. Wait, you did configure back button AF right? If you didn't then you will be fighting AF when you want to manual focus in aperture priority mode.
The 85mm F1.8 OTOH is one of my favorite lenses. Affordable, great contrast and color. Fast enough AF (though not the fastest by a long shot). And while it is a little bit on the big and heavy side, it's nowhere near what the 85L series lenses are.
The 50mm 1.4 is also great. Much better than the 40mm 2.8. It's a decent size. And quite fast for the price! My only complaint on the 50mm 1.4 is that it is hard to rationalize next to the 50mm 1.8 for less than half the price. Though the 1.4 does feel better in the hand when focussing.
I'm suspecting English is not the authors first language. I know what that's like. Still, if this is going to be your craft, at least use something like Grammarly for the benefit of your readers.
Which part is the actual point of concern?
Some examples:
"Lenses are primordial" (this statement doesn't make any sense)
"Jack of all trade master of none" (not a complete sentence, misspelled "trades" and missing comma)
"Entry level lenses are not necessarily bad but they are slow and don’t offer much creative options" (missing comma after "bad" to separate two independent clauses -- "much" should be "many")
"I always recommend to spend less on the camera body and save this money to purchase a fun lens that opens new possibilities" (someone who knows more about conjunctions and tense can explain what's wrong with this)
"I mainly use wide-angle focal but I sometimes" (missing determiner "a" before "wide-angle" -- missing a comma before "but" -- "focal" should be followed by another noun like "length" or "lens")
"Finally, the new Nikon Z and Canon R mount are so recent that there is no budget option available at this time and I don’t expect to see any change before at least one or two years as the two manufacturers are engaged in a race to figure out who has the largest… aperture despite ridiculous price tag and weight." (run-on sentence)
Several other sentences begin with a conjunction ("But" or "That") which is generally considered sloppy writing. In general, this reads like something put through Google Translate.
Damn. OK, I see the point. English is not my native language so I guess I did not see those right away. Run-on sentence is not technically wrong, just not elegant. I'm a frequent offender myself. As for determiners (a, the, etc.) I don't believe I know any person who was not born into English language and gets those 100% right. My native language has no concept of determiners for example.
I see the point thou. Journalists should be held to higher standards. Unfortunately, if you look at the web content it's quantity over quality any time of day or night.
There are plenty of native English speakers that make similar mistakes. As you said, the bar is much higher for professional writers.
Yeah, I do research in linguistics and none of these are wrong. Try learning about dialectical differences or even the prescriptive/descriptive divide before commenting on "grammar".
Really? Where can I study this dialect? Is there a degree program anywhere in the world where one can major in the dialect where saying “lenses are primordial” is a meaningful statement?
It would be good to mention that for those two systems (and particularly Nikon since mount compatibility goes a bit further) there is a huge supply of used glass circulating on the market which means one can save even more money.
The Nikon 50 1.8g is an amazing lens for the money. Though a couple hundred dollars more, its brethren, the 85mm 1.8g is also an amazing value.
Just a note, to me its a bit confusing having the sentence 'Dirt cheap telephoto lens for Nikon DX camera' under the 70-300 lens in the FX section.
Makes sense. Noted.
There a number of Tamron lenses that can be picked up for under $300 that are pretty good for the money as well.
I just love Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. just amazing lens it is. Yes, great lens for the price.