cheapest lense

[mknabster]

I'm looking to buy a 30D, with hopefully some lenses, but the ebay kits come w/ mediocre quality lenses. I was thinking of buying the camera seperately with all the lenses seperate from the kit. The 2 lenses that i was looking to buy was an all-around lense, preferably a wide-angle, and a 70-300mm for sports and macros. What are the cheapest lenses out there that fits these categories that have exceptional to good quality images?

[runninmann]

Of course, "cheap" is relative, but the Tamron 28-75 at $350 after rebate from B&H offers great sharpness and nice color. I own this lens and if 28mm is wide enough for you, I strongly recommend it. You will also find many positive user review for the Sigma 17-70. For the telephoto zoom, the Sigma 70-300 APO DG is widely regarded as the "best bang for the buck" lens, at $220.

[QF-347]

Have a look at the EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Ive heard some good reports as for Wide angles
there is the EF 50mm f/1.8 II both nice cheap lens's to get you started,
but also what is your budget?

Cam

[Juan Zas]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223416

[convergent]

I'm looking to buy a 30D, with hopefully some lenses, but the ebay kits come w/ mediocre quality lenses. I was thinking of buying the camera seperately with all the lenses seperate from the kit. The 2 lenses that i was looking to buy was an all-around lense, preferably a wide-angle, and a 70-300mm for sports and macros. What are the cheapest lenses out there that fits these categories that have exceptional to good quality images?


Lens doesn't have an "e" in it.

You probably should beware of buying those kits on Ebay. It might be worth dealing with a local shop where you can try out a few lenses to see what works best for you... although you want to be careful there too, since they will sometimes have sales incentives.

Your question is very hard to answer since you specified "cheapest" with "exceptional image quality". You could make an argument that the 300mm f/2.8 IS is the cheapest lens with exceptional image quality, at around $3900.... but it depends on your definition of exceptional.

If I were you, I would get a good midrange zoom (something in the 20-100 range) with the body and wait a few months to buy anything else. This will let you see what kind of shooting you are doing, what focal lengths you need, and give you some measure of image quality. In the longer zoom range (70-300), there are a ton of choices with a huge variance in price and quality... but without a starting point to compare, its hard for anyone to recommend.

Absent that kind of information, perhaps you could come up with a budget for your lens or lenses, and then folks could help recommend in that price range something that is good.

Search can also be your friend on this... just search the lens forum on keywords of things you intend to be shooting... you'll most likely get some lens experience in the results.

[condyk]

Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Throw in a Canon 50mm 1.8 for lower light usage. Should meet most regual day to day needs.

[saab]

Lens doesn't have an "e" in it.
...

Of course it does...just not two of them. ;)

[KevC]

Lens doesn't have an "e" in it.


It can be spelt both ways. Check your dictionary. Stop the Ignorance!

Cheap lenses are exactly that, cheap. So unless you're shooting something like 640x533 for web, I wouldn't bother getting such an awesome camera and sticking such a cheap lens on it.

However, a cheap lens can be used as a "focal length sampler". See what FOV you like best, then in turn... buy better lenses for those focal lengths.

IMHO, you can't go wrong with a Sigma 18-125 or 18-200 if you want a cheap zoom that's decently sharp. THere's also the 17-70 if you feel you don't need/want the long telephoto "all-in-one", then picking up a 70-300APO which is known for being a good cheap lens.

[tsaraleksi]

20/2.8
50/1.8
135/2.8
That should give you a wide range at much higher quality, for not that much more. Or drop one and replace with a zoom, but you will probably loose out on quality.

[KevC]

I like tsaraleksi's recommendation. However, I'd also add the 35/2 and 85/1.8 as options to the wide/long recommendation (if you really want speed)

[Tee Why]

Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Throw in a Canon 50mm 1.8 for lower light usage. Should meet most regual day to day needs.
Ditto, sigma 17-70 is about $380 and the 70-300 is under $200 from reputable online sellers and would probably get you the most optical bang for the bucks for under $600. Plus you would have 17-70mm coverage. The 50mm f1.8 is a nice cheap lens but I'd hold off on it unless you shoot a lot in low light or do a lot of portraits.

[thewavebb]

I loved my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens as a general walk around lens when I got my 300d last year. I picked it up used for 150 on the forum here and it has produced some decent results at a fair price. Make sure to stay way from the non-USM f/4.5-5.6 version as this is a not-so-good lens. Here is a link to a lens test I did on mine. http://www.dailyphotochallenge.com/index.php?topic=61.0. NOt the sharpest lens, but at that pricepoint, very few are.

[cali]

Dude, when it comes to lenses cheap is not something that you want to have in mind when buying. From what I've learned here, glass is everything when it comes to image quality and of course the old addage is true that says, "you get what you pay for". IMHO, Canon makes the best lenses in the world especially their L Series Lenses with IS so you owe it to yourself to get the best now instead of upgrading in the future. I own the 70-200 F4 and realize that I am eventually going to get the 70-200 2.8 IS. I should have just saved up and waited to get the latter. My point is, SPEND THE MONEY NOW AND SAVE instead of selling the lenses you bought because you were too cheap to pay premium prices on the best. Do whatever you have to do to get the best lenses. Sell an organ or a body part or take out a second on your house if you have to only don't be cheap because you are going to end up spending more in the long run.

[cdifoto]

Do whatever you have to do to get the best lenses. Sell an organ or a body part or take out a second on your house if you have to only don't be cheap because you are going to end up spending more in the long run.

OK that might be going a little too far. :rolleyes:

[cali]

OK that might be going a little too far. :rolleyes:

I meant it tongue and cheek CDI:)

[cdifoto]

I meant it tongue and cheek CDI:)

Damn. If I had known that before I went to the hospital... :lol:

[red_fan]

If I was buying from scratch in that zoom range I would get Sigma 17-70 or Canon 17-85 IS and the Sigma 70-300 APO. Use those lenses for 6-12 months and then see where you need to spend the extra money. Waste of time/money splashing out big bucks on lenses you might not need.