Best "Bargain" Lenses

[Kabz]

I'm talking less than $200 here.

I was looking at the 17-40L as a significant investment....because my 18-55 is starting to piss me off honestly...

The reason I don't want to go for the 17-40 is because I know there must be better lenses out there for the price...but I also want to save some money.

So what I am looking for (for my 300D) is something that is WIDE and SHARP.
The 18-55 gives me too many blurry images....images that look fine at 25%
but when I am at 75% I can see blur which just breaks my heart.

Thanks for all the help you can give me!

[kb244]

Hrm, well it is an 'L' glass, and an affordible one at that ( ~ 600 $ ), almost half the price of the 16-35 USM L glass. But if you are looking for sharp, and wide, i'd say the 17-40 would probally do it, guess the best question is, was the 18-55 wide enough for you, and just not sharp enough? There is also the possibility of the EF-S 10-22 for a tiny bit more than the 17-40L , however not too crazy bout the EF-S set, seeing as you might decide to go pro in the camera body, and all the sudden cant use the EF-s lens on your body of choice.

[Kabz]

I wouldn't get an EF-S if I had a choice.

I am obsessed with sharpness....I can't think straight unless my picture is sharp. I am partially color blind so when I have a blurred image, I get slightly confused.

The 18-55 was wide....I wouldn't mind a little wider, but sharpness is my main thing....and like a said....less than $200?
Is that unreasonable?

Either way....I will check for prices for the 17-40....I may find a deal

[cactusclay]

Less than 200 bucks and sharp sounds like 50/1.8

[pcasciola]

Yeah, less than $200 for wide and sharp is pretty unreasonable. The only sharp lenses I can think in that price range are the 50 f/1.8, 28 f/2.8 and the Zenitar 16mm, but the Zenitar is manual focus and manual aperture. The Zenitar takes decent wide shots for the price, which is around $120-130, but I'm not sure it's any sharper than the kit lens.

[kb244]

Anything under 200$ with the exception of that 'nifty fifty' is unreasonable. Least in my opinion.

[kb244]

....

Either way....I will check for prices for the 17-40....I may find a deal


If you found a 17-40 for 200$ or less its probally a scam, or someone isnt selling the right lens.

[Kabz]

oh....of course I don't expect to find a 17-40L under $200...

if I can't find something I like (preferably Zoom) in lets say 200-300.....I will just bite the bullet and get the 17-40L
I am starting to really like it again..

[Nightcrawler]

For a good inexpensive zoom, I might possibly suggest the Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM. It runs about $220 at BH. Not the widest, nor the sharpest, but sharp under $200 for a zoom is kind of tough.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=GREY

[Mikesht]

Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD IF Aspherical

[drisley]

So what I am looking for (for my 300D) is something that is WIDE and SHARP.

If you want wide and sharp, and cheap, the only real way to go is the Tokina 17mm ATX Pro.
It's more than you state (it's $360) but it's still a bargain. It's MUCH sharper than the kit lens, and it's built like an L lens (if not better).

This image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/IMG_4032.jpg)was taken with that lens at F4.

[Citizensmith]

The Canon 28 f/2.8 is a great lens ($160) and is actually optically better than its f/1.8 cousin. The Canon 35 f/2 is also really good ($220) and just a little over your $200 mark. If you are looking for sub $200 wide zooms then the best out there is the 18-55 you already own.

[Kabz]

thats pretty damn sharp drisley.

I will look into that....but I think the 17-40 is back on my list.

[ron chappel]

Sadly there are no well known lenses to fill the quality/cost gap between the 18-55 and 17-40 ...as you are finding out

There are several new wide zooms by tamron,tokina and maybe others but no one seems to be using them yet!
They sound very promising

[ron chappel]

Here is a link for a (slightly old) page giving the wide zoom options.
While partly out of date,it's still informative on several current models and helps alot if you are considering buying secondhand
http://burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/
Also this very usefull comparison,considering the sigma 15-30 is a serious possible allternative to the 17-40
http://burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/1530v1740.html

...i had forgoten about the sigma 15-30.It gets pretty good reviews (compared to the cheapo 17-35)

This is tamron's new lens- http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm.asp
The list price is scary though! I wonder how much the street price will be?
Here is their older cheaper model still being offered- http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/19_35mm.asp

This link is a discussion about the new tokina 17-45/4
http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/showmsg.jsp?id=104871821464349282146434926A&forum=524287

Have you considered the canon 17-85 IS ?
I'm not sure of the price but it's certainly sharper than the kit lens!
http://www.pbase.com/franklin/canon_sigma&page=all

[Citizensmith]

Have you considered the canon 17-85 IS ?
I'm not sure of the price but it's certainly sharper than the kit lens!


About $600 and that doesn't include a hood. T'aint a cheap lens that one.

[Persian-Rice]

Nifty Fifty, Tokina 17mm, Tamron 28-75.

They all have great optics, the focusing and build on the Tamron and Nifty Fifty are the equivalent of ****. I have held a Tokina, build is much better then the others, and from all the reviews is a pretty good lens overall, again not L.

If you want to buy something cheap, expect some compromises at some point. But in terms of optics they are all pretty good. The Nifty has subpar bokeh, the Tamron is inconsistantly soft, some copies are awful, some are tack sharp. The Tokina is prone to some fringing or whatever you like to call it.

Overall the Tokina is probably the best overall of the three in the price range, but it's a prime, it should be pretty sharp. The 50mm 1.8 is also very good, (probably the sharpest of the three) and at $60 should be owned by everyone. The Tamron is also good, good zoom range, fast lens, but usually soft wide open, very debatable. It took me 3 copies before I got good one, you hear this quite often, probably more then other lenses.

I would say the Tamron because of zoom flexibility, you get more lens for the buck.........just don't get one online.

Point of the story, if you expect L lenses, then go buy them. If you can't afford it, you have live with the fact that you get what you pay for in photography. $300 is going to get you good optics, lots of plastic and a bad focusing motor. Yes lenses are overpriced, but the market is what it is.

[Kabz]

I'm gonna go with the 17-40

after the money I collected from the Superbowl...I am forced to get it