Best bang for your buck (lens)

[Jared S]

What is you top three best bang for your buck lenses. Something with a low cost but gives you a great look.

[LightRules]

Canon 50 f1.8, Canon 85 f1.8, Sigma 24-70 f2.8

[thefly]

Canon 50 f1.8 and the Kit lens.

Lee

[ddelallata]

Another vote for the 50mm f/1.8

[kawter2]

50 1.8 and Tamron 28-75 XR Di

[condyk]

In order:

1. Tokina 20-35mm f2.8
2. Canon 50mm II
3. Sigma 50-500mm Bigma

Though I have to say I am learning to really LOVE my Sigma 105mm f2.8 Dg Macro. Sharp and dynamic.

[Tom W]

17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and the 50/1.8 (though I'd prefer the 1.4).

[GyRob]

85mm f1.8 very sharp lens 50mm mk2 sharp lens .
Rob.

[Jackal]

-50mm 1.8
-18-55mm Kit lense is actually not THAT bad for what it costs. But the 50mm 1.8 is ALOT sharper.
-Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 (Goes for around $360 but it's one heck of a lense)

[skyphix]

I'll add to the 50mm 1.8.

hopefully I'll be able to add another prime to this list shortly ;)

[Toogy]

1. 50mm 1.8
2. 85mm 1.8
3. Tamron 28-75 F2.8

[ed2day]

17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and the 50/1.8 (though I'd prefer the 1.4).

My exact picks.

[Anteros]

50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4 for me.

I haven't tried the 17-40mm so I can't comment on that one.

Of the two I picked above, the absolute best bang for the buck would have to be the 50mm. The quality of the pictures you get on such a cheap lens is amazing.

[Big John]

I am expecting my 50mm f1.8 to be delivered tomorrow! After reading this post I am ready to drive to the UPS hub tonight to pick it up myself!

[Croasdail]

As much as I didn't like the lens immediately - I would have to say the best low cost lens I have is the Tamron 28-75 though I wish it got wider. If I am grabbing a single lens to go out and play without a specific objective - it is my first choice.

[Jared S]

Big John if I can ask where did you get your 50mm from and how much was it? I think I need one as well. Thanks

[drisley]

1. 50mm 1.8
2. 85mm 1.8
3. Tamron 28-75 F2.8
I second this selection.

[Jraun]

17-40mm

[Big John]

Hi Jarrod, I ordered it from B and H last week. It was $74.95 for the lens and 10.00 fora UV filter.

There was a slight delay in shipping. Even though it showed up as "In Stock" on the website, they told me that "due to a technical issue, my lens was on backorder" :( but it was cleared out of that status the next day.

I did, however, recieve my uv filter for this lens in a seperate shipment (obviously not on backorder!):rolleyes:

I don't know why they even bothered sending them seperately!

[xstrio]

1. tamron 28-75
2. canon 50 1.8 II
3 canon 18-55

[ddelallata]

17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and the 50/1.8 (though I'd prefer the 1.4).

Look at my sig :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Boo yea! I agree! All that's in my sig as well. :-) (Bang for buck on the expensive end I guess, but oh well)

[mgbeach]

24-85 f/3.5-4.5; 70-200 f/4L; 100 f/2.8 macro

[WepWaWep]

For the subject matter I shoot, my sig shows the lenses I thought would do the best job covering the spectrum for the most affordable investment.

[DavidEB]

I wanted a general zoom, a long zoom and a fast prime. The lenses in my sig seem like best bang for buck in each category. If you don't need f2,8 in your long zoom, then consider tamron's 70-300.

[ed rader]

1) tamron -- 28-75
2) canon 28-135 IS
3) canon 17-85IS

the first lense because of the range and quality -- a lense i use 80% of the time for $300 that has the optical quality of an L lense.

the second two because each takes the place of two lenses and either will be the only lens that some people will need.

i also have a 50 1.8 but seldom use it. but when i do (indoor portraits) it's the best at what it does. good price to quality ratio but not versatile enough to make the top three.

ed rader

[scr7b]

The 85mm f/1.8 has been the best money I've spent on a lens...

[lkorell]

It goes without saying that for the price, the 50 1.8 is absolutely a great solution.

But, best bang for the buck has to be the very affordable 50 1.4. You can shoot an entire event with that lens in any condition, low light, bright light, flash, doesn't matter - it performs.

Next would be the 85 1.8, a beautiful lens for non-L glass.

Then for zooms, the 17-40L is a great addition to anyone's bag for all around quality images.

All of the above are reasonably priced for their performance.

Lou

[KevC]

There are quite a few.

EF50mm f/1.8 MkII - best $70 I have ever spent on glass
EF85mm f/1.8 - awesome portrait length and speed
EF28mm f/2.8 - sharp as a tack, not too fast but gives approximately the normal FOVon a 1.6x crop body
EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 - Kit lens, costs bloody cheap when bought with a 20D or Drebel (XT). Amazing wide angle and sharp when stopped down!

There are some L glass that's worth mentioning, but they're obviously more pricey than those listed above.

EF70-200/4L - by far the best value super high quality zoom. small and light too!
EF17-40/4L - wide angle to normal zoom gives the standard photojournalistic 28-60ish focal lengths, perfect for a nice walkaround quality glass!

[jforget1]

I have the 50 f/1.8 and like it so far. I bought a new 70-200 f/4L and it will be in tomorrow. I can't wait to check it out. I am also seriously looking at the 17-40 f/4L. In fact I missed a bid on one today by $10, used sold for $610.

[schmoelzel]

85 f1.2L
35 F1.4L
200 F1.8 L

Did I mention that my last name is Gates?? :D

[bolantej]

50 1.8
Zenitar 16mm 2.8 Fisheye
70-200 f/4L

[ayotnoms]

85 f1.2L
35 F1.4L
200 F1.8 L

Did I mention that my last name is Gates?? :D
Therein lies the rub in asking the question "Best bang for your buck..."
A photographer with Bill Gates money and a student living on a shoestring budget undoubtedly have different views on what yields the best bang.

Now if you rephrase the question as, "Best bang for the buck with a budget of $1000", that's a different kettle of fish :-)

[Cadwell]

mmm... not exactly cheap but considering what you get,

Tamron SP 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 Di (great lens only hampered by slow AF)
Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 Di XR (absolute bargain)
Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4.0 EX (Could easily sell for twice it's price and it would justified)

Those would be my "bang for your buck" choices.

[Maureen Souza]

My preferences are

Canon 50mm/1.4
Tamron 28-75mm/2.8
Canon 135mm/2.0 L

[Marshall]

Most definitely the Tamron 28-75, brilliant if you can find one in stock anywhere !

[blinking8s]

- Tamron 28-75 XR Di
- Canon 70-200 f4
- Canon 85mm 1.8 (my favorite, as most users on this board who might recall my username will probably know)

I used to think the 50 1.8, but after using the 1.4 and breaking several 1.8's (wouldnt say im HARD on gear, but the 50 1.8 seems to think so)...now I wont even list it, yes its sharp, but AF,feel, and endurance on it are not up to par for me

[Skip Souza]

The Tamron 28-75 mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Is the best dollar per pixel lens on the market. My wife is not giving hers up.

[Nolz]

17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and the 50/1.8 (though I'd prefer the 1.4).
Agreed, even down to the preference of the 1.4 over the 1.8 (was very glad I upgraded once I had saved enough)

[blinking8s]

i have a gut feeling the sigma 30mm might make the ranks if all goes well once tests are out...the hype is great, the specs read great, the focal length on a 1.6 crop is perfect...now just to see if it can hold up in action

[I Simonius]

It goes without saying that for the price, the 50 1.8 is absolutely a great solution.

But, best bang for the buck has to be the very affordable 50 1.4. You can shoot an entire event with that lens in any condition, low light, bright light, flash, doesn't matter - it performs.

Next would be the 85 1.8, a beautiful lens for non-L glass.

Then for zooms, the 17-40L is a great addition to anyone's bag for all around quality images.

All of the above are reasonably priced for their performance.

Lou

seconded
Although I add the 70-200f4L

You did ask best bang for buck - not cheapest - so those are definitely my four
i.e.
50f1.4 =very sharp, cheap, fast, nice bokeh (see here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79069
scroll down to my post for example of detail, look at the face and hair of the violin player - shot at 500 th sec @ f1.4 -- in fact I'll attach a 100% crop :D
17-40L = cheap for an L, as good as primes in the 17-20 range, better than the competition even in the rest of the range.
85f1.8 (although I haven't got it it has had such good and consistant reviews-it's on my shopping list)
70-200f4 L , also cheap also for an L, amazing quality, only go for the 2.8 IS version if you REALLY need the IS and the stop extra as it wheighs twice what f4 does.

The 17-40 and the 70-200f4 are the cheapest 'L' lenses and worth every penny ( sorry dime :D )

There is another affordable 'L' lens I'm thinking of getting, the 100-400L IS.Not got 100% rave reviews like the 70-200 but having actually held one and played with it, it is very tempting, and although it'ds a 5.6 at the long end it wouldn't bother me as I shoot mostly landscape and relatively static subjects,compared to sports and wildlife that is

[Andy_T]

Depends on your requirements:

- Inexpensive wide angle lens on 1.6 crop camera:
EF-S 18-55 ($ 100)
- Fast & sharp standard zoom with good bokeh
Tamron 28-75/2.8 ($ 350)
- Fast & sharp prime for low light situations
EF 50/1.8 ($ 75)
- Fast & sharp prime with good bokeh for portraits
EF 50/1.4 ($ 350)
EF 85/1.8 ($ 350)
- Fast & sharp MANUAL FOCUS prime with good bokeh for portraits
M42 Jupiter-9 85/2.0 (used, $30 - $60, new $85)
M42 CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 (used, $50 - $150)
MF CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 (used, $125 - $250)
- Fast L quality (fast & sharp wide open) light tele lens
EF 70-200/4.0 L ($ 600)
... not really any surprises here, right :wink:

Best regards,
Andy