Your top 3 "bang for buck" lenses?

vspector wrote in post #14607105
This is like asking which lenses do you own?
No one wants to admit they overpaid for a lens....

Hey! Wait a minute. I overpaid for two lenses. I bought the 135L and the 200 f/2.8L because they were black and smaller than the big white zooms. I sold both of them to finance the 100-400L, which I really like, and can actually use. I did not use the 2-Ls very much. Now I am just trying to make up my mind which 70-200 2.8L to buy. I am leaning really heavily towards the non-IS model. After all, $1000 is $1000!

Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 50 1.8

Tamron 17-50 F/2.8
Sigma 30 F/1.4
Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 with the 2X teleconverter

--Evan

Evan Idler wrote in post #14609177
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8
Sigma 30 F/1.4
Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 with the 2X teleconverter

--Evan

The title of the thread is "bang for buck". Seems to me these are all $500 to a few thousand dollars. If you pay $3000 for a lens, you get what you pay for, I wouldn't say it was bang for the buck. just sayin...

Fishfinder71 wrote in post #14615352
The title of the thread is "bang for buck". Seems to me these are all $500 to a few thousand dollars. If you pay $3000 for a lens, you get what you pay for, I wouldn't say it was bang for the buck. just sayin...

Well, let's see. The Tamrom 17-50 F/2.8 is $439 CDN compared to the Canon
17-55 F/2.8 which runs $1015 CDN. Sounds like a good Bang for the buck to me.

The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is $510 CDN and the Canon 35 F/1.4 is $1419 CDN.

And the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 OS was $2700 CDN when I bought it and the
2X teleconverter was $349 CDN. And the closest 500 to 600 OS/IS lens
from Canon currently run $7500 (300 F/2.8 L IS II + TC) to
$10,000 CDN for the 500 F/4 L IS II or $12,500 CDN for the 600 F/4 L IS II.

So yes, they are a good bank for the Buck.

--Evan

24-105L - great range (on full frame), great price, good IS, great IQ. Fantastically versatile L quality glass that won't utterly break the bank.
135L - not cheap, but the sharpest lens in my bag and the rendering is magical
Zeiss 50/1.4 - adapted Contax/Zeiss in my case, so pretty cheap, and has a wonderful micro-contrasty look. My favorite 50 by far.

I only buy full frame glass these days, and all of these lenses are ones I'd buy back in a heartbeat. The rest in the list in my sig could wait.

Strayz wrote in post #14536030
Here is my short list of 3 bang for buck.

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8

How is that lens??

I am in the market for a Canon 24-70 2.8 but since they kicked the price up so high to 1600-1800... i am starting to rethink my decision!... i always love a "bang for buck" deal.. I am mainly doing concert photography in low light situations 80% of the time.. Would this lens Tamron do ok compared to the Canon? my budget right now is about $1200-1300.. thx

Fishfinder71 wrote in post #14615352
The title of the thread is "bang for buck". Seems to me these are all $500 to a few thousand dollars. If you pay $3000 for a lens, you get what you pay for, I wouldn't say it was bang for the buck. just sayin...

Not really, 17-50mm is $450, but Canon 17-55 IS is $1100. Same pictures for nearly 1/3 the cost.

120-300mm f2.8 is $3000. Canon 300mm f2.8 is $5000. So for almost half the price you get 300mm f2.8, plus everything between 120 and 299. Good bargain.

That's why these threads are interesting. Some people think of "bang for the buck" as just cheap. Others think of it in terms of the alternatives.

tkbslc wrote in post #14617196
Not really, 17-50mm is $450, but Canon 17-55 IS is $1100. Same pictures for nearly 1/3 the cost.

120-300mm f2.8 is $3000. Canon 300mm f2.8 is $5000. So for almost half the price you get 300mm f2.8, plus everything between 120 and 299. Good bargain.

That's why these threads are interesting. Some people think of "bang for the buck" as just cheap. Others think of it in terms of the alternatives.

I see your point. I'm always willing to say when I've been wrong. oops!!

I just bought a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for $399 at Best Buy with my DSLR purchase last week. I guess that's a little bit of a bang for the money. Takes great pics, though not a perfect lens.

Mine

85 1.8
50 1.4
28 1.8

Hah i'm going with three of the cheapest lenses canon ever made (besides the nifty fifty).

EF 35-80 III
EF-S 18-55
EF 40mm 2.8

Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 35mm f2
Tamron 70-300mm USD VC

I would say

Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 135mm f/2
Canon 200mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8

Hmm...

Keeping cost in the equation..

1. Canon 50 1.4
2. Tamron 28-75
3. Canon 70-200 4L

If I had to seriously downgrade price-wise from what I've got now, that's probably what my kit would look like.

EF 50mm 1.4
EF 85mm 1.8
And not speaking of experience, just looking at samples om here, the 135mmL.