Your top 3 "bang for buck" lenses?

Talley wrote in post #14293603
Canon 70-200 F4 nonIS (I disagree the IS version being here because it's an extra 500 bucks just for IS)

A telephoto lens, especially not a particularly fast telephoto lens, looses quite a bit of versatility without IS.....IMO

Canon 200mm 2.8 L
Canon 400mm 5.6 L
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro (non IS version)

honorable mention.... Canon 28mm 2.8

Top 3 / Manual Lenses
Nikon 200mm f/4 AI or AIS (under $100)
Nikon 50mm 1.8 AIS (approx. $70)
Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.7 (under $200)

I don't have that much experience with different lenses, but the Tokina crop lenses are darned good. I have the 11-16 which is a great, but ever better is the 50-135. Costs less, fantastic range, super sharp and built like the proverbial tank (heavier than the 70-200 F4 IS).
Really wouldn't want to let them go, but since I also have (and still use) a EOS 3, it would financially make sense to go FF for digital as well as any lens can then be used on both bodies (50D and 3).

On full frame the top 5 lenses for you $$ based on average photozone.de MTF results and slightly out-of-date prices are:

Canon 50 f/1.8 (duh)
Canon 35 mm f/2
Samyang 85mm f/1.4
Samyang 14mm f/2.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8

No surprise they are all primes, nor really which primes they are.

Top 5 zooms:

Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Tamron 70-200 F/2.8
Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

Keep in mind though that this kind of analysis heavily favors low prices by its very nature.

Canon 85mm 1.8
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
Tamron 70-300mm USD VC

Kit 18-55 IS, 50 1.8, and 55-250 is a fantastic starter kit which offers great bang for buck to cover a very large focal range

Sigma 50, Samyang 14, Samyang 85, Canon 50/1.8, Tamron 28-75.

Also, as mentioned before the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS are great.

Not enough lenses in my collection to say, but the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 is pretty solid for a relatively quick, affordable and versatile zoom.

18-55 came with my T1i loved it
55-250 cannot beat this lens for its price vs performance.
EF 50 f/2.5 macro - OP said 50 F1.8 was off the table

For starting out on APS-C:
- 55-250 (cheap zoom that works pretty well)
- 18-55 (stop it down when you can; can't beat the price as part of a kit)
- 35/2 (if you want a fast prime that's isn't telephoto like a 50mm would be on a APS-C DSLR)

If you got the extra money:
- 15-85 (if you want to stay with Canon)
- 70-200/4L IS (a really great first L glass)
- 10-22 or Sigma/Tokina equivalent (best bang for buck ultra wide options for APS-C are these zooms)

55-250mm IS
70-200mm f/4L
17-40mm f/4L

TS: How is the 50mm f/1.8 "obviously" at the top. That lens is a piece of **** that will break when you drop it 1ft on to a cloud. My copy didn't get sharp until f/4, AF was terribly slow and noisy. MF ring is way too small, 5 blade aperture doesn't create pleasing bokeh (not that you'd see any because you have to shoot at f/4 for a sharp picture) Maybe you should make your list and not assume EVERYONE is on the Thrifty Fifty bandwagon. It's was one of the worst, most disappointing lenses I have used and owned.

70-200 2.8L IS II - A lot of buck but equally proportioned bang.

Canon 85 1.8
Canon 50 1.8
Sigma 50 1.4 or 30 1.4 (given its a good copy)

kawi_200 wrote in post #14293990
55-250mm IS
70-200mm f/4L
17-40mm f/4L

TS: How is the 50mm f/1.8 "obviously" at the top. That lens is a piece of **** that will break when you drop it 1ft on to a cloud. My copy didn't get sharp until f/4, AF was terribly slow and noisy. MF ring is way too small, 5 blade aperture doesn't create pleasing bokeh (not that you'd see any because you have to shoot at f/4 for a sharp picture) Maybe you should make your list and not assume EVERYONE is on the Thrifty Fifty bandwagon. It's was one of the worst, most disappointing lenses I have used and owned.

The general consensus is the 50mm f/1.8 offers remarkable optics and for the price represents amazing value for money. Yes the lens is not of the same build quality as the L series but for sub £100 I doubt it would be. The copy i have is a Mk1 made June 1988 and still going strong, then again i don't think i have ever dropped it.

JakAHearts wrote in post #14293997
70-200 2.8L IS II - A lot of buck but equally proportioned bang.

I did consider listing this lens. It's is absolutely stunning. But the 70-200 f/4 can do at least half of the f/2.8 IS mkII performance and over 3x less price. More bang/less buck

Strangely Brown wrote in post #14294055
The general consensus is the 50mm f/1.8 offers remarkable optics and for the price represents amazing value for money. Yes the lens is not of the same build quality as the L series but for sub £100 I doubt it would be. The copy i have is a Mk1 made June 1988 and still going strong, then again i don't think i have ever dropped it.

I'd love to give the mk1 a go. The more solid build is one thing what the mkII needs, even if it doubles the price. The mkII fell into the old saying, "you get what you pay for" IMO. I still feel I got less than I paid for though. Gave it to a friend after a month.