Your top 3 "bang for buck" lenses?

If I had only $1000 for a camera lens budget, I'd probably choose:
Canon 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 ($300ish)
Canon 28mm f/1.8 ($400ish)
Tamron 18-270mm (versatile, but slower)

Or...in a single lens with slowness, but OS, just a Bigma 50-500mm and call it a day.

Problem with that is you only left $300 for the 18-270.

Voigtlander Ultron SL II 40mm f/2
Canon 85mm USM f/1.8
Canon 24-105mm L IS USM f/4

From a image quality/price standpoint:

Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 135 f/2

While still not cheap there is an incredible amount of bang for your buck with those lens in a kit.
My other would be the Canon 20-200 f/4 IS.

Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS ($594 during a sale)
Canon 85 f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (refurbished through CLP $1,600 + tax)

tkbslc wrote in post #14294808
Problem with that is you only left $300 for the 18-270.

And that's a problem because...

Canon 70-210mm f4 for about 100$ can produce some nice photos. Tamron 28-75mm for 300-350$ and 17-40mm

honestly probably the most bang for buck lenses are the 18-55, 55-250, and 50 1.8. all 3 lenses deliver very good quality images while being ~$100-150.

Canon 28 mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8

Sold all three recently, due to lens 'overload' but all three were absolutely super.

100 f2.8 IS L macro, 70-200 f4 L non IS and Sigma 150-500 OS. These are the lenses I've used to get the most good photos for price paid. It's worked out at under 4p per photo on the 100 macro and about 7p per photo for the Sigma so far and it's getting less on every click. The 70-200 worked out at around 11p per photo, but that's only because I sold it after a couple of months to get a 70-200 f2.8 IS L.

My third choice would of been the 55-250 IS, but the wife nicked it about a week after I bought it and I think it's welded on her 550D now so I don't get to take any with it.

85/1.8 --- Versatility (portraits and indoor sports) makes this my top choice
55-250IS --- Crazy price on this one considering what it can deliver
Tamron 17-50/2.8 non VC --- Super-value standard zoom. Punches in much higher weight class.

Shopping used you can grab this bang-for-the-buck trifecta for <$900. Add in a used mint 40D for $400 and you've got one hell of kit on the relative cheap.

Top three is tough since quite a few come to mind... If I HAD to pick only three:

Canon 85 f1.8 (or 100 f2, take your focal length pick)
Canon 50 f1.8 (even if yo splurge for the MkI metal mount)
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 (my darkhorse candidate but a stellar zoom for its price)

Honorable mention:
Sigma 24-60 f2.8 (fast zoom with decent range at that price is awesome!)
Canon 300 f4 non-IS (one stop loss to the f2.8 but very little IQ give up at just over than 1/3 the cost)

I didn't list the 135 because as good as it is, the 100 f2 is just about as good for 1/3 the cost making it better bang for the buck. Same holds true for the 17-40 or 24-105 when compared to the 28-105 and in that case, the 28-105 might be 1/8 the cost of the 24-105.

Mine has got to be the Nifty fifty. Sharp as a tack and cost me £70 new. Some my think it cheap and nasty but I love it!

Paul

18-55 IS

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 55-250mm
Sigma 30mm f/1.4