Your top 3 "bang for buck" lenses?

You might laugh but the old EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 can be had for ~$50-70 no need for IS it is compact and light plus it gives excellent images. Often referred to a poor mans L. Just try to find one they sell very quickly.
Next 100mm 2.8 very good lens sharp and portable
and the venerable 70-200 f4 excellent lenses lens.

Careful shopping and you have 3 very good lenses for under $900 total.

Bang for the buck:
1. 70-200 f/4.0L non is.
2. 24-70 f/2.8L version I. Got it for $850.00 refurbished from Canon several years ago.

85mm f/1.8. Really good lens in every respect.

70-200mm f/4.0 non-IS used.

17-40L, in particular as a walkaround on a crop. Ever weather sealed.

Samyang 14/2.8, EF 85/1.8 and 200/2.8L II

17-40 f/4, 85 f/1.8 and Sigma 30 f/1.4

I own the 17-40 and 85

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM
Canon EF 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 USM

85 f/1.8
17-40 f/4
70-200 f/4is

I know some have argued for the non is version of the 70-200, but the is in low light situations makes it a much bigger bang for the buck imo. I thought about putting the 135 f/2 in place of the 85 1.8 as it is my favorite lens, but I attempted to be a little more objective and put the 85 f/1.8

CaptB412 wrote in post #14523776
I know some have argued for the non is version of the 70-200, but the is in low light situations makes it a much bigger bang for the buck imo.

If the target is moving the non-IS f/2.8 can take that place, though.

Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Tamron 70-200 2.8

riotshield wrote in post #14473050
18-55mm
55-250mm
50mm 1.8 - if this is excluded, I would go with the 85mm 1.8

I would add the Tamron 17-50 non-VC, but at its current selling price of $474 AR new it's not such a bang for the buck anymore (although still the cheapest 2.8 zoom option).

I'd definitely agree on the 50/1.8 and the 55-250 IS. Third one is a bit tougher call. Granted, I have limited experience with Canon's lens lineup, but I tend to think it's a toss-up between the 18-55 IS and the 85/1.8. It really depends on your needs since they serve different functions - not to mention that the 85/1.8 costs about 3X what the 18-55 IS costs. If push came to shove and I could only have one, I'd probably say the 18-55 just for the versatility in range, and because I'd already have the 50/1.8 for low-light / portrait work.

Let me choose TWO lenses for 1.6x cameras and list them in three categories...

LOW END...
Canon 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

MID RANGE...
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Tamron 70-200mm f/4-5.6 VC

HIGH END...
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS

These last two are certainly not inexpensive. However, IMO, they are worth every cent I paid for them and then some. I use them now on a 7D and a 40D. But, I shot an entire two week trip to China using these lenses on a 30D and a 40D. See my China galleries at the smugmug.com link below...

This combination is the best general purpose and travel lens duo I have ever used in over fifty years of photography; much of that time professional shooting.

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)

I agree that the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L lens provides excellent image quality but, when I used this lens I was always constricted by the amount of light needed to keep the shutter speed high enough. Hand-holding the non-IS lens was often a bit chancy.

On the other hand, the 70-200mm f/4L IS can be hand held in far lower light levels. (1/60 and even 1/30 second). I use my IS model 4-5x more often than I could ever use the non-IS version. It costs about 70-80% more but I use it 400-500% more. That is a pretty good cost vs. value ratio for me!

Canon did not just add IS. The 70-200mm f/4L IS model is a better lens, better IQ, far better bokeh and it has somewhat better weather proofing.

RPCrowe wrote in post #14534071
I agree that the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L lens provides excellent image quality but, when I used this lens I was always constricted by the amount of light needed to keep the shutter speed high enough. Hand-holding the non-IS lens was often a bit chancy.

On the other hand, the 70-200mm f/4L IS can be hand held in far lower light levels. (1/60 and even 1/30 second). I use my IS model 4-5x more often than I could ever use the non-IS version. It costs about 70-80% more but I use it 400-500% more. That is a pretty good cost vs. value ratio for me!

Canon did not just add IS. The 70-200mm f/4L IS model is a better lens, better IQ, far better bokeh and it has somewhat better weather proofing.

Yeah but if your subject is moving the IS won't do it, and then not even a tripod helps.

In that case you can spend the same money on either the f/4 IS or f/2.8 non-IS and the latter will do better for moving subject. The premium for IS on the f/4 (100% roughly) is just a lot of money, that's why many don't place that lens in the bang-for-buck excellence category.

85 1.8
135L

Can't decide on a third. Never had a drop of regret of either of those lenses. Love my 35L, but I've had a few struggles with it. Maybe the 28 1.8? Really all the Canon USM primes (28/50/85/100) are fantastic value lenses.

Here is my short list of 3 bang for buck.

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8
Canon 70-200mm F4 non IS
Canon 85mm F1.8