Best value for money --- All brands

keyframe14 wrote in post #14918927
definetelly include 17-40L. Fantastic lens for the money

But not for wildlife. That is why this question has no answer.

I was going to include the 17-40L however I though that the Sigma 15-30, which have better sharpness at all range than the 17-40, would be a better fit for "value for money"...

Earwax69 wrote in post #14916361
Canon ef 50mm f1.8 - 110$

Canon ef 85mm f1.8 - 369$

canon ef 200mm f2.8 - 780$

Canon ef-s 55-250mm IS - 190$

Canon ef 70-200 f4L - 679$


Sigma 30mm f1.4 - 334$ (japan price)*

Sigma 50mm f1.4 - 380$ (japan price)*


Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC - 230$ (japan price)*


Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f2.8 - 399$

*Sorry, could not resist to put the good deals we have here in Japan. It's rare that we have anything cheaper than in the US.

I dont include the 18-55 IS because it come by default.

Should I include the 17-40L?

I have a problem with the definition of calling each item on this list -the best value for the money- or nearly every one of them.

Let's say I buy the 50mm f/1.8- and later decide that I want to get the 50mm f/1.4 or the f/1.2 L- now didn't I just waste money on that 50mm f/1.8 ? Or I buy the 55-250 and later replace it - and the 200mm f/2.8 - and later replace it with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - didn't I just lose money on the other lenses... Oh, before you say anything about buying used- I don't ! What's of value and a value to someone is not the same as someone else's idea of value. Buying something because of it's price and only because of its price- is kind of silly.. You know the old saying - Buy cheap, buy twice. I've been on this merry go round before- a lot of the time, you are better pinching some pennies, and getting the better item to begin with. Too often- you end up ponying up for the better item later- so - well I guess I'll choose my way..

Personally, I think you are obsessed with "cheap". Oh, the 18-55 - well, the last time I checked- if you get it in a kit- you are still paying for it. Now, when you replace it or practically give it away- how valuable is that ?

Leica 50mm ASPH or 35mm ASPH sumilux because they eat up your wallet and you need to learn how to shoot them since you have no other option.

Hehehe wow!

What I am talking about is lenses that you are going to be satisfied with. If not, you are right, it's not a good deal. Best exemple is the 85mm f1.8. I like mine a lot and I dont plan to replace it by a "better" 85mm. As for the 55-250mm, yes the 70-200 is better but the 55-250 give 75% of the experience at 1/10th of the price. That's a good bargain.

Better still it's when the "bargain"lens is equal or better than the expensive lens.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14925237
Hehehe wow!

What I am talking about is lenses that you are going to be satisfied with. If not, you are right, it's not a good deal. Best exemple is the 85mm f1.8. I like mine a lot and I dont plan to replace it by a "better" 85mm. As for the 55-250mm, yes the 70-200 is better but the 55-250 give 75% of the experience at 1/10th of the price. That's a good bargain.

Better still it's when the "bargain"lens is equal or better than the expensive lens.

That's the whole point. If you have a feeling that you are going to want the better version of the lens[at that focal length]- then settling on the cheaper lens is - well- wasteful. Sometimes budget does drive decisions, but it should not be ALWAYS the deciding factor- although sometimes it is. For instance, your Canon 85 f/1.8 - the next step up - canon-wise- is the 85 f/1.2L - a $2000 lens.. Can you say ouch ? The 50mm's from Canon are a little bit better- you can go mid-range with the 50 f/1.4 at a decent price. But with the 50mm f/1.8's reputation and build quality ( and AF )- I probably will skip the "value" .. Sometimes, you take the hit on the budget- for example, I really can't afford/justify the 85 f/1.2 L- even though I want it. Other needs will come first- like maybe a 300 f/2.8..

Sometime today, though, I will try on the 85 f/1.8 - when it arrives.

keyframe14 wrote in post #14918927
definetelly include 17-40L. Fantastic lens for the money

I was thinking the same...

Perfect_10 wrote in post #14922681
Maybe so, but just like all the lenses mentioned, I'd have no trouble mounting any of them in front of my camera

You sir win the internets.