Non L lineup

Everyone seems to want the L's...but they are very expensive and unless your single very hard to convince the significant other they are worth it. So I was putting together what I wanted for my lenses and thought that this would be a good thread to start.

What would your ideal lineup of non-L lenses be. They must be under $800.

For the 1.6 crop body:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Canon 28 - 135 (I love the range for walkaround)
Sigma 30 1.4 for indoors
Canon 85 1.8 for portraits and longer indoor needs

What I don't have on my list is a good telephoto zoom or telephoto prime that meets my requirements.

What are some other peoples non-L lists for under $800 per lens?

sigma or canon 50 f1.4
sigma 150-500mm

70-300IS? Although for the price a 70-200L would work too. On the cheap the 55-250IS would do well as the telephoto zoom

....under $800 per lens?

Primes:
28mm f/1.8 USM .............. $450.00
50mm f/1.4 USM .............. $400.00
85mm f/1.8 USM .............. $380.00
100mm f/2.8 USM Macro .. $525.00
200mm f/2.8L USM .......... $750.00

Zooms:
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ....... $700.00
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS .... $550.00
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ..... $599.00

snowshark13 wrote in post #8318998
What I don't have on my list is a good telephoto zoom or telephoto prime that meets my requirements.

i see in your sig that you have the 70-200L already...

but the 55-250IS is a good budget telephoto

ef 85 1.8
ef 50 1.4
30 1.4
55-250is

Don't forget the Canon 10-22mm....one of my favs on a crop body!

But if we're talking longer lenses:
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro -- I really want one of these badly, after borrowing one!
Tokina 100-300mm f/4 -- outdated a bit...but a great value in the used market. A buddy has one, and really likes it.
Any of the Canon, Sigma, or Tamron 18-200mm's -- they all have their weaknesses, but they are nice if you need that all-in-one walk-around.

In my sig: Sigma 17-70mm, Canon 50mm, Canon 85mm, Sigma 150-500mm.

I sometimes think about getting rid of the Sigma and replacing it with a 17-40L... But then I look at the photos I've taken with it and and they are so freakin' sweet.

How about a Sigma 200-500?

I currently have a 20d and think I'm pretty close to my ideal lineup. I'd love to get a 17-55is, but it is an expensive piece of glass. I'm also thinking about replacing the tamron with a sigma 24-60 and picking up a tokina 11-16 or 12-24 for landscapes and wideangle. Listed how much I paid for the lenses I own.

Tamron 17-50 $380
Sigma 100-300 $638
Sigma 150 macro $590

hiddengamer7 wrote in post #8319208
How about a Sigma 200-500?

Not quite "under $800" is it now?

nureality wrote in post #8319328
Not quite "under $800" is it now?

... but it's "not an L"

The OPs criteria:

snowshark13 wrote in post #8318998
Everyone seems to want the L's...but they are very expensive and unless your single very hard to convince the significant other they are worth it. So I was putting together what I wanted for my lenses and thought that this would be a good thread to start.

What would your ideal lineup of non-L lenses be. They must be under $800.

For the 1.6 crop body:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Canon 28 - 135 (I love the range for walkaround)
Sigma 30 1.4 for indoors
Canon 85 1.8 for portraits and longer indoor needs

What I don't have on my list is a good telephoto zoom or telephoto prime that meets my requirements.

What are some other peoples non-L lists for under $800 per lens?

I don't own one yet, but my choice is the 100mm f2.8 macro. It is quite capable of taking images that will sell.

^^ Your list had a few Ls.

No Ls allowed.


Edit: Canon 100 f2

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Canon 60mm 2.8 macro
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro
Canon 100mm 2.0