Which lens has pleasantly surprised you?

When I buy a lens, I usually do the research and know what I'm getting. I have expectations. Most of the time the lens will pretty much meet my expectations. Sometimes I'm surprised though when I get a lens and find it is better than I though or more useful than I thought.

That lens for me is the Sigma 70 f/2.8 Macro.

I've been impressed with it's AF accuracy (I wasn't expecting much). I am impressed with it's sharpness (I expected a lot). I'm impressed with how useful it is as a general purpose lens. Oh, yea, and it is a great little macro lens too

What's your story? Which lens has pleasantly surprised you?

My 28-105mm. It's a cheap lens, but it gets the job done. I didn't use it too much on my rebel and 50D since 28mm was a bit tight, but I've been using it on my film body and my 1D and it's actually not too bad.

I was pleasantly surprised by the Canon 70-210 f/4. I bought it used, mostly just to have a lens with that range, because the price was right (ie - cheap). The reviews on it are so-so, but when I got it I was surprised to find that it's actually a pretty decent little lens!

Certainly not an L-series, and a little soft wide open & at 210mm. But once I figured out it's quirks, it was good, and I've been very happy with it. Not at all bad for $200.

Canon 100-400L. There is a lot of complaining about this lens which prompted me to shoot for two years with a 300/4 and a 1.4X TC. I finally bought a used 100-400 and I'm pleased to find that it is as good as the 300/4 and a lot more convenient too.

200/2.8 L
This is the second sharpest telephoto I've shot with. Second only to the 300/2.8IS. Every time I use it it blows me away....... and to think it was only like $600

I routinely see images from sub $100 MF lenses that often hang with the big boys.

Sigma 120-400OS. I bought mine a year ago for $700 shipped (new). It has been a great lens. It has performance and build quality that are outstanding for its price. The fact that Sigma extended the warranty for folks that registered their lens is a big plus too.

My Canon 50 1.4, because I wasn't expecting mine to be that sharp. No halation, sharp as a tack even on full frame!

15-85mm IS USM. for something categorized as a "kit" lens, this gives very good IQ for the price and the flexibility spreading across a broad range is quite nice.

Headshotzx wrote in post #9925465
My Canon 50 1.4, because I wasn't expecting mine to be that sharp. No halation, sharp as a tack even on full frame!

I second that!

For me: 135L

JeffreyG wrote in post #9924816
Canon 100-400L. There is a lot of complaining about this lens which prompted me to shoot for two years with a 300/4 and a 1.4X TC. I finally bought a used 100-400 and I'm pleased to find that it is as good as the 300/4 and a lot more convenient too.

thatkatmat wrote in post #9925415
200/2.8 L
This is the second sharpest telephoto I've shot with. Second only to the 300/2.8IS. Every time I use it it blows me away....... and to think it was only like $600

zshaft wrote in post #9925479
For me: 135L

I can't see why anyone would be surprised by these lens. Come on , guys .

my 400DO with the Canon 1.4EX TC. Both handheld and in 15-20mph winds, cropped significantly:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

It would have to be the 28mm 2.8. I picked one if these up used a few years ago for just over $100. I wasn't expecting much, but was surprised once I tried it. The center sharpness of the lens is very sharp wide open. I've ended up using this little lens far more than I thought I would. I wish I was this pleasantly surprised with every lens I bought.

It's the 100L f2.8 IS Macro for me. I bought it mainly for macros, but am pleasantly surprised at how fast it is for portraits as well. Tack sharp at f2.8 and nice bokeh.
The HIS is great and allows me to capture sharp images at 1/40 and sometimes even at 1/15