Best bang for buck Canon lens?

I'm thinking of buying a new lens (preferably of the L series, but another series [as long as it's by Canon, it's fine.])

ParadiddleLuke _indirectly) suggested me to the 17-40mm F/4L, and I'm happy with the focal range (although having up to 50mm and f/2.8 aperture would be a bit nicer). Do you guys have any L alternatives in the same price range that would possibly have a similar focal range or better?

How about Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? Not an L, but from all the comments here it sounds like it's pretty close in image/build quality.

generally the bang for buck lenses are primes.

you seem to want a zoom, and not going outside canon, I cannot think of one, assuming you mean that you want a bargain of a lens that delivers.

the only L zooms that are "cheap" are the 70-200 f4 and the 17-40L.

the new sigma might deliver, 17-50OS 2.8. not canon and not L though.

The EF-S 15 - 85 would make a good walkaround.

quadwing wrote in post #10060054
I'm thinking of buying a new lens (preferably of the L series, but another series [as long as it's by Canon, it's fine.])

ParadiddleLuke _indirectly) suggested me to the 17-40mm F/4L, and I'm happy with the focal range (although having up to 50mm and f/2.8 aperture would be a bit nicer). Do you guys have any L alternatives in the same price range that would possibly have a similar focal range or better?

The 17-40 f/4L is a nice piece of glass and the results are quite good Irecently bought a 1dmk3 with this lens in with the deal + a 430ex flash best way to show quality is a shot or two

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

just curious whats so good about having an L? 1 less setting to mess with?

tvdang7 wrote in post #10060356
just curious whats so good about having an L? 1 less setting to mess with?

L is for luxury!

Not a Canon lens but if its bang for buck your after I say the Tamron 17-50 2.8

17-40.

Supra_t wrote in post #10060377
Not a Canon lens but if its bang for buck your after I say the Tamron 17-50 2.8

yeah this would be what i would recommend...why don't you want to deal with another brand other than canon?

I agree about the Tamron 17-50. It is not Canon and not L, but it has all you want. 50mm, f/2.8, sharp and affordable.
In the Canon lineup you should consider the EF-S 17-55.

Or just get 17-40.

I also depends on what you plan to shoot.

135 2 L

It is a good lens for croppers and really shines on the full frame. If you are not going full frame anytime soon then the 17-55 will be better.

It does sound like you want a 17-55is efs tbh.

DreDaze wrote in post #10060395
yeah this would be what i would recommend...why don't you want to deal with another brand other than canon?

I have the Tamron and for the price,the very usable 2.8 and picture sharpness and contrast its a winner

tvdang7 wrote in post #10060356
just curious whats so good about having an L? 1 less setting to mess with?

What sample images not clean sharp and impacting , this have and have not senario goes on and on but the first L i bought sealed it for me .
a 20-35 L i bought 10-12 yrs ago in comparison to the 50:1.8 , 28-105 3.5-4.5 and 70-300 4-5.6 their was no contest the speed of focus colour clarity was a step up. In fact it is sharper than the present day 17-40 f4, have not had the 17-40 that long but my car shot pleases me .
My only non canon lens is a 90mm macro tamron very fine for it,s price and a very good mid range portraint lens ,the only downside is that you could die waiting for it to focus ( slight exageration)
it has served me well and I have kept it for that reason .
Another sleeper in the L stable is the 200mm f2,8L MK2 This beast is stunning in speed and clarity
and build quality have many competition shots taken with this lens and the images realy do shine
example a hawk(kestral)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.