Overall Best Canon lens for the money

<p>The 85 1.8. It's relatively light, fast, and its sharpness at least equals that of my 24-105L IS.<br>

But, I love the 24-105. If I had to have just one lens, that'd be it. So far, it's both wide enough and long enough for almost all occasions (but, my child is only five and doesn't wander far from me or do big-time sports); it's light enough to carry all the time, and has IS for low light and unsteady hands. So, I consider it a good value.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=all&stype=1&si=EF"></a> <br>

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM<br>

This lens offers all you need in action photography with bonus in sharpness. <br>

Indoor sports, concerts, weddings and candid is where this lens will shine the most. <br>

I am amazed with this lens. <br>

<br /> </p>

<p>Hey, </p>

<p>You took my name. I am David Israel.</p>

<p>100 f2.8 macro</p>

<p>50 /1.8 just bought it for 80 euros the price is a joke</p>

<p>50 /1.8 just bought it for 80 euros the price is a joke</p>

<p>24-70L, most useful lens on a full frame camera, good bokah, allows one to come within inches, excellent IQ, on a crop camera the 17-40L, a 50mm is too limiting to be of use in too many circumstances.</p>

<p>It depends on body.<br>

For 5D, 24-105mm F4 L.</p>

<p>Most people seem to be concerned with "quality for the buck." I think the most bang for the buck would be a lens that gives the photographer a good combination of price, focal lenght options, quality and aperture range (> than 5.6). The EF 50 f/1.8 is wonderful because it's cheap, good and goes all the way to 1.8, but it doesn't provide much on the focal lenght dept. The best bang for the buck would have to be a zoom. The 24-105 mm strikes me as a great combination of focal lenght range, aperture range and quality for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>"I've owned 3 copies of the EF 50 1.8 and was never happy with its performance. On the other hand, the EF 35 2.0 and EF 50 2.5 CM have been among my oft used optics"<br>

I would have to go with the 50mm 1.8 for the price. This is the lens that came with my camera, but I unknowingly removed it as soon as the camera came out of the box and replaced it with a so-called better lens.<br>

I decided to use it one day and I was shocked by the sharpnes and contrast. Not sure about the EF 50 2.5, but my 35mm f2 is not as contraty as the 50mm f1.8. Also I dropped that lens once on a plush rug and the AF button popped out. Luckily I was able to glue it back with Crazy Glue. </p>

 

<p>EF 50mm f/1.8. I you will never get a Canon lens with such a good price-value ratio even again.</p>

<p>I have to say the 135 2.0; sure, it's not the cheapest good lens (I vote 50 1.4 for that) but the 135 was a revelation. It's less than 1K and I'd have paid significantly more for it. That's bang for the buck defined.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I predict that the involving digital camera technologies will change the requirements to camera lenses. With super high ISO from 5D mark II and other coming models, you may not need fast lenses any more"----------------------Maybe, but only if you want all the clutter in your house in perfect focus as your background for people photos. My vote for a prime would be the 50 1.8, I get so many nice photos with it. Also the 70-200 f4 non IS. I had one and sold it to buy 100-400 and now I miss it. It was incredible. Also the 18-55 IS is a great value. Best wishes!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OP: Oxymoron? You said regardless of cost, but asking for the most bang/buck lens? </p>

After thinking long & hard about this (all of 3 seconds, no less :)) I have to go with the 50 f/1.8

<p>The answer is entirely relative to the shooter and the subject, but clearly the EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens is a tremendous value for many shooters - certainly useful to and used by far more than use the 50mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>Question doesn't make sense "regardless of cost - most bang for the buck" but the 70-200 f4 is my vote</p>

<p>the "nifty fifty" (1.8)</p>

<p>Quality for buck. well id say the 35 F2 is awesome as I use it quite a bit, but Honestly Id have to say the (300 2.8L IS USM) is it is the SHARPEST lens i have ever touched... My wallet regrets buying it but its my favorite and 2nd most used lens i have. to be able to get pictures of a football game at night and see the holes in the mesh on the jerseys is WOW, the colors WOW, the contrast WOW.... they could easily charge quite a bit more for the lens for how perfect it is its a bargan (far from a steal but still a great value)..</p>

<p>Sigma 30/1.4 if it were a Canon, but since its not, the Canon 100/2 would be my pick. The 50/1.8 had its moments, but just not the focal length for me on 1.6x.</p>

<p>The 85 1.8 isn't the cheapest lens, but IMO it's still the best bang for your buck. A skilled portrait photographer can make a living with this lens, I've seen it happen.</p>

<p>I bought a 50mm mark I that was on a broken film eos on fleabay for about 80 shipped, good build, same optics as mark II. Also which is crazy but got a 70-210 canon 3.5 usm for under 110$ shipped, they have been recently going for nothing on ebay. I dont understand it, its focus is faster than 70-200 f4 L, colors and contrast are a step down, but incredible buy.</p>

<p>Best overall canon lens is: <strong><a href="http://best-canon-lens.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-l-is-usm-lens-review/">Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM</a></strong></p>

<p><strong>source: <a href="http://best-canon-lens.com">Best Canon Lens</a></strong></p>