Overall Best Canon lens for the money

<p>Regardless of cost, in your opinion what is the best Canon lens for the "buck/best value" out there?<br>

Just thought it would be fun to see what other photographers out there thought?<br>

Thanks again,</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>For me its the 50mm f1.4 sharp at f2.8 quick focus good bokeh and very cheap. For its performance it should be L but build quality reflects the price.</p>

<p>50f/1.8(I)</p>

<p>For the money it has to be the 50mm f/1.8. For just about $80 you get one of the sharpest lenses in Canon's line-up. My example is very good at f1.8 and excellent at f2.8 and above. How can you beat an $80 lens that has excellent optical qualities? Yes, the build is crap, it is plastic made, in your hands it feels like the worst lens on the planet, but once on your camera, it shines. Best value of any lens out there!</p>

<p>EF 50/1.8</p>

<p>Depends. The easy answer is the 50mm f/1.8 for price:IQ ratio. However, if you're shooting, say, wildlife or macro or landscapes or sports, the 50mm f/1.8 is of very limited use and thus little 'value'. I think this is a rather silly question because it will depend on the user and the expected product. This is similar to several other open ended questions you (and others) have asked recently. Figure out what you want to shoot, and read lots of reviews and tutorials or photography theory books, and you'll figure out what might be the best value for you.</p>

<p>I would have to agree that the best price/performance lens is the 50/1.8, which I do not own.</p>

 

<p>Normally, I'd be one chiming in with "best for what purpose?" However, there may be some other candidates such as the 35mm f/2 or the 28mm f/2.8, but the winner just has to be that "plastic fantastic," the "nifty fifty," otherwise known as the EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II.</p>

<p>Since 1990 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 since the early 90s and, although a little more expensive, are far more useful and better optically and mechanically. They get mah bang fo' buck vote.</p>

<p>candidiates would be...<br>

35mm 2.0<br>

50mm 1.8<br>

85mm 1.8<br>

100mm 2.8 macro<br>

200mm 2.8 L (best L lens for the money?)<br>

400mm 5.6 L</p>

<p>I keep seeing 50mm 1.8 which I also own. I just bought and have been satisfied so far but have not taken enough shots to vote my best value yet. I am a big fan of my Canon 100/f 2.8 USM Macro. It was more expensive for me compared to my other lenses, but so far my best shots have been taken with that. It's also a great portrait lens as well...</p>

 

<p>The best lens for short money has got to be the 50/1.8, for a little more money the 35/2.0 (don't have one myself). For a little more money the 85/1.8 (don't have this one either) or the 100/2.0. For a little more money the 200/2.8 (again don't have this one). Then you start getting into the range where some of the L-zooms are the better value for their flexibility. Of course this list only relates to Canon lenses, there are some thrid party lenses that people think quite highly of but that I can't speak for specifically.</p>

A good, used copy of the 28-70/2.8L and the 50/1.8.

<p>Canon 24-70 f2.8</p>

<p>how much money? It's all relative...</p>

<p>Puppy Face - is your 50/2.5 sharp in the corners on ff camera (not extreme corners) when you shoot, say, from the 4 meters distance at f/2.5 - f/4? Does it focus well at this distance? I really like this lens so maybe I should get another copy as mine doesn't behave well except macro or really short distances.</p>

<p>Canon EF 28 - 105mm 3.5 - 4.5 USM II when used on a film body.</p>

<p>The new Canon Kit lens 18-55mm with IS. You get 38 different focal lengths for $158.53 (That's approx. $4.17 per lens). And it is sharp sharp sharp<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d</p>

 

<p>The best for the money IMO is my 70-200 2.8L. I bought it in 1996 for about a thousand dollars. I guess present value of those dollars is abou 1500. That is about 14 years I have owned it. Over that time it has been dropped hard on concrete, fallen in the mud, actively shot candids at a few hundred weddings, done several different sports for a paper, and never missed a picture. It still looks new and performs as well as the day I bought. If you did a cost per picture ratio the lens would be in a small fraction of a penny. I have used it more than any other lens having owned several different lenses in the 24-135 range over this same period of time. So for overall value over relatively heavy use it, in my mind, amortizes better than any other lens I have owned. And it is a top level performer IQ wise. </p>

<p>70-200 4.0L IS - is an amazing lens - Light, fast, super sharp and amazing at all Appertures.... for an expensive lens would be the 50 1.4 - super sharp fast focus and very little difference from its L sibling the 50 1.2 except in weight and the sweet red stripe.</p>

<p>70-200 f4 L, 18-55 EFS IS, 50 f1.8</p>

<p>Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro. Excellently sharp. Fantastic color/contrast. If used for portraiture or candid/street, then the macro work is "free". Excellent bang for the buck and covers a range of different types of photography.<br>

Derrick</p>

<p>I always liked the 135 f2.8 SF, bargain for its buck, 70 200f4 can be another cheap gem along with 35 f2 :)</p>

<p>All L grade lenses under 1500$</p>

<p>Although my earlier post was a "me-too" for the 50/1.8, my more thoughtful answer would be quite different.</p>

<p>Bang for the buck does not always have to mean a quantifiable formula that has a single finite answer. Rather, it could be the lens that gives the user the ability to get the images desired that could quite simply not be obtainable in any other way. That definition of bang for the buck opens the door to many more interesting answers.</p>

<p>For me, the answer to the question under that definition of the constraints would have to be the EF 300/2.8L.</p>

<p> </p>