Bargain lenses

[robert_davis7]

Aside from the EF 50mm f/1.8, which is the ultimate bargain EOS lens

when you compare its performance (stellar) with its price (rock

bottom), what are some other "bargain" EOS lenses?

 

Although third-party lenses can be bargains, I'm excluding them from

this poll (partly because I'm going to try to stick to Canon lenses

in the future).

 

(And please don't take this question too literally. Indeed, the EF

35-80mm f/4-5.6 is a bargain, but it only fulfills part of my

definition -- rock-bottom price. If you've used this lens, you know

its below-par performance.)

 

To start, I vote that the 200mm f/2.8L is a bargain lens.

[nammyboy]

I vote for: 28/2.8, 35/2, 70-200/4

 

~Nam

[mike_broderick]

The 70-200 f/4 looks REALLY good for the money, but I can't speak from significant direct experience.

 

I mainly posted to add that flipping your question to the reverse, I'd have to say one of the anti-bargains is the 180mm macro. I like mine, but I see little advantage over the Sigma and Tamron counterparts, and a colossal price difference! I'd do differently if I had to purchase again.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I would like to say the 100 macro (which i've had experience with) and the 300/2.8 (never used one but stevie wonder could see that it's one of the best lenses ever made-what price perfection?)

[taner]

if 'real' experience, as opposed to 'web gossip' is what you are looking for, one needs to be rather insane to shoot with the low end of Canon zooms instead of the 28mm f/2.8 which costs next to nothing in comparison to lenses like the 24-85 or the 28-135. I have no expewrience with L zooms. 'Richer' members could perhaps reflect upon that.

[robert_meyers]

I love the 100mm F2. It is incredibly useful. However, by skippingthird party, you are skippingon some extreme bargins. In example, the Tamron XR DI 28-75 2.8. Match it up against an old 28-70L... it wins. Though, honestly, the 24-70L beats it. (personall observation from some test shots I did).

[taner]

I forgot to add; I tried the 28/2.8 against the 28-135 under almost any condition. IS matters the least at the 28mm end, and the zoom is just not sharp - until all the way to f/11... My verdict on the 24-85 is through realtive comparison (assuming the 28-135 is the better zoom... gossip!)

[tom_burke3]

Actually, the 24-85 is a good lens - not up to 24-70 standard of course., nor is it quite as

good (at the relevant) focal lengths) as the primes. But it *is* considerably better than the

kit zooms, is pretty close to the standard of the primes (especially when stopped down),

and of course offers 5 focal lengths in one package - 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and

85mm. So, yes, it's a bargain.

[everheul]

85mm f1.8

 

It's fast autofocus, FTM focusing, and costs less than $400. Oh, and it's tack sharp. Even at a stop slower than the $1500 85mm f1.2 it is still a pretty fast peice of glass and a hell of a bargin.

[adrian_chester]

yup i vote for the 24-85, its great, the only thing i dont like is the bloody lens creep, a problem i never had with my Tamron 28-200 :s

[yakim_peled1]

Though none is what I'd define a "rock-bottom price" - all my lenses. 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8, 200/2.8.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[eric merrill]

<i>"Aside from the EF 50mm f/1.8, which is the ultimate bargain EOS lens

when you compare its performance (stellar) with its price (rock

bottom), what are some other "bargain" EOS lenses?"</i>

 

<p>

My vote would be for the 85/1.8. Very fast autofocus. Full-time

manual focusing. Sharp enough wide open.

 

<p>

--<br>

Eric<br>

<a href="http://canid.com/">http://canid.com/</a><br>

[gaius1]

I second both the Canon 200 f/2.8L and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Both great lenses. The 17-40 f/4L is good value for money also. The 28-135 IS is OK, but I won't count it as a bargain lens because of its tendency to creep, it can only be used horizontally and it is hard to carry. I expect a little more quality in something that costs GBP 400! Optically it's fine, but there's more to a lens than its optical performance, as Canon (usually) well knows.

[jim_larson1]

It occurs to me that the 70-200/4L and 17-40/4L are similar in both price and F-Stop. Significantly cheaper than the 2.8L lenses. Significantly more expensive than the prosumer zooms. Perhaps that means the pricing of these lenses are "fair".

 

So, if Canon ever makes a 24-70/4L at $600; I would BUY ONE TOMORROW.

 

****

 

On another note, the two recent lenses, the 70-300DOyoubelivethIS and the 28-300/L-IS seem a (way) bit overpriced.

[jamiew]

Ron,

 

300/2.8 a bargan... Come on. More like the 300/4 IS.

[gaius1]

Yes the price difference does seem to be mostly on aperture. AJ Purdy (good prices, in my experience, at least compared to Jessop's!) has the 400mm f/2.8L for GBP 5,549 and the 400mm f/5.6L for GBP 899. Sure the former has IS, but I doubt that accounts for the difference. The 70-200 f/2.8L is GBP 1,399 and the 70-200 f.4L is GBP 509, again the former has IS. So IS can't cost more than GBP 809 alone.

[andrew robertson]

Mr Taner, I would beg to differ on your verdict regarding the 28-135 IS USM. It's a really

nice lens, and stopped down just one stop looks even better. Maybe you got a crappy one,

but mine is awesome. The IS also really works well - see my post in the EOS forum on

this.

[ryanjoseph]

24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM, 85mm F1.8, 70-200 F4L, Phoenix 100mm F3.5 macro lens, 400mm f5.6L

[citizensmith1664875108]

Of the various lenses I've owned and used I'd say the best value for money are the 24 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. Not sure I'd ever count the 70-200 as a bargain as bargain to me means low priced. With those two you certainly get a lot of bang for your buck though.

[rob_murray]

I gotta give a plug to the Canon 22-55mm USM lens...

We use two of them, they are discontinued but can

be found used for $100 or so. Maybe we got two good

ones but they are plenty sharp stopped down a bit...

It was the cheapest way to get a wide angle.

These weigh only 6 ounces too...Mostly plastic like

the 50mm F1.8 lens.

The old style 28-70 F3.5-4.5 II was very good too.

The old style 100-300 F5.6 L was very good too.

Of course ergonomics on these lenses were pretty bad.

[josh1]

<i>Tamron XR DI 28-75 2.8. Match it up against an old 28-70L... it wins</i>

 

<p>Show ME the money....now here's a test I wanna see the results of. Convince me and my 28-70L will be on Ebay tomorrow. Of course, I won't be able to use the tamron on my film body, will I? From what I've heard, the Tamron is terrible at f2.8, which always seems to be the case with third party 28-70ish f2.8 zoom.

[josh1]

<i>The old style 28-70 F3.5-4.5 II was very good too</i>

 

<p>Its ok for 100 bucks or so. The ergonomics are terrible, as mentioned. The autofocus sounds like a garbage disposal. Optically? Doesn't really deserve the praise it receives. Some say nearly as sharp as the 28-70L. Bull. I had the 28-135IS and the 28-70II at the same time. Tested them against each other. They were very close, if anything, the 28-135 was better. Have since sold both in favor of the 28-70L....they don't compare.