Ian Taylor Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>fifty one four</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john clark Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>50/1.8. Nothing else comes close in a value sense.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>After the "fast 50's", the 70-200mm f4L (non-IS).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marlon_kuzmick Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>I agree about the 50/1.8--compared to the cost of the rest of the EF lenses, it's practically free.</p> <p>But here's a suggestion no one's offered yet: the 135 f/2 L. Yeah, it's expensive---but it may actually produce the best images in the entire line (for both sharpess and bokeh), and it's cheaper than the rest of the L primes (except the 200 f/2.8, I guess, which someone else already mentioned).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorlandphotography Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>85mm 1.8. I've forgotten what I paid for it, but it was peanuts when contrasted with other options. These days I use it mostly for portrait work with my 5D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotograf Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>"Regardless of cost" and "best value?" aren't these questions somewhat of a contradiction?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark f Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>50mm f1.8 ..... no question</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark f Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>50mm f1.8 ..... no question<br> well, maybe the 85mm f1.8....(:</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengt_rehn Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>This is easy! It is EFS 18-55 3,5-5,6 IS for APS-sensor cameras. It is temting to vote for the 50/1,8 since it is sharp and fast, but that is not enough to outweight the usefulness of a zoom.<br> That is why canon sell kits with its budget zoom since more than two decades.<br> If we are talking purely of IQ/price ratio, its another story but that was not in the original question.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnhoff Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Hey Puppy, just curious,</p> <p>why have you owned 3 50mm 1.8 lenses, when you were never been happy with them and you have excellent alternatives like the 50mm 2.5 macro?</p> <p>Chris</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liuap Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <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. The high ISO cameras allow you to shoot at low light withou compromising photo quality using a lens with f# around 5.6 or even 8. Based on that my list lenses are 18-55mm IS and 70-300mm IS which are priced reasonably and well suited for digital cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igord Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Anping Liu, I use fast lenses for a narrow dof most of the time. It makes you more creative when you have fast lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlwakefield Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>For me its the 24-70 2.8 L for a full format. I would not choose it for crop. it lives on my 5D and fits my style of photography. Best value as I would need lots of 3 primes to replace this. The quality is very very high, its sharp. Its good in low light and when need more I use my flash. If I had to live with one lens it would be this.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david israel Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>It's nice to see all of the responses posted from everyone. I am amazed at how much useful information I was able to attain from just this one posting.<br> THANK YOU EVERYONE!</p> <p>Regards,<br> David</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin starks pics Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Well, here in Canada, I checked the other day at Henry's and the price for the Canon 50 mm f1.8 is $139.00....well, that's our Canadian dollar for ya! The salesman I was talking to said it was a "great portrait lens" since it wasn't that sharp. I was thinking of buying it for sports but now have second thoughts...yes, I know it's cheap but "not sharp" Is it worth it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott bean Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>I'd have to go with the 50mm f1.8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>I agree with the 50/1.8 being the best bang for the buck.</p> <p>But it is NOT my most used lens, and it is not currently in my day bag.</p> <p>The lens I simply feel I must use at every possible opportunity is the 85/1.8. Awesome lens. No regrets buying it. The 35/2 is my least used lens. . unfortuantely.</p> <p>The 28-135/IS, when purchased in a kit for an incremental $200 has got to be a huge value that someone would use everyday.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyjo Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Either the 50 f/1.8 or the 70-200 f/4 non IS. The 70-200 is a wonderful lens used for <$500.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryan_lardizabal Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Long range tele would be my 400mm f5.6L, super sharp and relatively cheap to the 400mm f2.8 big brother</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgars_kalnins Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>i cannot argue with people prefering 50/1.8. I have used it, but can`t get out of it pictures that would make me leap with joy. on the other hand my 85L is magic and the pics I can get with it make me think it`s worth it. my experience is limited though. i might find a cheaper magic wand one day:)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_hardy1 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>I think a nice L zoom would be very good value (cost, performance and convenience) compared to the high cost of buying a bunch of prime lenses to cover the same focal lengths.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanellopoulos Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>70-200 f/4 L<br> This lens is clearly a lure... :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manncer1 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for general purpose always on camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delwyn_ching Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <ol> <li>50 f/1.4</li> <li>17-40 f/4.0L</li> </ol> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeap69 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p> 100 2.8 macro.<br> Not so cheap but very usable in lots of shooting opportunities.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now