What's been your most/least cost-effective Canon lens?

[bpoulin]

<p>This is a bit of a copy-cat post from the Nikon forum (<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00WJtG">here</a>), but I was hoping to hear your opinions on the Canon side as well. I think a lot of other people will be interested, too, and I hadn't seen the question posted quite this way previously.</p>

<p>Personally, I've been thrilled with the return on investment from my 50/1.8. It's not my favorite lens, but from a value perspective I have nothing to match it. As a relative novice, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts about your lenses throughout the quality range.</p>

<p>(Note -- I am not asking, "Which lens should I buy next?", a question very thoroughly answered in other places. :) )</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Although expensive . . . my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L has been my most cost-effective lens. I have gotten good results with everything from Portraits, Wildlife, Car & Airshows, to fast action Motorsports.<br>

And this is speaking for it's use with film, which would be like a Full Frame digital and in digital with the 1.6 crop factor.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Since I'm an amateur photographer, I don't apply cost-benefit analysis to my gear, but I'd have to say that my EF 50/1.4 has given me by far the most bang for my buck. And the least? My 85/1.2 L II, of course.</p>

[nicolas_haroney]

<p>I'd have to say my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II is my "best lens for the $", with the 100/2.8 macro coming in 2nd place (it is as sharp as some of my more expensive glass, for much less $). I also agree with Brett's positive opinion of the 50/1.8, obviously a great lens for the money.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Considering I've owned it for 16 years and used it often, my EF 200 2.8L USM works out to being almost free. The same year, 1994, I bought an EF 35 2.0 and, although not used nearly as much, was a lot of bang for bucks at only $90. On the other hand, I owned 3 EF 50 1.8 and all were crap even for the $75 they cost new back in the day. Oddly, the the last one made a tiddy profit as someone bid it up to $225 on fleabay, so it turned out to be hoe lotta bang for bucks despite being a turd of a design.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>70-200 2.8 non IS. I purchased it used with a Tamron 10-18 for $1000 about 2 years ago. Sold the Tamron for $400. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>EF 70-300/4-5.6IS, EF 50/1.8 and EF 300/4L</p>

<p>I've always found the EF 50/1.8 (or at least the one I own) to be a very good lens, very usable even wide open, especially for portrait work.</p>

[jorgen_dalen]

<p>20-35/2.8L - I bought it second hand in '96 and it has been working great ever since (on my 5d). A little soft wide open, but very useable from f4 and down to f16.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>50mm f/1.4</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>85mm f/1.8 would be my best-glass-for-the-price.</p>

<p>...And I have to give a nod to the 70-200/2.8 IS, which is certainly not cheap, but is incredibly useful.</p>

[bjscharp]

Either my Sigma 30mm or my 135mm f2.0L

 

The first is my `bring only one lens' lens, and the second does exactly what I bought it for.

[pjmeade]

<p>The 50/1.8 is the lens I use least, I'm not at all fond of the background blur it gives. I think I've had only one shot with that lens published.<br>

The lens I use most and to be honest, don't like that much is the 100-400, which I use for polo and rugby.<br>

The lenses I like best are the 300/4 IS, which is light enough and fast enough to hand hold almost all the time and I find is superb for cricket, much equestrian and most birds (+/-1.4x). Another lens I love is the 70-200/2.8 IS, for all the reasons you would expect. Its little brother the 70-200/4 is also a delight and gets packed away for traveling or when weight and size may be an issue.<br>

The lens that is really growing on me at the moment is the 85/1.8.</p>

[marykonchar]

<p>Since I mostly photograph wildlife, my 500mm f4 is my best value if you consider cost per image. I'm sure I have taken at least 150,000 photos with the lens, and no other lens in my bag comes close to that number. My 180 f3.5 macro probably comes in at a far distant second, followed by the 70-200 f4.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>50mm f/1.8 is definitely the most bang for my buck. The 70-200mm f/4L was also a great investment. L quality optics, build, and AF with a constant aperture and internal zoom all for $500. The fast AF is the biggest attribute for me, especially after using the slow AF of the 75-300mm IS for awhile.</p>

[ed_v.]

My 2 cents from use on a 40D:

 

Most cost-effective prime: 50 f/1.8 II (bought used for $50, stilll own)

 

Most cost-effective zoom: 70-200 f/4 L (bought used for $500, since traded up to f/2.8)

 

Least cost effective lens: 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS (bought new for $400, sold quickly afterward)

[jack_nordine]

<p>The 200mm 2.8 L. For the years I've had it and its outstanding performance, this lens was a bargain.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Are off-brands fair game? If so, my most cost-effective lens is Tamron 17-50/2.8 and least cost-effective is Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 (nasty image quality, waste of money and time).</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I've gotten the most use, and most money shots, from my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. I use it for much of my instrument sessions in the studio.</p>

<p>I've gotten the least use, and gave away to my brother, from my EF 50mm f/1.8 II. Couldn't stand the thing that passes for a focus ring.</p>

<p>Neither were expensive lenses, the 60mm Macro is well built and easy to use, the 50mm f/1.8 was everything but.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[DickArnold]

In actual ROI my 70-200 2.8L bought before IS in 1997. I have done sports for a paper, weddings, portraits, wildlife etc. with it. I have dropped on a concrete sidewalk doing a wedding(I had the lens hood on) and it didn't phase it. It's been in the rain and fallen in the mud at football and soccer games. I would not think of replacing it. I now shoot competitive swimming with it although it is 13 years old it works and looks like the day I bought it. The next was a 75mm Bronica PE lens. I had the Bronica equipment for about twelve years and that lens did a lot of weddings and was probably paid for after the second or third wedding with it. I could also say the same for a 50 mm 2.8 PE lens. I did a lot of groups with it. I bought a 50 1.8 lens used in about 1995. It still works and was paid for long ago. Speaking of ROI, I bought a set of Novatron lights in the early nineties.. I have changed one modeling light. My spare modeling light has been waiting in a drawer for about ten years. I used the lights on a job just recently..They worked flawlessly. The portraits they did paid for them many years ago and they are still going strong. The worst ROI was any third party lens among several that I have owned. I could not keep them working and never liked the AF. I no longer buy them When I had my business I bought only equipment that I thought would pay for itself or was absolutely essential to the job. The lesson I have learned is to buy quality, it is cheaper in the long run.

[bpoulin]

<p>Thank you for your responses! I really appreciate hearing about these experiences with an incredible variety of shooting styles/situations. As I plan for future lens purchases, it's nice to have some sense of whether or not the glass that I'm considering will be "worth it". It's obvious that this is highly personal question, but it's helpful to learn at least something from the experiences of others so that my experiences are not be quite as painful (or expensive) as they otherwise might be. Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm interested in all types of photography at this point, but with a special interest in portraits. It's interesting to hear how many times portrait lenses 50mm (crop body), 85mm, and even 70-200mm have been mentioned so far.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3836142">B.J. Scharp</a><br>

I also like the Sigma 30mm as a `bring only one lens' lens, despite the slight focus issues I still seem to have with it.</p>

[matthijs]

On my 400D/XTi it's my 50/1.8.

 

On my 50D the 100/2.8L IS Macro.

 

Honorable mention to my 70-200/4L IS.

 

Worst bang for buck to me: x1.4 Extender II.

(it's good but I hardly ever use it)

 

My not-so-great Sigma superzoom is dear to me because it got me re-acquainted to photography.

 

My really crappy 500mm mirror gets some points for fun value.

[zml]

<p>In terms of "most bucks for the buck" it is undoubtedly the EF 400/2.8 L IS. (It also delivers the most bang for the buck when I drop it...) On the opposite side, "least bucks for the buck", surely the EF 24/1.4 L: nary a dollar earned, a pure flight of fancy on my part! Moral: buy tools, not toys, for your photography :-)</p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>I'm just a rank amateur, so no $ coming in, but as far as value, it's close between my 50 1.8, and my Sigma 70-200 2.8. They have both gotten a tremendous amopunt of use, along with leadin in total prints made...However, I suspect if you ask me this time next year, I will add a 3rd to the battle, my new Tokina 100 2.8 macro. I'm just getting into the macro realm, and am enjoying it immensely. The Tokina is pretty much glued to my 40D right now. </p>

[User_3811325]

<p>Until recently, the best value was the Canon 50 1.4. But then I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, and have not needed to swap lenses for a while! (I'm really imprvessed with the VC - this shot was hand held witha 1/2 sec exposure: <a href="http://eshelby.smugmug.com/Vacation/France-and-England-2010/IMG2034/844070161_2Nu9w-L.jpg">http://eshelby.smugmug.com/Vacation/France-and-England-2010/IMG2034/844070161_2Nu9w-L.jpg</a> ) <br>

Least used, the Canon 85 1.8. Great lens, but more reach than I generally need on my crop body (7D).</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Most: 24-70L<br>

Least: 200mm L</p>

<p>I use the 24-70 constantly... if I could have a wish, it might be to add the 24-105L to the pile, for the extra reach sometimes.</p>