Any other similar 'jewels' like the Canon EF 50 mm 1.8?

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>I bought this lens a bit doubtful thinking that photography is an expensive field and cannot be cheap. But I've changed my mind. This tiny (plastic) lens is wonderful for what you pay. And when you discover little gems like this you start to wonder if there are more of those.<br>

Therefore I'm wondering if there's something like the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.<br>

But actually to be honest, I'd be interested to hear about any other nice cheap lens for the 7D!<br>

I'm still discovering this world, so my point is: why spend a lot if you don't know what you're gonna use? first get an idea, then if you like it buy the *real one*.</p>

 

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>I forgot to say that any other good lens, even if not canon, could be a nice addition. For example I've heard good things about Sigma and Tamron...</p>

[zml]

<p>Lenses should be bought to fulfill a need, not because somebody has somehing good to say about 'em. That "jewel of a lens", the 50/1.8 is for nought if you don't shoot at 50 mm so tailor your lens purchases to your needs & style of shooting.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>The design of 50 mm f/1.8 is actually quite old; optically these lenses are relatively simple. That's the reason why they offer a good quality at an affordable price. It's not Canon related, all big manufacturers offer similar lenses. <br>

I don't know of any comparable lenses (cheap an good optical quality) but I'm actually quite curious why 50 mm is cheap, why not 24 or 100 mm, or other focal lengths. I wonder if anybody can shed a light on this?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM used.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>24mm f2.8 is cheap and of excellent quality. About the same as the 24L at equivalent apertures. Nothing is as cheap as the 50/1.8 though. The 85mm f1.8 is also excellent, but not so inexpensive as the 24mm.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Just bought the older Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro USM Wow...........</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Best under or around $500 ( which is pretty cheap for good lenses )<br>

Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a cheaper zoom that rivals the Canon 17-55.<br>

The 100mm 2.8 macro is another great lens. <br>

85 1.8<br>

But yes, nothing like the cheapy 50 and michael is correct, I would not buy a lens I do not need just because its cheap.</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>Here are a few more based on my experience (40D) -</p>

<p>EF 35 f/2 (paid $270 new) makes a nice inexpensive "normal" lens<br>

EF 70-200 f/4 L (paid $500 used) previously mentioned<br>

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (paid $325 used) makes a nice portrait zoom on a 1.6x body</p>

<p>-Ed</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know of any comparable lenses (cheap an good optical quality) but I'm actually quite curious why 50 mm is cheap, why not 24 or 100 mm, or other focal lengths. I wonder if anybody can shed a light on this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably because for decades, 50mm (or thereabout) was the defacto "kit" lens for a 35mm SLR. Lots of experience there, and R&D all well paid off by now... As I recall, the Canon 50mm f1.8 is 15 or 20 years old, dating back to early in the autofocus days...</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The Canon 28 f2.8, if you can get a good copy, is an excellent lens at $250 new.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>200/2L</p>

<p>:)</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 28-105mm f3.5/4.5. For under $300 this lens is well built(not L series quality of course) but light, compact, relatively sharp, quiet, has good contrast and range. Clearly one of the best bang-for-the-bucks in Canons line up. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I third the 70-200mm f/4L. And as far as L glass, the 17-40mm f/4L is great bang for the buck. I don't mind it being an f/4 b/c I shoot mostly landscapes with it at f/8 so the more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8 wouldn't be too advantageous for me. I use it mostly on a 40D, but its really a treat when I put it on my film camera. I can't wait for the day I can get a 5D or 1DS and use it one there. The 200mm f/2.8L is the last affordable 2.8 telephoto before you get to the 300mm f/2.8L.</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>I like Daniel's style ;-) I think it might be a bargain jewel if you add 0.8 to the aperture...</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Daniel, behave.</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>The 28/2.8 and the 35/2 are probably the next the cheapest after the 50/1.8. Though they're less famous both get very good reviews. </p>

<p>The 85/1.8 (and the slightly longer brother the 100/2) however are famous. Both give top results at mid level pricing.</p>

<p>So in short: no, the bang/buck of the 50/1.8 is unequalled but the next best things are probably the EF 28/2.8 and the 85/1.8. The question is of course if these offer a sufficiently different view to your taste and whether in the end an L-zoom isn't cheaper. But an L-zoom's certainly not better in the case of the 85/1.8.</p>

<p>If you scroll down, down and down again at <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html">this site </a>there's a list of affordable high quality lenses. ($300 or less) The 50/1.8 is in ninth place... so there's 8 lenses below $300 that are considered better! (O.K. one of those is the mk-I version so that's actually 7.)</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I agree with Harry.....after the 50mm f/1.8 the next best buy for the money is the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (NOT the 4.5-5.6). As Matthijs has indicated the 35 f.2.0 canon is also an extremely good buy. I don't own the 28 f/2.8 so I won't comment on it.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>Back in my EOS film camera days, I got a great deal on a Canon 50mm f/1.8, around $50.00 I think. A local supermarket did a major makeover and carried a whole lot of things beyond groceries, including a real camera department. Things didn't work out, so they sold off much of their stock at great prices. I also picked up a Canon 28mm f/2.8 for a bit more (had to haggle for that one for a while). Both were originally well over $200.00, so I was tickled to get them for such great prices.</p>

<p>But along came zoom lenses, and I used them mostly because of the convenience of having multiple focal lengths in one lens. So I've never really used the 50 or the 28 much since I've switched to digital. I did use the 50 at times for copying photos and for serious close ups, but that's about it. I'm gald I still have the two lenses, but they don't see much use on my DSLR. I have seven other lenses that I use instead.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong ><em >"Therefore I'm wondering if there's something like the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.”</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

A set of three kenko rings and use your 50F1.8MkII<br /><br /><br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<strong ><em >But actually to be honest, I'd be interested to hear about any other nice cheap lens for the 7D!</em></strong><br>

<strong ><em > </em></strong><br>

EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS <br>

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS<br>

EF 35 F/2<br>

EF 24 F/2.8<br>

EF 85 F/1.8 USM<br>

<br>

All have their good points and none will not break the bank. <br>

<br>

There are limitations with each lens, but IMO each lens presents very good value for money when used within their limits – and each has lots of scope within it own limits depending upon what it is you want to capture.<br>

<br>

I have not used the EF 28-105 F/3.5-4.5. - no comment from me on that.</p>

<p>I have used the EF 28 F/1.8 and I believe the 35/2 is better value. <br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[steven_crist]

<p>Optically 50mm is "standard" length for full frame. It doesn't magnify or widen the image so the glass formula is not complex or costly to make. It's not that Canon has found a hidden "magic" formula, it's simply not an optical challenge. To build a cheap <em><strong>and</strong></em> decent quality 15mm or 400mm lens - that's where you will need magic.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Used film bodies.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>In terms of value for money, I would say the 70-200/4 and 85/1.8 are two excellent lenses.</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>The best value lens is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, when it is purchased with a camera. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>24mm 2.8 / 28mm 2.8 / 35mm 2.0 / 50mm 2.5 CM all very underrated sharp lenses. Sometimes you can find these used at very low prices.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I actually bought an 18-55 IS so my daughters (seven and four) could shoot comfortably w/ my old XTi. cost me $90, it's no nifty fifty, but given it's range it's actually a steal at that $$$, and I was certainly pleased w/ the image quality.</p>

<p>Another, for $200-250 (used) is the 28-135 IS. w/ a lens hood (because otherwise it flares terribly) it can produce rich colorful and reasonably sharp imagery, plus the FTM / USM is a dream to use if you've never used proper USM before. I still carry it as a backup for the 24-70/2.8 The biggest downside is that 28mm is NOT wide at all on a crop sensor (not an issue on my 5). </p>