robert_thommes Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 I'm new to Canon. As a former Nikon user, I was aware of a number of inexpensive Nikon lenses that were also decent performers. I'm now the proud owner of a Digital Rebel and am again interested in acquiring a staple of excellent performing EOS EF lenses without breaking the bank. Currently I have the "kit" lens(which is not all that bad of a performer), and the EXCELLENT 50mm f1.8 II lens which I bought here for a mere $60.00. Are there others like that---the price I mean? Or will I really need to "break the bank" in order to be satisfied. I know the addege "you get what you pay for". But Nikon had a number of these critters---very reputable lenses at a very low cost. Does Canon? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander_janke Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 A number of the non-'L' prime lenses have a very good reputation. None of them come as cheap as the 50mm f/1.8, but they still have a very good price/performance ratio. Among them are the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.8 USM and the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus. If they are too expensive new, some of them can be found used for very attractive prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Google is your friend: <blockquote> <a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/ef-lenses/">photonotes.org article</a> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/EOS_300D_lenses.html">Bob Atkins' article</a> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 See <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0088ZU">this thread</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 What Alexander said, and I would add the 28-135IS (very good in the middle of the range), 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L. The last two don't quite have any Nikon counterpart. I like my 80-200/4.5-5.6, it's obviously not as good as my 70-200/4L, but it's cheap, light and small, which makes it a veru good "backup" lens when I don't want to carry the big L glass. Which Nikkors are you specifically thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 50/1.8 - get the mkI if you can (metal mount, depth of field, supposedly better manual focus - but I haven't tried the current one, takes a clip on style shade - the one for the TS90 (ES-65III) works perfectly) 85/1.8 - I absolutely love mine 28/2.8 - I don't own it yet, but supposedly is very good for the price - some say as good as the much more expensive 28/1.8, so unless you need the little tiny bit of extra lens speed, the 28/2.8 is a more frugal choice. 35/2 - also one I don't yet own, but a very good deal for the price. -=- I don't know anything about bargain zooms, other than that the really cheap ones (kit zooms) really are meant for snap-shot consumers and not high quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley_rogouski Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 The 24-85 and 28-105 have decent reputations but probably not so much better than the kit lens to give up the focal length and spend the money. The new Sigma kit of the 18-50 and 55-200 are supposed to be excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron_w Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Cheap primes are the way to go. I currently own the 28mm/2.8, 50mm/1.8 and the 135mm/2.8SF These lenses give me the effective zoomrange of a 28-135 at f2.8. They cost me a total of $AU1500. Figure about $US700-1000. I figured this was the best quality I could get for the least cash. If you perfer to zoom, I cant help you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photodesign Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I second evrything Michael Peters wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_shen5 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 based on what you have (18-55 and 50), and assuming that you are going to keep these two lenses, i would second a previous post and get the 85/1.8 or the 100/2, i own both, and love both equally. the zoom option would be the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, great bang for the buck, i had it for a while and it was my too-lazy-to-bring-a-bagful-of-primes lens, from my observation, it's better built than the 18-55.and also the 18-55 lacks the UltraSonic Motor that the 28-105 has. the USM gives you full=time manual focus and faster focusing.i would definitely consider that. also, check out the reviews here at http://www.photo.net/canon/, i find them very helpful.<p> the following statement is a personal opinion, i would stay with canon lenses. third party lenses have had compatibilty issues with newer bodies, and for some reason i just trust canon a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexdi Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 <a href=http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_1200_56l_usm.html>This</a> is one of the better walk-around lenses, particularly when coupled with a 2X TC. It's a nice upgrade from the kit lens, but someone told me Leica glass is better, so I'm selling all of my Canon stuff to buy a manual body. <p> DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Canon lenses fall into the following categories in my mind: 1) Cheap kit lenses (at $100) => Avoid at all costs. 2) Prosumer zooms (24-85/3.5-4.5 ($330), 28-105/3.5-4.5($225), 28-135/IS ($410ish) + 75-300 ($150ish) and 75-300/IS ($425ish)): All decent performers for decent price. The 75-300's are all weak beyond 200mm. 3) "L" Zooms. $600ish for F4, $1300 for F2.8. Not cheap. Top quality. 4) Cheap primes: All the lenses mentioned in the earlier posts. TOP QUALITY, LOW PRICE. OPTICALLY FAST (F2.8 or better). Ranging from $70 (50/1.8) to $400 (20/2.8), These are the bargains you are looking for. Note: Many are older lenses, without the latest features such as USM motors. 5) "L" primes. $1200+. On the wide end, they are FASTER (F1.8 or better) than the cheap primes, and they are built better. They are NOT optically better than the cheap primes. On the telephoto end: Ummm, the sky is the limit. These are the lenses you see at the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I think that L primes are better at the matched aperture than the regular primes. 35mm 1.4L will be better at F2 than the 35mm/2 at f2 and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Rene - not always true - the 50/1.4 is better than the 50/1L at every common aperture. The 50/1L can (could) only be justified when shooting it wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 We can agree on that. The 50mmL is a freak. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_hallbeck Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 I'd say 28-105mm USM is a great deal. You can find pretty good deals all around for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 As most are recommending primes (which ARE great)i'll talk about cheap zooms in case you want them. <P>The better zooms agreed by most are:28-105/3.5-4.5(any model-just avoid the new f4-5.6 type),24-85 and 28-135 image stabilizer.<p>Amounst the tele's i'd recommend the canon 100-300 or sigma 70-300 APO macro super II.I haven't used the sigma but from all reports it is abit better than the canon-you just have to deal with possible future incompatability issues.<BR>If you can afford,definitely consider the 70-200/4L,a real stunner 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