Best lenses for your money...

RobE · Jun 9, 2003

I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at $65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My 24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

stephen s brown · Jun 9, 2003

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

I think you will get a lot of agreement on the 50 -1.8; however, even that is questionable because those who have a Mk I version will say it is best. From there you are opening a can of worms. The discussion and arguments can go on forever. Personally I like the Sigma 15-30 considering cost value comparisons.

Steve

--
I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie anymore.
http://www.pbase.com/stevebrown

RobE · Jun 9, 2003

Trying to get my hands on a low-milage 50 F/1.8 I -- I want the distance scale for IR use.

stephen s brown said:
RobE said:

I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

Click to expand...

I think you will get a lot of agreement on the 50 -1.8; however,
even that is questionable because those who have a Mk I version
will say it is best. From there you are opening a can of worms.
The discussion and arguments can go on forever. Personally I like
the Sigma 15-30 considering cost value comparisons.

Steve

--
I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.
http://www.pbase.com/stevebrown

--
(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)

EricHanson · Jun 9, 2003

Becuase that is one lens that I'm SURE I'll never be tempted to buy

Rico Tudor · Jun 9, 2003

All good lenses, but the #1 lens for value is the 28/2.8: bog-standard FL for D30/D60/10D, cheap at $160, small, light, sharp wide open, sharper stopped-down.
I use it 60% of the time.

Ari Flinkman · Jun 9, 2003

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I think that 85mm f/1.8 is also definitely there, at $320.

I don't know how many of you would agree, but after lusting after a 135mm f/2.0 L for years, the 1.6 crop factor turned that cheap piece of glass into a real winner.

The 24-85 would also be on my list, but limiting this to the lenses I've used, I can't recall anything that'd make this list.

RobE · Jun 9, 2003

I debated between the 35 F/2 and the 28 F/1.8 because I wanted the extra stops -- the 28 F/1.8 doesn't rate as well optically -- and the 28 F/2.8 wasn't bright enough.

Rico Tudor said:
All good lenses, but the #1 lens for value is the 28/2.8:
bog-standard FL for D30/D60/10D, cheap at $160, small, light, sharp
wide open, sharper stopped-down.
I use it 60% of the time.

(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)

Lee Rothman · Jun 9, 2003

one of my first lenses I got was a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super. It is typically available these days for about $180. An amazing performer when you consider it's a APO (Apochromatic) lens. Very sharp surprisingly enough, even at it's 300mm end. I used it for fireworks shots as well as lot's of outdoor stuff. sold it to a good friend that has a D30 and he is still creating excellent and sharp shot with it. For someone on a tight budget it's worth a serious check out........

Thomas Kachadurian · Jun 9, 2003

I know these are on the pricey end for some peole, but I shot more that 1000 frames at a wedding this weekend and there was very little that these lenses couldn't do.

I have been impressed with the 70-200f4L since the day I got it, but the 17-40 is quickly working it's way to the top of the rotation.

I've seen all the test reports on the web, but there is not question that the 17-40L I have now is sharper than the 16-35L I had before it.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

RobE · Jun 9, 2003

Thomas Kachadurian said:
I have been impressed with the 70-200f4L since the day I got it,
but the 17-40 is quickly working it's way to the top of the
rotation.

I've seen all the test reports on the web, but there is not
question that the 17-40L I have now is sharper than the 16-35L I
had before it.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

RobE said:

I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

Click to expand...

--
(See profile for equipment I own -- questions welcome.)

Phillips40 · Jun 9, 2003

An outstanding lens for $169. Just my opinion. I also like the Sigma EX 15mm fisheye I got new for $349.
--

http://www.frankphillips.com/macro

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

Adam-T · Jun 10, 2003

Canon 50mm F1.8 (£79)
Tokina 19-35 F3.5-4.5 (£149)
Sigma 15-30EX (£399)
Sigma 28-70EX DF (£299)
Canon 80-200 F4.5-5.6 (£89)
Canon 17-40L F4 (£699)
Canon 70-200L F4 (£599)
Sigma 50-500EX (£659)
Sigma 180EX Macro HSM (£450)
Sigma 105EX Macro (£279)
Sigma 70-200EX F2.8 (£599)

Rip-off Lenses (UK of course)

Canon 35-350L (£1749)
Canon 20-35USM (£450)
Sigma 17-35EX (£359)
Canon 50mm 1:2 Macro (£370)
Sigma 14mm F2.8 (£699)

Good Buys (not bargains or Ripoffs)

Canon 100USM Macro (£549)
Sigma 50mm Macro (£210)
Canon 28-135IS (£359)
Canon 24-70L (£1149)
Canon 100-400L IS (£1249)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Ashley Cheng · Jun 10, 2003

I would add 85 f1.8 to the first category and 70-200LIS to the last.

Adam-T said:
Canon 50mm F1.8 (£79)
Tokina 19-35 F3.5-4.5 (£149)
Sigma 15-30EX (£399)
Sigma 28-70EX DF (£299)
Canon 80-200 F4.5-5.6 (£89)
Canon 17-40L F4 (£699)
Canon 70-200L F4 (£599)
Sigma 50-500EX (£659)
Sigma 180EX Macro HSM (£450)
Sigma 105EX Macro (£279)
Sigma 70-200EX F2.8 (£599)

Rip-off Lenses (UK of course)

Canon 35-350L (£1749)
Canon 20-35USM (£450)
Sigma 17-35EX (£359)
Canon 50mm 1:2 Macro (£370)
Sigma 14mm F2.8 (£699)

Good Buys (not bargains or Ripoffs)

Canon 100USM Macro (£549)
Sigma 50mm Macro (£210)
Canon 28-135IS (£359)
Canon 24-70L (£1149)
Canon 100-400L IS (£1249)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

William C · Jun 10, 2003

... that you tested each one of these. I sure glad I no longer have
any lens lust!

Bill

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

Expensive, but SO worth it.

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

This was the most disappointing canon lens I have ever owned. I must have had a bad one because the one I had couldn’t hold a candle to the 28-70 f/2.8L at 28mm. I thought it was a waste of the $126 that I paid for it.

Greg

Rico Tudor said:
All good lenses, but the #1 lens for value is the 28/2.8:
bog-standard FL for D30/D60/10D, cheap at $160, small, light, sharp
wide open, sharper stopped-down.
I use it 60% of the time.

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

I agree, I think this is one of Canon’s top lenses, worth every cent. It really does hold its own against primes as far as I have seen on my 1D and 10D.

Greg

DavidP said:
Expensive, but SO worth it.

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

Just don't compare too closely at 100% against the 135/2. Woah, that thing is sharp.

Still, the 70-200/2.8 IS is my most used lens.

GregL281 said:
I agree, I think this is one of Canon’s top lenses, worth
every cent. It really does hold its own against primes as far as I
have seen on my 1D and 10D.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

Forrest41926 · Jun 10, 2003

Well, it's discontinued, but a used ( or even new and sitting on the shelf ) should be a lot cheaper than the current IS model. It's definately sharper below f/8. Both 300 mm primes are fantastic lenses, but the older one is razor sharp right out of the gate.

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

Yes I do have the 135 f/2 and I did compare it very closely to my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and it was very difficult to tell the diff. I tested the 135 with TC’s yesterday http://www.pbase.com/image/17657207 and I must say I am impressed with the results. It did much better than I had expected.

Here is my comparison between the 70-200 and the 135 f/2

http://www.pbase.com/image/17587817

They are 100% crops from the center of the frame from my 1D with no post processing. I was surprised by the results. I was actually wanting to compare my 135 f/2 to yours to see if there is a diff.

Greg

DavidP said:
Still, the 70-200/2.8 IS is my most used lens.

GregL281 said:

I agree, I think this is one of Canon’s top lenses, worth
every cent. It really does hold its own against primes as far as I
have seen on my 1D and 10D.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

Best lenses for your money...

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Lee Rothman

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

William C

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts