I nominate the older 24-85 F3.5-4.5 silver version, made for the introduction of the then new EOS IX APS. Sharp wide open with very good color/contrast.
I am really surprised that my "sleeper" hasn't been talked about.
I use the 28/135 USM IS on both my 300D (wife) and my 20D. We shoot horse shows and the range is perfect for arena shots. I quick tweak in PS and you have very saleable images. Also they can serve as backups to each other if one of us needs the 70/200 range.
But this is from a "What lens makes me money" viewpoint.
After reading the whole thread I would have to say the only true sleeper in the bunch is the Plastic Fantastic 50/1.8 MkII. Razor sharp, fast and light and all for about $70 bucks. I own one and love it. You get a little better bokeh with the more expensive 50's but for 70 lousy dollars you can't go wrong.
Rusty1 wrote:
I nominate the older 24-85 F3.5-4.5 silver version, made for the introduction of the then new EOS IX APS. Sharp wide open with very good color/contrast.
The fact that it was first noted on page 6 makes it a sleeper IMHO!! I have had 2 of these, one silver and another black and they have both been very very good. Almost as sharp at my 28-70 f/2.8L at half the weight! Another advantage is that if you have the 70-200 f/4L which is another great lens, they both share the 67mm threads.
No one has mentioned the 70-300 DO IS, yet. It's really sleepy, I guess
I love mine and use it as my long travel lens. Great IS, tiny with a useful range. It does require good exposure and some PP to make it ZING... Very useful lens, to me!
About the 28-135 IS...not a bad lens, but there are better. The 28-105 3.5-4.5 is nearly the same range, MUCH better in image quality, and MUCH lower priced...making it a true "sleeper" IMHO.
Though I've never used one, all accounts of the 100/f2 (which I heard is a very likely candidate to be revamped in 2006) produces some very very pleasing results, it's just that when people want a 100mm prime, they overlook that one to get the macro instead (which, for portraits, can be a bit too sharp).
Shivatron wrote:
The 50/1.8 is the ultimate sleeper. It's bay far the cheapest lens Canon makes, but it's image quality rivals that of many L zooms.
Well, there are really only 4 L zooms covering the 50mm - old 28-80, 28-70 and new 24-70 and 24-105. I have no experience with 24-105, but I can't possibly imagine how the 50 1.8 can "rival" image quality of the other 3.
Color and contrast is far superior with L zooms and sharpness is at least comparable or better. Granted, for $70 the 50 1.8 is a bargain, but "rivaling" L zooms is a bit far-fetched I think.
About the 28-135 IS...not a bad lens, but there are better. The 28-105 3.5-4.5 is nearly the same range, MUCH better in image quality, and MUCH lower priced...making it a true "sleeper" IMHO.
I've never seen anything objective that shows the 28-105 to have "MUCH" better image quality. And the higher cost is mainly because of the IS.. just as the 75-300 IS costs double the non-IS 75-300. --c
PhotoHound wrote:
The 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM (metal mount) is a heck of a lens for its range and price, great quality and very sharp.
I have to second this. An older version of the 28-105. I bought one with an Elan II quite a few years ago and have always been impressed with it's performance.
They are so reasonably priced on the used market that I decided to keep mine although it gets little action with the lenses I normally carry.
