As a hobbist/serious amateur Nikon user I decided several days before the 20D announcement that my future would be with Canon. Anyway, as a transitioning newbie to the Canon system I noticed that lenses are very much either pro or non-pro. (L or not) Nikon didn't seem to have as strong a distinction.
The late-great Galen Rowell often avoided Nikon's top equipment because of the weight. He produced some very famous work with the Nikon Series E 75-150 f/3.5. More recently he liked the AF-D Nikkor 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 and the 80-200 f/4.5-5.6. All three of these were as consumer as Nikon lenses came, but when used within their limitations, he SOMETIMES prefered their lightness to his top-of-the-line equipment. That 75-150 was my second Nikkor.
So my question is in over 15 years of EOS history what non-L consumer grade Canon lenses do you feel are great lenses when used within their limitations? What are your all-time favorites? Zooms especially since the primes are fairly clear. I understand there is no subsitute for top-end glass. But at the same time, Galen proved what a master could do with a $120 lens. I have the one L-lens my budget will afford picked out. The rest of my bag will have to be throughly consumer.
Tamron 28-75/f2.8
Limitation: #1. Stay away from f2.8 from 55-75mm (when contrast are high). #2. Do custom white balance when light is low (or prepare to do them post process)
What kind of photography did Galen Rowell do? If he was a photojournalist, then optics won't be a concern for him because it is more important for him to capture the moment.
Tommy Lee wrote:
Tamron 28-75/f2.8
Limitation: #1. Stay away from f2.8 from 55-75mm (when contrast are high). #2. Do custom white balance when light is low (or prepare to do them post process)
I think this is one heavy lens that the OP would like to avoid?
Cheaper well regarded lenses include:
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Xr Di (if you get a good one - reports of high sample variability)
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX (I personally loved this one)
Canon EF 28-105mm
Canon EF 28-135mm IS
Canon EF 35mm f/2 (personal favorite because of 1.6x crop)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Canon EF 100mm f/2
The 50mm f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.4 are amazing for the price as portriat and low light lens (on a 1.6x body). The 17-40L is one of my favorites for its versatility, size, weight, feel, color, and contrast. Plus it's not as expensive as most L's either! My favorite L to shoot with from my bag would be the beloved 135L f/2... it just has to be shot with to understand (yes, even on a 1.6x body... I find it very useful). If you're looking for a small budget start... try the 50 f/1.8, you'll be amazed at what $70 can deliver. Hope this helps.
These two aren't "sleepers" but the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are maybe my two favorite lenses. If I had to start getting rid of lenses, I'm afraid a couple of "L's" would go first.
Thank you for the great responses thus far. I just want to mention I am not necessarily going for smallest or lightest or under a certain price. Just as a Nikon user I am pretty familiar with what lenses are the classics of the more "affordable" range. Those two AF-D Nikkors I mentioned Galen used could be laughted off as junk. But they were good enough for one of the greats - at times. I am just not familiar with Canon other than "buy L glass". There is one L I plan to get. I cannot afford any more. And I am more curious about the Canon line rather than third party.
I've sold more photos taken with my old 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM and 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM lenses than with most of my "L" lenses. They're very good quality for the money.
If you really want good optics but not L, then you need to buy the primes. 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are all good choices. If you can afford $300-350, you can get 100-300/5.6L. That's the cheapest L you can get right now.
I am a big fan of the EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM, although I recommend buying it new as the lens seems to have been upgraded silently over its lifetime. It works very well with a 1.6x crop camera. It's my main lens.
Here is the scope (Assuming only Canon, no third party)
For Wide Angle, you have no choice but to get L lens
For Standard Zoom: 24-85 great optic, wide, light and fast focus.
28-105 f/3.5-4.5, good quality, light, fast and quiet focus.
28-135 IS , same optic quality as the 28-105, with IS
For Telephoto: 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 <- good quality up to 200mm, pass 200mm photos seem soft, and haze.
70-210 (discontinued) <- many good reviews about this.
For Super Telephoto Zoom -> hass to be L
Lens not to get -> 28-200, 75-300 IS (many ppl regretting this)
Right now I have my eye on the 100-400L IS. That range would be awesome especially with a 1.6 factor. And the IS would be awesome for keeping props from freezing. That prop blur thing is a dilemma because you need like 1/250 or less but 400mm. And I'm not a huge fan of my monopod.
One lens which is particularly a "sleeper lens" I think is the 28-70/3.5-4.5.
I had one but I sold it before I ever used it, it was only after that I heard this little lens actually is a very sharp lens. You should be able to get it for under 100 $.
I have a 28-70 3.5 - 4.5 II built about 1989. It cost me 60 GBP (about 100 USD) last year. I assist a local studio, who are far more expensively equipped than I am, with weddings and they are more than happy with the shots I produce and the shots sell. At the moment, what more can I ask? The honeymoon won't last for ever and at some point I will no doubt succomb to the "L"ust, but it may just be the kind of lens you are asking about.
Edited to say that Jan can obviously type faster than me
