KenSimone wrote:
I know this topic comes up a lot, and the conversation seems to hover around the $400 price point. Pretend like I'm *really* strapped for cash. What are some good lenses for < $200 (used or new)? I own the 50/1.8 and the 35/2 and I know that those are good. I did some research and people seem to generally like the EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. The Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 also falls into this list. I tried a copy and it was soft and had poor contrast, but other people seem to really like it. Anyone have any others that they've been pleasantly surprised by? ...Show more →
rceres wrote:
The 100 f2 is right at your price point and very good.
IMHO the 100 F/2 is one of the best kept secrets there is. Anytime the conversations on the forums turn to reasonably priced primes everybody starts raving about the 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8. Understandably. But never the 100 F2 and I don't know why.
I bought mine on here a few months ago for $200, about? At a horse show a few weeks ago I had to shoot for five days without flash. Even at ISO 3200 I could not get fast enough shutter speed with my 70-200 F/4L. (Even the 2.8 would not have been fast enough). The 100 was just right length and the F2 gave me just enough I could shoot at 1/250.
I agree with John about the 24-85. I heard this lens referred to as the "closest to L possible." I have the black, not the champagne, version. Each time I think 24-70 I just pull that lens out. Cannot recall the price I paid but it was a bargain.
Craig
Not sure if you are looking at full frame or cropped.
I second the 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 (Cosina, Tamron, or Tokina). I have the Tamron and it is a great lens for the money. I recommend buying it new, you may have to return one or two to get a good copy, or from a friend that will let you return it. The 135 SF would be a second choice if you wanted to go long rather than wide. The 28 2.8 is also supposed to be a good lens for the money. The 28-105 is a decent lens if you treat it as a 35 - 85, actually makes a decnt portrait lens if you can control the background and back-lighting. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a sweet lens but closer to $400 and only for cropped sensor. I would avoid used unless you can return, lots of abused puppies out there that might look ok on the outside. Also, caution on old Canon lenses, focus and diaphragm motors die and usually can not be fixed anymore, one of the down-sides of auto-everything.
Sam N wrote:
18-55 IS kit is the way to go if you want a zoom. The older cheap 28-xx or 35-xx zooms are mostly crap compared to the 18-55 and they don't go wide enough for a crop-body.
quote]
It might be a BIT out of your range, but the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a RIDICULOUS bargain. I've seen them for about $250 used. I'll try to dig up the link, but one review site compared it to the legendary Zeiss 35mm f2.8 Distagon and it was neck and neck at all aperatures for sharpness and even topped the Zeiss for distortion! It was the first lens I bought and actually made me return several lens's since because I thought they where defective, it just turns out the Tamron is stupidly sharp for it's price.
I got the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for $250ish after MS Live cashback. I used it for the first time this weekend. It's awesome. Much better than the Sigma 24-60mm lens I had, and much better than the kit lens. It's so good that I sold my 35/2, and my kit lens, and have put the 50/1.8 away, since I'll only use it when I need the extra stop (I used to use it when I wanted quality pics, but the Tamron delivers that). Thanks, everyone, for all the input.
I recently bought a 28-105 on FM for $125. Extremely good value for money, if you want a zoom. If you want a prime, I recommend 35mm f/2.0 for a crop camera or 50mm f/1.8 for a full frame (at about $200 and $70, respectively).
Paul Yi wrote:
Why nobody mentions EF28-135/3.5-5.6 IS?
Maybe not the place or topic, but to my mind, this lens is perhaps the most under-appreciated lens in the line-up. Just spent a long weekend with it (by default) and grew to really admire it. Glad you asked...
since you have 2 prime that cover 35-50mm, i think it would be perfect if u add wide angle zoom lens or prime for landscape. For landscape i think u would be using at f8.0 & above, so you would see much different between cheap and expensive lens.
EFS 18-55 is a good lens for value of money, for landscape its good enough if you dunt mind the slow focusing. If you want to add prime (which also can be used for low light shot with no flash) you can search used sigma 20 1.8 / canon 20 2.8 for a little over your budget
SmegHead wrote:
It might be a BIT out of your range, but the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a RIDICULOUS bargain.
I can't agree with Smeghead more. I saw a portrait photog friend of mine using the Tammy on her 1D MkII. I sort of scoffed and made some sort of pompous remark about using L's. She suggested I try it.
I did and now it is probably my #1 go to lens on my 5D.
Paul Yi wrote:
Why nobody mentions EF28-135/3.5-5.6 IS?
because you asked for <200USD?
I had 24-85, 28-70 3.5/4.5 and 28-105 3.5/4.5 I and the second was the winner in IQ.
"4-85 was very bad and returned immediately, probably I got a lemmon.
Now I have the tamron 28-75 but it's out of your budget (around 280-300).
Tokina 19-35 was often called the "fantastic plastic" and served me well till I got L fever and bought the 17-40. I still think it's a great lens. Slower to focus and a bit noisier than the L, but a GREAT bargain at around $130 or so.
Bought this cheap Pentax 200mm f/4 lens converted to EF mount with AF confirmation. I must say it's pretty damn sharp. No sharpening, standard sharpness setting of 3 in DPP. Bought it for AU$41 off ebay but I was feeling generous so I gave him $80 for it.
