Bang for the Buck lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by dwight, Apr 9, 2008.

  1. dwight

    dwight Guest

    Not spam - go figure.

    Being new to Canon DSLRs (the Rebel XT), I started reading through this
    newsgroup for ideas about possible lenses.

    The first bang for the buck lens was the Canon 50mm f/1.8, which I tacked
    onto my order of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM as a what-the-hell. At under $80,
    it has been a fantastic little performer, and I'm thrilled with it (unlike
    the 70-300).

    When I wanted a macro lens, I read glowing reports of the 100mm f/2.8, tried
    it as a rental, and had to have one of my own. Also well worth the asking

    My latest is the 17-40mm f/4L, basically a replacement for the kit lens. I'm
    still getting used to it, but so far so great. I wouldn't hesitate in
    calling this a bang for the buck lens.

    To me, bang for the buck means exceeding expectations for under $1,000.
    Others may have different parameters (all things being relative), but those
    three lenses alone would keep me happy for a long time, and all three for
    "not a lot of money."

    I've said before that, if I had it to do over again, I would have saved more
    of my pennies to buy something better than the 70-300. That one has not met
    expectations; it's okay, but only okay.

    So... What other bang for the buck lenses should I be considering for next

    dwight, Apr 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. dwight

    OldBoy Guest

    The EF 70-200 f/4 L USM
    OldBoy, Apr 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. dwight

    jazu Guest

    Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM

    I don't have it yet (Xmas coming:), but looks like this is a must have lens.
    jazu, Apr 9, 2008
  4. dwight

    Troy Piggins Guest

    Look into the Sigma 10-20. I have the Canon 10-22, but after I
    bought it I've read the Sigma is just as good, and couple of
    hundred bucks cheaper.
    Troy Piggins, Apr 9, 2008
  5. dwight

    Eatmorepies Guest

    Agreed - I have the IS version; a lot more expensive but it is very sharp
    and produces images of excellent contrast and saturation.

    Eatmorepies, Apr 9, 2008
  6. Hi,

    i second the vote for the 70-200 4L, it´s simply the best "bang for the
    buck" tele lens you can get. IQ is excellent.
    If you do not plan to go full frame in the future, i´d also recommend the
    Tamron 17-50 2,8, you probably can´t get a better "bang for the buck" fast
    standard zoom lens for canon. It surely does not have the built quality of
    the 17-40, but many say it rivals or even exceeeds the image quality of the
    L lens. I also really like the Tamron 28-75 2,8, it shines on Crop (and the
    wide end is short enough for by shooting 90% of the time) and should also be
    an excellent performer on full frame.

    Markus Fuenfrocken, Apr 9, 2008
  7. dwight

    frederick Guest

    Some Nikon users report that that the AF of the internal motor version
    of this lens is much slower than the screw-driven (Camera AF motor) old
    How is the performance with Canon compared with USM lenses?
    Also I've read reports of Nikon users having some problems - some fault
    with internal loose contacts or similar meaning that AF functions very
    erratically, but that's perhaps just the usual exaggeration of rare
    problems that can be gained from reading forums.
    The price and optical performance looks to be really good, a little CA,
    but otherwise at least as good as the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 costing many
    times more. It's a shame Tokina and Tamron don't yet have either
    ring-motor, or IS/VR for longer lenses, and so far although Sigma has
    HSM and OS, they seem to be putting both only in lenses I don't want.
    frederick, Apr 9, 2008
  8. dwight

    dwight Guest

    Okay, let me ask this...

    I see that the f/4 goes for $1,059 at B&H, and the f/2.8 is $1,699. If
    anyone has experience with both of these, is the faster version worth the
    extra $640? Or, in keeping with bang for the buck, is it worth far MORE than
    the extra $640?

    dwight, Apr 10, 2008
  9. dwight

    jazu Guest

    I don't have it yet (Xmas coming:), but looks like this is a must have
    I have Sigma 18-200 and I really like it. I saw many pictures on the net
    done with Sigma 10-20 and they are really good:
    Maybe I will go with Sigma. Not sure yet.
    jazu, Apr 10, 2008
  10. dwight

    OldBoy Guest

    Only if you NEED the extra stop.
    Note the 4 stop of the f/4 IS version and the difference in weight..
    OldBoy, Apr 10, 2008
  11. I didn´t find the speed of the AF limiting at all for normal shooting, but
    there´s definitely a difference when it comes to servo AF performance, here
    a real ultrasonic AF drive performs much better. The major difference for me
    is loudness, the tamron Af drive makes a high pitched squealing sound which
    is quite annoying an might be a problem when shooting in churches or similar
    Yes, optically it´s excellent, the only thing that is visible sometimes is
    the effect of field curvature wide open, making the image borders quite soft

    Totally agree.

    Markus Fuenfrocken, Apr 10, 2008
  12. dwight

    Eatmorepies Guest

    I have the non-IS f2.8 version as well. I now only use it for sports, to get
    higher shutter speeds. The only reason for buying the f2.8 IS version would
    be to get a smaller depth of field. I find that the DOF is small enough at
    f4. I like the f4 version's much smaller weight for everyday use.

    Eatmorepies, Apr 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.