Canon Lenses for under £250

[IBM]

Okay, knowing as I do the wonder that is the Canon 50mm f1.8 (had for the very cheap price of around £70) and having several recomendations over the Tamron 17-50mm, I was just wondering if anyone else had any stupidly cheap very good lenses for my Canon 10D.

If we get enough rated lenses, maybe this could be turned into a sticky.

[Rhyth]

All prices appx:
Lens under £70.00 = Canon 50mm f1.8 MKII
£70.00 - £120.00 = Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro (CROP ONLY)
£100.00 - £150.00 = Sigma 50mm EX DG Macro
£150.00 - £200.00 = Canon 60mm Macro / Canon 85mm f1.8 / Sigma 105mm Macro / Tokina 100mm Macro
£200.00 - £250.00 = Canon 100mm Macro / Sigma 30mm f1.4 / Tamron 90mm Macro

[Bobster]

70-300 is a heap, dont even go there..

[IBM]

Bob, is that the only one you disagree with?

Rhyth ... how sure are you about those lenses. I can vouch for the 50mm and the 85mm, but the rest I haven't got a clue. And how about those with similar focal lengths? Those Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Canon all around the 100mm length, which one do you rate best?

[Rhyth]

70-300 is a heap, dont even go there..

Can you find better for that price? Nearest I could find was the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM at around £380.00. That's another £260.00 odd over the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro.

I was just wondering if anyone else had any stupidly cheap very good lenses..

Also
Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di (67mm) &#163;238.99 ish <I'm thinking of getting this lens untill I get enough shekels together for a Breadwinner

Canon - Lens - 50 mm - f/1.4 USM - Canon EF at around &#163;200

[confusingcircle]

70-300 is a heap, dont even go there..

Bobster maybe referring to the non APO version of this lens, which is under &#163;100, the 70-300 APO is around &#163;150 and is of much better quality, the few pictures I have posted on here have been with that lens.

[Stoo]

The Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di (67mm) is an awesome lens - only downsides are that the AF is a bit noisy and not as fast as the Canon USM lenses, and it's not as solid as the L lenses, but it's a damned sight cheaper

[Stoo]

Can you find better for that price? Nearest I could find was the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM at around £380.00. That's another £260.00 odd over the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro.

Yeah, but it's still a hunk of crap - I'd rather hunt around on ebay for a 2nd hand Canon..

Canon - Lens - 50 mm - f/1.4 USM - Canon EF at around £200

That's a damned nice lens - got one myself
Only thing against it is that the cheaper 1.8 is very nearly as good for about a quarter of the cost

[Stoo]

btw, this thing is very handy - Camera Price Buster - UKs cheapest camera gear

[Rhyth]

That's a damned nice lens - got one myself
Only thing against it is that the cheaper 1.8 is very nearly as good for about a quarter of the cost

Indeed, as many have said the "thrifty fifty" is a great lens at fantastic value, every budding snapper should get one as it will teach you a lot about composition and depth-of-field. Also I've heard they hold there value should you want to upgrade to the 1.4 "which is better in every conceivable way. In terms of optics (resolving power at wide apertures, contrast, edge performance, etc.), build quality, AF accuracy and noise (speed is similar), bokeh, and flare resistance; in all these ways the f1.4 USM is better than the MKII."

btw, this thing is very handy - Camera Price Buster - UKs cheapest camera gear

Great abraham linken Stooby

[Bobster]

Bobster maybe referring to the non APO version of this lens, which is under £100, the 70-300 APO is around £150 and is of much better quality, the few pictures I have posted on here have been with that lens.

tbh, i'd rather have the 75-300 Canon USM, i've owned teh 70-300 Macro DG, used the APO, but the quietness, accuracy and speed of the canon for the extra 20 notes is well worth it

[IBM]

Do all these lenses fall into the 'very good' category? It's not sufficient to be 'fairly good' or 'very good for the money'...I'm looking for those lenses which (like the 50mm f1.8) are genuinely very good lenses, and the cheap price is just a bonus.

[Rhyth]

Do all these lenses fall into the 'very good' category? It's not sufficient to be 'fairly good' or 'very good for the money'...I'm looking for those lenses which (like the 50mm f1.8) are genuinely very good lenses, and the cheap price is just a bonus.

Well, it's all relevent in that my little list focuses primarily on resolving power vis-&#224;-vis price-point, ie they are some of the sharpest lenses per &#163;pound.

Is that unrelated to your thread? Sorry if it is, and then maybe starting another thread based on resolving power vis-&#224;-vis price-point would be a useful sticky aswell?

Don't let Bob confuse you

[Bobster]

Do all these lenses fall into the 'very good' category? It's not sufficient to be 'fairly good' or 'very good for the money'...I'm looking for those lenses which (like the 50mm f1.8) are genuinely very good lenses, and the cheap price is just a bonus.

for the mid range zooms i'd say some fall into the very good - 17-50 Tamron (sharp as Canons £650 IS USM) 28-75mm i consider good enough for Wedding and portraits

the long range zooms, i'd put in the good catagory.. if you want very good, then you're looking minimum spend of 600..

[IBM]

Are there any good wide angle primes available for under &#163;250?

[Saracen]

35mm f2 at about &#163;180. Good reviews.

28mm f2.8 ..... decent, about &#163;135.

28mm f1.8 .... bit over budget at &#163;300. Very soft wide open, decent at f2 at very sharp at 2.8.


A lot depends on what you mean by "good".