Affordable but quality lenses?

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I know everybody's version of affordable and quality are different, so I'm looking for opinions. I use and collect knives and fishing gear so my opinion of quality and price differ substantially from others. What I'm asking is for lenses that produce great images at their price point. I have a 75-300 canon non IS as well as the 1.8 50mm and the 18-55 kit lens from a rebel xti. I use the 50mm the most due to it being faster and achieving focus well. Very rarely do I use the 18-55. I use the 75-300 for nature shots or some sports, but I realize with these 3 lenses I apply them to the job rather than having an assortment or one that would work better in that environment. I love prime lenses but would like to have one longer range zoom. I shoot with an 80d. Not rich by any means but would like to maybe trade in the 3 and buy one nice one for now

 

[480sparky]

This question cannot be answered without a budget number. "Affordable" is a vague term. Affordable, to you, may mean $300. Affordable, to me, may be $10,000.

 

[spiralout462]

You have been wrestling with this decision for weeks now. By now you should have a short list of what you want/need.

Many people suggest used, and third party lenses to save money. I stick with oem personally. I would consider some of the new Sigma's though. Like Sparky said lens value is so very relative!

Luckily you like primes. They offer a great way to maximize the dollar. Personally, I use Canon 50, 85, and 300mm primes. I use a wide angle zoom for the rare landscape. Buy what you need is my only advice.

 

[OGsPhotography]

My sig will show what I'd recommend for all lens.

Similar to your situation, I sold off my 75-300, 18-55 and Canon XS body while " upgrading".

I'll recommend the 70-200v2 USM IS. Cant complain about that one. Great images at its price point.

You do not need to be rich to save 3 Gs. patience, self control, and if you possess a real desire to have a great lens you will have it before long.

Sigma Art line seems to have a good rep too from all I read and see.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Yes, I've been wrestling with the idea for a bit now. I'm at the point where I want the right tool for the job but I need the point in the right direction. I do like the sigma art lenses. I want one decent zoom for when I'm out shooting nature, but the majority of stuff can be done with prime. I want to get the best I can afford. If afford means buying an 85mm l lens for 500 that I won't really want to upgrade because if optics, that's affordable. By trade I am an auto mechanic and a computer technician. Being in auto you learn what tools are worth spending the money on ,even if it's over "budget". Same with explaining to people about pc parts. I see the same with lenses. I can't swing 1300 for a lens but if u have a goal and the encouragement of the money being worth it, I can get there. All but my kit lens are used, if in good condition I don't mind used, great value in that. Just like a finely used car, they pay the initial hit and you reap the reward.

 

[beagle100]

Yes, I've been wrestling with the idea for a bit now. I'm at the point where I want the right tool for the job but I need the point in the right direction. I do like the sigma art lenses. I want one decent zoom for when I'm out shooting nature, but the majority of stuff can be done with prime. I want to get the best I can afford. If afford means buying an 85mm l lens for 500 that I won't really want to upgrade because if optics, that's affordable. By trade I am an auto mechanic and a computer technician. Being in auto you learn what tools are worth spending the money on ,even if it's over "budget". Same with explaining to people about pc parts. I see the same with lenses. I can't swing 1300 for a lens but if u have a goal and the encouragement of the money being worth it, I can get there. All but my kit lens are used, if in good condition I don't mind used, great value in that. Just like a finely used car, they pay the initial hit and you reap the reward.

right, wait until you have determined the subject and affordable budget
wildlife ? 100-400, Sigma / Tamron 150-600, etc

 

[KmH]

Affordable but quality lenses

An oxymoron.

 

[EIngerson]

Hands down the 70-200 F4L non IS. You can get one brand new for $600. I've had version one and two of the 2.8 and the F4 is still the king of my collection.

For the "quality" it is definitely "affordable"

 

[zombiesniper]

I second the 70-200 F4L, It is a great lens. If you then still find you're not getting enough reach the 400mm F5.6 L is an awesome wildlife lens.

 

[chuasam]

Affordable but quality lenses

An oxymoron.

Not true. There are many great affordable lenses. Venus Optics has a ton of inexpensive but amazing stuff. Tons of great lenses under $1000

 

[petrochemist]

Affordable but quality lenses

An oxymoron.

Not true. There are many great affordable lenses. Venus Optics has a ton of inexpensive but amazing stuff. Tons of great lenses under $1000

There are also loads of used lenses that are both affordable & give good quality.

Few (if any) of my lenses are top quality, but the average price for them has been under £100 and I think nearly all are capable of giving great results. Those that few don't perform well were so cheap it's not been worth posting them back for a refund!

Reviews for a few of them consistently rate them highly too so their quality certainly isn't all bottom draw.

 

[f64_or_bust]

I loved my 70-200 f/4 L non-IS. Then I sold it and upgraded to the IS version, used, about $700. Yeah. That's the lens. All the beauty of the non-IS, but now I can actually hand-hold at 200mm in medium to low light and actually get a keeper. Sure it cost more, but since I now use it more and get more usable pictures, it's actually more affordable. I have a 50mm F2 that I never use because it's so limiting and slow to focus. It cost me about $50, but since I don't use it, that wasn't affordable. Just taking up space in my bag until I dump it on eBay.

 

[TCampbell]

I'm actually wondering why you're asking this question? It makes me wonder that you might be thinking of just starting a lens collection for no particular reason.

You should (hopefully) have a specific use for each lens you choose to purchase. I currently have about 7 lenses in my collection. There are two lenses that get the most use (and my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM gets the most use by far). But while the other lenses don't get used "as often" they do still get used for specific things. When I shoot food... there's a specific lens I grab. When I shoot astrophotography there are actually two specific lenses that I grab. When I shoot architecture, there's another lens that I grab. If I shoot portraits there's another lens that I grab. ...and so on. There's a reason that each lens was added to my collection. There aren't any lenses that were added to my collection because I heard they good lenses or I heard they was a good deal on them (getting a great deal on something that you may never use is actually a really lousy deal.)

If you had said "I'm looking for a lens to photograph ______, and I'm wondering what sort of lens I should be looking for." then we would probably give you much more specific advice.

Ask a vague general question... you get vague general responses (it's only fair.)

The SHORT answer is: Canon's new "STM" lenses tend to provide a VERY nice quality result on a budget price. Are they the very best lenses you can possibly get? No... there are better lenses. But for the price, they're very impressive and certainly much more impressive than the non-STM lenses that they replaced.

But this is a very general statement because there are lots of situations when these lenses wouldn't be ideal and you'd be better off picking something else.

The LONGER answer is:

There is a pile of optical effects that can be measured and when you add all of these up it will determine how "sharp" the lens is for in-focus areas and how pleasant the blur is in the "out of focus" areas. To name a few... pin-cushioning, barrel distortion, vignetting, sagittal and meridonal resolving power, accutance, contrast, chromatic aberration, and the list goes on.

There are also mechanical issues... does it have auto-focus motors and what type are they? Does the auto-focus respond quickly or is it sluggish? Depending on how you use that lens, it may not matter.

What is the "shape" of the aperture opening and does it produce something that resembles a smooth circular opening or does it create a crude polygon? The answer to that question effects the shape that you get when a single point of light is out of focus (it contributes to the beauty of the out-of-focus blur.)

Modern lenses have the benefit of being designed by computer modeling and most "new" lenses perform significantly better than lenses designed a decade or more ago. Once upon a time, a major benefit of non-zoom (aka "prime") lenses is that it was much easier to optimize the optics in the lens for just ONE focal length... whereas a zoom lens was a bit of a compromise (lens elements have to shift as you "zoom" the lens so what would be optimal for one focal length may not longer be optimal for another). Modern zoom lenses are quite impressive and rival the quality of primes (typically primes still offer much lower focal ratios.)

I'm overloading you with technical info deliberately to say: there are a LOT of things to think about when you try to assign a quality grade to a lens.

No lens is "best" for everything and it's usually a set of trade offs. The ideal lens is typically just the lens that has the best attributes for one particular need... but in a different situation a different lens may be the better choice.

Your signature lists that you own the EF 50mm f/1.8 ... but Canon made lots of variations on these. The latest of the lineage... the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a very low cost and surprisingly very nice optical quality lens (and even it's physical build has been improved over it's predecessor.. the EF 50mm f/1.8 II).

 

[Derrel]

This was primarily written for users of the Nikon F-mount, but it's an interesting article as well for uses of 4/3 format cameras too, and a starting point for other articles.

The Problem with Modern Optics

So...once we make "perfect" lenses...what is it that we have eliminated or lost? We're now moving into an era where lenses are being designed to score very highly on test charts, for things like resolution, and flatness of field. But how, exactly, do the photos themselves actually "look to our eyes"? Not, "How high does this lens score on a test chart?", but rather, "Does it make appealing photos?

The upshot of this one article is found in a series of videos by The Angry Photographer, who has three videos that describe in excruciating detail, how light behaves as it moves through glass, and also, how modern zoom lens designs with 13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,or even 24 elements, are creating photos that look "FLAT", and "dimension-free"...

Maybe something to think about? There are some very famous lens designs that have four, five, six, or seven elements, and which are widely appreciated as lenses that create "Good photos". Maybe leaving in some degree of lens faults or aberrations actually creates photos that appear "better to the eye", even though those designs do NOT create the highest test chart scores? A perfect case in point is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens, versus an older, less well-corrected Nikon design, the 35mm f/2 AF-D lens. To MY EYE, the Siggy's bokeh is harsh, nervous, and ugly...the lens is "sharp", yes...but the way it renders out of focus backgrounds is very unappealing. But it is not all about sharpness either: issues of distortion, color transmission, etc..etc.. can be factors.

Lenses? Canon 35mm f/2...neat imager! Canon EF 50mm f/1.4: MUCH better than the EF-II 50/1.8 that's so commonly touted as being sharp--yet with a noisy AF motor and UGLY bokeh. 85/1.8 EF...pretty good. 100mm 2 EF: nice imager. 135/2 EF: SUPERB 135mm telephoto.