lens recommendations

[jann1033]

husband told me to give him a "wish list" for lenses...since it's "wish" and not "impossible dream" i'm trying to come up with some "reasonably" priced ones ( ie mid priced, $400-500 range)...

right now i think i will get my 70-200 f4 fixed( sending it to keh for estimate, since it still is selling for $700 -800 i figure it's worth it if i can get if fixed and recalibrated for the $200 or slightly + ballpark,the mount part costs around $30 from canon, hoping nothing else is wrong so that would give $70+ labor to fix the mount, already had keh estimate of $100-115 to clean, calibrate etc and said they may be able to just rebend the flange, if not may rethink thatbut it sounded like it wouldn't be a ton of money if nothing else is wrong). decided against the 55-250 due to 1) can't use my teleconverter( to small an ap. above 100mm) 2) the diagonal auto focus cross hairs on my camera need 2.8 to work so want to get that aperture if i can, the non diagonal need lower than 5.6 so won't go above that

considering either tamron 17-50 f2.8 ( pro zoom con not sure if it's really good or just "good for the price" good although almost every review i see is favorable)or sigma 30mm f1.4 and maybe a 17ish mm prime ( which i don't think exists for under $1000 so that may kill that idea) or zoom in that range. i like 17mm for wide angle, i really rarely went wider than that with my 10-17 fisheye so don't need a superwide. any thoughts here?

right now i have a 50mm f1.8, and a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 that is starting to act up(i can't get af in macro, i have to back out to around 70mm, af, then go back to 135mm to get it to focus so i am guessing the IS is going since that is what was wrong when the last one started doing this. i was hoping it had something to do with my old body but it does it on this one as well) so basically except the 70-200 it's pretty open. ( well hoping that is a done deal). eventually i will replace the 50 but since it seems to be working good in f1.8-4 ish ,then ok at f8 then ok above f18 ( one weird lens that one) i can keep it for a while and just not use it in the f stops it doesn't work well at. depending on how my vivitar/ phoenix macro comes back( ie working or not) i might replace that but the iq rating on slrgear for that one is 8.7 for the tamron 9.3, canon 9.46...much as i hate the filter for 1:1 is it worth another $400-500 to get fairly comparable iq..maybe i should get a flash for macro instead...

i'd love to have a really long lens but i think that is just way beyond my price range at the moment....unless someone knows of a good one for cheap?


being the pain in the neck i am, i hate crummy lenses but don't have the cash for l glass so i want the best lenses i possibly can get in my price range which is why i am asking for recommendations. i really don't mind /kind of enjoy using primes for some things, ie wide angle. but my eyes just are not good enough to have to rely on manual focusing so that kind of kills the adapter lenses
thanks for any thoughts.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If you want a really cheap long lens, look at the reflex mirror lenses. They are fixed aperture lenses (I think they are usually f/8 or f/11). The bokeh on them is butt-ugly (little donuts). But you can get really cheap, light, OK IQ 500mm lenses that way.

 

[zackiedawg]

Another reasonably cheap long lens is the Tamron 200-500, that can be had in the $800 vicinity. Not SUPER cheap, but half the price of the Sigma Bigma, and many many times less than the F2.8 400 and 500 primes.

And the lens really performs across the whole range, with excellent bokeh, great color, and great sharpness - probably one of the best lenses for the money, and even money-exclusive.

I've seen very positive reviews on the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, even from folks who could afford other things...so I don't think it's only 'for the money'.

The Sigma 30 F1.4...well what else needs to be said about that!?

 

[jann1033]

Another reasonably cheap long lens is the Tamron 200-500, that can be had in the $800 vicinity. Not SUPER cheap, but half the price of the Sigma Bigma, and many many times less than the F2.8 400 and 500 primes.

And the lens really performs across the whole range, with excellent bokeh, great color, and great sharpness - probably one of the best lenses for the money, and even money-exclusive.

I've seen very positive reviews on the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, even from folks who could afford other things...so I don't think it's only 'for the money'.

The Sigma 30 F1.4...well what else needs to be said about that!?

that can go on my "wish list part deux" after i get part one ( along with some other flash stuff i just thought of, hubby was so happy yesterday to see i only wanted about $1000 worth of stuff i hate to burst his bubble quite yet
i did look at a mirror lens a few yrs ago but the donuts just looked to weird, even for me, even at (iir) like $100 bucks( they were trying desperately to move it)

 

[Groucho]

If the Tamron 17-50mm is anything like the 28-75mm (and most seem to say that it is), you'd probably be very happy with it - and not just because of the low price.

If your eyes aren't cooperating with manual focusing, what about using the live view of your new 40D? As long as you're not trying to track moving objects, it can be a great way of knowing for sure that you're nailing focus.

If you're talking real long lenses, the Sigma 100-300mm F4 is supposed to be very nice, too, and is pretty fast.