Hidden L lenses, quality for cheap
Categories: Featured, Frugal Photographer, Lenses, Photography Gear
Written By: james
If you buy any of the lenses in the Canon L series, you are guaranteeing yourself a good, durable, quality lens. But for those of us who are unwilling to spend a couple thousand dollars for a single lens, we assume that we just have to sacrifice quality to save some money, but that’s not always the case. Here’s a list of cheaper alternatives to the Canon L series where you really get a big bang for the buck.
You don’t have to always sacrifice optical quality to save some money when buying a lens. Listed below are several lenses, broken down into categories, which I consider to be real bargain lenses where you’re getting a lot more then what you’re paying for. (Canon lenses only)
Wide Angle
- Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. - $700
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. - $1000
- Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 - $300
- Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM. - $400
Standard
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. - $100
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. - $350
- Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. - $230
Telephoto
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. - $550
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. - $350
- Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM. - $400
Macro
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. - $500
Now with these lenses, you won’t be getting the same quality as you would with a Canon L lens. Optically, all of these lenses are excellent. When it comes to build quality however, that’s where you start to see the consequences of getting a non-L lens. But for the price, who can complain?
Below are a couple lenses in the Canon L series which really deserve to be on this list, or at least mentioned, because they’re real bargains.
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. - $700
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. - $600
You might be better off buying a “Hidden L lens” simply because your money will go a bit further. But if you’re on a budget and really craving for that red stripe or off white paint on a L-lens, these two guys fit the bill.
Related Posts:
Becoming a better photographer with prime lenses- One of the questions many photographers ask themselves when buying a new lens is if...
2008’s best digital SLR for beginners- This year has been a big one for photography. With new digital SLR cameras being...
Reverse lens, the poor man’s macro lens- Often times if you want to do macro photography, you'll have to get a...
Stabilizing your camera without a tripod- No one likes a blurry image and despite there being plenty of features in your...
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Hidden L lenses, quality lenses for cheap….
You don’t have to always sacrifice optical quality to save some money when buying a lens. Here is a list of bargain lenses where you really get more then what you pay….
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Great list. For wide angle, I would also include the 24mm prime (not the 28mm which is cheaper but has tons of chromatic abberation). I use it as the perfect companion to the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Thanks for the suggestion and it’s been added onto the list. I personally never tried the lens but from the reviews and the price, definitely a great budget lens.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I can’t believe you left off the 70-200 f/4 non IS. It’s only about $600 and the best 70-200 of the bunch IMHO. Super sharp and excellent IQ and control of CA.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Oops. Just realized that it was a non-L list.
Anyway it is the cheapest non-L they sell if I’m not mistaken and at least deserves mention.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
There are definitely some Canon L lenses that cost a lot less then the other lenses in the series for sure (70-200 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L, …) and deserve a mention no doubt, especially when you consider that the 17-40 f/4L is almost half the cost of a couple lenses on the list right now.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I’m a landscape photographer and the 70-200 f/4L and 17-40 f/4L were the first lenses I purchased after upgrading to a dSLR. Both are very inexpensive relative to the quality you get in your photos. That being said, this is a very solid list you’ve put together and it made me take note of some beauties that I’ve overlooked previously. It would be a cool follow-up post to lay out some of the L series lenses and then compare the advantages of each within its class. Say, the 17-40 f/4L vs. the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The latter is $300 more and is not L-quality glass/construction, but you get an additional 15mm, f/2.8 and IS in return.
Great post.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
what about my EF 28mm f/1.8 USM? It’s the small brother of the 85mm.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Seems like I missed a couple lenses when making this list. Thanks Deuts, checked out the lens and it deserves to be on the list for sure.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Hey, I was just suggesting. I’m not trying to impose…:D
July 30th, 2008 at 3:00 am
I love the 85! Thanks for having that up there.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Good list and I am happy to see that you put both 50mm! While the 1.8 version is the best bang for the buck you can get, the 200$ more you spend on the 1.4 really have an impressive yield.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Well said, finally a good report on this stuff
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
So does this imply you can only get quality out of Canon lenses? Are AFTER market lenses NOT comparable? I’m just wondering.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
wait I take that back the focus is on “L” lenses. Can you direct me to comparable quality but cheaper?