The Cheap Lineup

Maffe: i guess you are right:) that lens is too damn expensive..

revdocjim: this is where my line up have grown from:) the 28/2.8 and 50/1.7 couple. It is the cheapest prime set you can have and it performs good:)

omerbeys M42 list is great!

My thoughts, how I would start and expand from step 1 to 2 and so on, but no need to stay in the a/b-direction

step 1a (two lenses):
18-70
75-300 original big beercan, not a later version;
because the 18-70 is nice at wide angle, but loses at tele; if the focal length between 50 and 100 is not so important, I would say:
18-70
100-200/4.5

alternative 1b (almost same price, but with a prime, but three lenses):
18-70
50/1.7
100-200/4.5

step 2a (more expensive)
17-35 (not the G!)
35-70/4 (important, not the variable 3.5-4.5, that's a mess)
100-200

alternative 2b
17-35
50/1.7
100-200 or more expensive: 75-300

step 3 (spending even more money)
17-35
28-75
100-200 and later the 100-300 (only the APO, all other you can leave out)

out of competition is my 35-200xi. It's a real nice lens! Together with the 17-35 you have pretty much of focal length.

Edited by binbald - 03 April 2007 at 01:58

I'm all about "budget," so a perfect thread for me:

18-70 kit - free with 7D
28-85/3.5-4.5 $60 used
50/1.7 - $40 used
70-210/4 - $60 used (pre-7D days)
Tamron 90/2.8 $225 used

A broad range, pretty decent glass, cheap, cheap, cheap.

Indeed the 17-35 is a nice walkaround. I have done this quite often. When I'm out on the streets with my wife she's always complaining: oh, not again changing lenses... or when I'm at a party and I'm too lazy too change: I go with the 17-35. Maybe some heads are looking a bit weird, but with 1.5 crop it's a good choice.

The 17-35/35-70 is more a choice for covering the whole focal length. I personally would prefer: 17-35 as dedicated wide angle, 50/1.7 (or maybe macro, but that's too expensive in this thread) and 75-300 or 100-200, depending on focal length.

You have noticed that I never mentioned the beercan. But the others deliver more for less money: 75-300 more focal length, and 100-200 saves more money and is easier to carry.

I've never tried the 55-200 zooms, but I like the 35-200 (I just have a heart for underdogs). I think I should go shooting some pics with that when my cam is back again - ha, that's my new mission: convince dyxum members of loving the 35-200!!!

And the other half is looking for fishes=)

lol @ Maffe:) i'm still waiting for my zenitar, i hope it turns out good:)

Turerkan wrote: santiclaws: you got two overlapping lenses there, the 18-70 and the 28-85, do they have their seperate uses? or is one sitting at home all the time? that must be a good price for a tamron 90:)

Well, I already had the 28-85 when I got the kit lens "free" and neither is worth selling for the $60 they'll bring. I use (OK, intend to use) the kit almost like an 18mm prime when I want wide coverage. The 28-85 is a better lens, especially at longer ranges, but also considerably heavier.

The Tamron 90 price wasn't anything special at the time. I bought it about a year ago for slightly less than it was going on ebay from KEH.com in excellent condition. I assume from your post the prices have gone up.