Top 5 ECONOMICAL lenses for Canon Rebel XTi 400D

[krzkrzkrz]

Greetings all,

I'm no professional in photography, at least not yet :) . Currently, I do NOT have any serious intentions of investing in bigger / more expensive lenses. This is due to several reasons:

a) I like photography for fun and as a hobby
b) My finance is prioritised for something else at the moment
c) I dont "shoot" professionally

After my recent purchase of my Canon Rebel XTi 400D with the basic kit lens 18-55mm, I'm thinking of venturing to get a not so expensive lens.

Im spot on for the 50mm f/1.8 which is less than a $100 USD, particularly good for portrait shots.

What are you suggestions for the top 5 ECONOMICAL lenses for the Canon Rebel XTi 400D?

Keep in mind that I dont have any preference in shooting style, i.e. outdoor, indoor, night shots, sports, etc. Im only looking for lenses that are not too expensive to have and at the same time quite good. I know most of you will argue about the quality and build of the 50mm f/1.8. But, I like it. It seems good enough for my purpose. Especially given the inexpensive cost.

Additionally, my definition of ECONOMICAL is flexible. Obviously, I'm not looking at something that will cost me $300 USD +. So lets try to keep it under $300 USD if possible. Otherwise, if its really more than $300 USD and worth the purchase, mention the lens anyways and a reason for it.

[cdifoto]

You won't get much worthwhile for under $300. Stretch to $400-$450 and we could start talking...

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.4

plus quite a few others. Not much in the tele area though.

[ReF]

saying "i don't want to spend more than XXX amount" makes sense but saying "recommend lenses for a non-pro" doesn't. also, what criteria would one use to decide the "top five?" - doesn't make sense either. i agree with cdi that 300 is way too limiting and that taking it to 400-450 give you a lot more flexibility.

you wanna stay under 300? add 28-105 USM and sigma 50mm macro to the list

[coldrain]

Since 300$ is a bit low for any lens and it would be hard to make a list of 5 lenses, I just will compile a list of lenses that are bargains in their class.
I hope you don't mind a top 9 list :p.

1. Canon EF 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS USM. In its focal range it is unequaled, and being super sharp and giving L like performance for under 600USD, with IS included, this lens is a real bargain.

2. Canon EF 50mm f1.8. What can I say, for quite a bit below 100 USD this just is the bargains of bargains. Cheap build but good performance.

3. Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. Colour, contrast, sharpness, all are on a respectable level. With its silent and accurate USM it indeed is a bargain for around 220USD.

4. Sigma 50mm f2.8 EX DG 1:1 macro. Is up there with the best in resolution. Good contrast, and with its 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm it can double as a great portrait lens too. For under 250USD this is the biggest bargain in macro land.

5. Canon EF 70-200 f4 L / Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM. In this popular range of lenses these two are real bargains. The Canon f4 L version has no equal with any make (except the to be introduced in march 2007 Pentax 60-250mm f4), its a LOT lighter than the different f2.8 versions from Nikon, Minolta/Sony, Canon and Sigma, but yet delivers a preformance true to its breed, at under 600USD. The Sigma equals the Nikon/Minolta/Canon versions in optical quality, yet costs a lot less at around 700USD.

6. Canon EF 85mm f1.8. Has no competition. At under 400$ it just is a must have lens for portrait shooters. Amazing optical performance for the price, a true hidden L lens.

7. Sigma 70-300 APO DG 1:2 Macro. Can not reach the performance of the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, but at around 200USD, who cares? Gives respectable performance for the price and class, and has a macro mode for free. This makes it a true bargain.

8. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 / Sigma 24-70 f2.8. These two do not reach the quality of the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and the Nikon 28-70 f2.8, but at quite bit less than half of their prices, who cares? If you need a "fast" portait zoom, these two are definitely worth considering. For around 400$ I think.

9. Canon 18-55 kit lens. Although this lens of course has its short comings, it of course has a place in a bargain list for around 100USD.

OK, make that a top 10:

10. Sigma 135-400 f4.5-5.6 APO DG. At around 450$, a zoom lens that reaches 400mm and still delivers quite good performance.. a bargain.

[Honest Gaza]

Coldrain....I thought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 might make your top 10.

[coldrain]

Coldrain....I thought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 might make your top 10.
At around 450USD the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro are not really bargains in my opinion, they are more or less normally priced lenses. That is why I left them out of my list.

[krzkrzkrz]

saying "i don't want to spend more than XXX amount" makes sense but saying "recommend lenses for a non-pro" doesn't. also, what criteria would one use to decide the "top five?" - doesn't make sense either.

Im just trying to keep the list as simple as possible. The 50mm f/1.8, for example, is quite economical for starters, for me at least. Im BASICALLY looking for lenses like these that are cheap and good-enough effective.

Im looking for personal criteria. i.e. What YOU think can make a top 5 ECONOMICAL lenses list, below $300 USD. If its really more than $300 USD and worth the purchase, mention the lens anyways and a reason for it.


Since 300$ is a bit low for any lens and it would be hard to make a list of 5 lenses, I just will compile a list of lenses that are bargains in their class.
I hope you don't mind a top 9 list .

Thanks for the list, I don't mind a top 10. Information was helpful. If you got any other recommendations, please go ahead and put them in

[RichNY]

You might find not buying a lens and shooting with what you have the best interim solution. You'll find out if you're in need of a low light 50 or more reach based on your own shooting patterns and can then make the best purchase accordingly.

[krzkrzkrz]

You might find not buying a lens and shooting with what you have the best interim solution. You'll find out if you're in need of a low light 50 or more reach based on your own shooting patterns and can then make the best purchase accordingly.

I agree, the Canon 18-55 kit lens is good enough for now and have no big problems with it. In the near future, I may go ahead and purchase the 50mm f/1.8, personally, I like its value and quality.

Maybe, later (after a few months) I may purchase a better lens that would be $400 USD and above. But for now, the Canon 18-55 kit lens and 50mm f/1.8 will do me great :)

Just looking for other lenses that could be affordable and at the same time good enough quality-wise

[TenD]

You obsessed over your body purchase, even to the point of asking for pictures of how people held the grip and how much distance there was between their fingers. Now you want a lens that's "good enough"...Any lens is "good enough", if that's what your criteria is, all the lenses available will produce an image, therefore they are all good enough.
You should be obsessing over image quality, not body ergonomics or cheap lens solutions. That's why you bought an SLR isn't it? To obtain the highest image quality? To learn about photography? You don't need an SLR to learn about photography. Many of the compacts offer everything you need to learn with and some have some pretty good lenses on them.
The body is simply a light box and simply controls the amount of light that gets to the sensor. The sensors are a relative parity product and for the most part can be considered equal. The processors make somewhat of a difference but at low ISOs they are relatively a parity product too. So that leaves you with the part of the system that gets the image to the sensor, the lens. There is nothing wrong with looking for economical lenses, but to ask for a lens that is "good enough" is very subjective and silly. My money is prioritized too, but my concern for IQ has me waiting quite some time for the lenses I want. I still shoot with an ancient 10D and have no intention of changing cameras, I would rather purchase great glass to get that image to that old sensor. If you asked me what lens for under $300 the list would be pretty short, 50mm f/1.8, maybe the 28-105. $300 doesn't get you much in the way of lenses.

[krzkrzkrz]

You obsessed over your body purchase, even to the point of asking for pictures of how people held the grip and how much distance there was between their fingers. Now you want a lens that's "good enough"...Any lens is "good enough", if that's what your criteria is, all the lenses available will produce an image, therefore they are all good enough.
The body is simply a light box and simply controls the amount of light that gets to the sensor. The sensors are a relative parity product and for the most part can be considered equal. The processors make somewhat of a difference but at low ISOs they are relatively a parity product too. So that leaves you with the part of the system that gets the image to the sensor, the lens. There is nothing wrong with looking for economical lenses, but to ask for a lens that is "good enough" is very subjective and silly. My money is prioritized too, but my concern for IQ has me waiting quite some time for the lenses I want. I still shoot with an ancient 10D and have no intention of changing cameras, I would rather purchase great glass to get that image to that old sensor. If you asked me what lens for under $300 the list would be pretty short, 50mm f/1.8, maybe the 28-105. $300 doesn't get you much in the way of lenses.

DUDE its a simple question, get your hands out of your PANTS. I ain't trying to start an argument. PEOPLE, meaning you and me, have their personal preferences. I happen to have a liking on cheap lenses and PERHAPS I also have a motive for it!

If you are lucky I may be able to send you a long list of my motivation when Santa comes around this Christmas. In the meantime, you are gonna have to DEAL with it.

So if you cant be constructive, dont criticise. Its NOT NEEDED.


ou should be obsessing over image quality, not body ergonomics or cheap lens solutions. That's why you bought an SLR isn't it? To obtain the highest image quality? To learn about photography? You don't need an SLR to learn about photography. Many of the compacts offer everything you need to learn with and some have some pretty good lenses on them.


"You don't need an SLR to learn about photography." Hmmm, I don't need?
Last time I checked, I was only ONE person. So I'm pretty sure I know what I need.

I am learning a heck-a-lot more with a DSLR. I can say that. Its a different learning curve, and I'll add, if thats ok with YOU, that I am having fun at it!

If you asked me what lens for under $300 the list would be pretty short, 50mm f/1.8, maybe the 28-105. $300 doesn't get you much in the way of lenses.

Woohoo, guess you hit the bell there buddy. Thanks for answering the question. It would have been music to my ears, had you just left the assumptions and criticism by the door

[ekk]

if u go on the canon or fredmiranda boards, check out the classified area. you might be able to find someone selling lens for good price. i recently sold my tamron 28-75 for $285. great lens for the price.

[CptOfGondor]

coldrain's right about the EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM. Seems like a good walkaround lens with good quality and a ring-type USM AF.

As for economical or under $300USD, the only lenses out there are the

Kit EFS 18-55mm, EF 28-90mm, EF 35-80mm etcs f3.5-5.6 (ewwww)
EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 (ew?)
EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM (-_-)
EF 55-200mm f4-5.6 USM (get the 28-105 or the long sigma/tamron)

EF 28mm f2.8 (given what appears to be your financial situation, I can justify droping $200+ on a prime that will be the equiv. of ~45mm)

SIGMA 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC (Don't even go near this lens)
SIGMA 55-200mm f4-5.6 DC ('cheap'/economical/I dunno about quality..can't be that bad can it?..lol)

SIGMA 18-125mm f3.5-5.6 DC (I would recommend it)
SIGMA 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 DG MACRO (Maybe)
SIGMA 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro (if you got the cash, get the APO one)
SIGMA 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO DG Macro (RECOMMENDED)

TamronAF 28-300mmXR LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Di f/3.5-6.3 (I'll let Don speak for this one)

Actually I haven't seen much of these lenses in action but my time here at DCR tells me some are decent.

IMO, given a limited budget, I wouldn't have bought the XTi. Maybe run for a cheaper XT or drop Canon all together. But now that you have it, try out the ones I recommended and inquire about the rest on the list (except the cheapo kits) and see what you like. the Canon CMOS is unmatched in image proc. so perhaps your IQ won't be that badly off.

hope it helps.

[krzkrzkrz]

the Canon CMOS is unmatched in image proc. so perhaps your IQ won't be that badly off.

hope it helps.

I've heard the term IQ used a lot in digital photography, especially in relation to lenses and cost. What does it mean?

[CptOfGondor]

Image Quality

[yogs]

You might find not buying a lens and shooting with what you have the best interim solution. You'll find out if you're in need of a low light 50 or more reach based on your own shooting patterns and can then make the best purchase accordingly.

I agree with RichNY. I started with the default EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens that ships with the digital rebel. That is a nice lens. Eventually, I felt the need to get something better for macro photography and I ordered another cheap but good lens - Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens. Going further, I might get a telephoto lens, hopefully picked from a recommendation provided on this thread :)

[unix04]

IMO, given a limited budget, I wouldn't have bought the XTi. Maybe run for a cheaper XT or drop Canon all together. But now that you have it, try out the ones I recommended and inquire about the rest on the list (except the cheapo kits) and see what you like. the Canon CMOS is unmatched in image proc. so perhaps your IQ won't be that badly off.

hope it helps.

you can get the XTi w/ kit lens + 50mm 1.8 prime for all under 1K at the moment. i think that's a great deal, and the XTi should hold more residual value if he decides to sell and upgrade in fall07/spring08 when hopefully the next gen xxD comes out. but then again...such speculation can end up turning into a downward spiral of doom.... :D

[Rhys]

I have the Tamron 17-35 which is quite nice, the Tamron 28-75 and the Tamron 70-300.

Personally I would advise buying secondhand from keh.com as their quality indication is significantly conservative. I bought two cheaper lenses and they're almost like new (extremely minor cosmetic damage and perfect optics).

Now, if you like wideangle (which I do) then I would suggest the Tamron 11-18 or Tokina 12-24.

If you like mid-range then Tamron 17-35, Tamron 28-75.

If you like longer lengths then I suggest you go for something with IS. Currently that's Canon's 70-300 IS although new that's about $600 in the adverts that I've seen.

There are all-in-ones that have varying reputations (depending on who you ask) such as the Sigma 18-125, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 18-200, Tamron 18-250 etc.

My recommendation is not to go for extreme ranges as quality suffers at both ends and they tend to be either dark or heavy.

If I were to buy budget lenses for myself then probably the Tamron 11-18, 28-75 and Canon 70-300 IS.

If I won the lottery then I'd get the Canon 10-22, Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200 f2.8L and Canon 300L.

[DonSchap]

After looking through what the OP is asking, this is simply a waste of time.

After spending a good year evaluating whats out there in "Happyland" concerning good glass, deciding on cheap glass is one thing, for sure...

a mistake!

Cheap glass is, for those who are seriously interested in what they produce, a waste of good money. My advice is to use the bucks you would spend on this "crappy" glass selection and buy one, single GOOD lens to shoot with and learn.

When I started, I didn't have the luxury of good and decent opinion that I felt I could trust in. It was a crap shoot... so a lot of money got wasted in the "learning process." You really do not have to go through that, any more.

Now, we all know better. Lessons have been learned and I'm hear to tell YOU that investing in or deciding to buy FIVE "less-than-quality" lenses is just plain pointless. You have nothing to learn from shooting through a COKE bottle other than... don't do that! :rolleyes: Like they say in the world of Information Technology, "Trash in, trash out." Plain and simple.

Get a decent f/2.8 or f/4 lens. Take it from the collection of heroes on the DCRP that using anything less is... LESS. Image Quality is what we are supposed to be after, here. How you get it is important. There are some compromises that can be made, but only if there is no other way.

It has taken years for the manufacturers to refine their products to the point at which they are currently at. You demean that process by accepting inferior glass when you shoot. You simply do not have to. The great glass is out there... save your sheckels and...

GET SOME!

[unix04]

donSchap, while i agree with the approach, not everyone can start off with good lenses or add good lenses to a collection. sometimes people dont have the resources, but still require the flexibility that certain lenses offer. what would you do then? just wait it out? it's not easy finding good people to lend you their $1700 L lens. :eek:

you're very much an advocate of not missing the shot, and in a case where you need a lens but do not have the resources to get the best one, why not purchase a budget option? the budget option might not offer the performance or IQ, but it can certainly allow someont not to miss an important shot. and ultimately, isnt that what you, or myself, or avid photographer is about?

unless you are the type to say 'give me the most perfect shot, or give me death!' :p

[Rhys]

If I were to start out with a new camera and no lenses then I'd probably get at least a standard range. Probably a Tamron 17-35 or Tamron 17-50. I would buy a single good lens. I would buy no poor quality cheapie lenses.

[jeisner]

If I were to start out with a new camera and no lenses then I'd probably get at least a standard range. Probably a Tamron 17-35 or Tamron 17-50. I would buy a single good lens. I would buy no poor quality cheapie lenses.

I have actually been selling all my zooms off, and would say I will buy no more zoom lenses... I just find I tend not to use them anymore..

Within a week I will have none, the last few are going on ebay, no use collecting dust :-O

Current kit (take what I need not all every day)
DA 14/2.8
DA 21/3.2
FA 35/2
FA 50/1.4
Tamron 90mm MAcro
FA* 300/4.5

Each to their own I guess... I just need a 200/2.8 and I will be complete.. ;-)

EDIT: Sorry, I lie, I will still have one zoom the FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 as its very small and light, and I do use it on holidays...

[Rhys]

I have actually been selling all my zooms off, and would say I will buy no more zoom lenses... I just find I tend not to use them anymore..

Within a week I will have none, the last few are going on ebay, no use collecting dust :-O

Current kit (take what I need not all every day)
DA 14/2.8
DA 21/3.2
FA 35/2
FA 50/1.4
Tamron 90mm MAcro
FA* 300/4.5

Each to their own I guess... I just need a 200/2.8 and I will be complete.. ;-)

EDIT: Sorry, I lie, I will still have one zoom the FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 as its very small and light, and I do use it on holidays...

Lol. That's exactly what I did with my 35mm Nikons. I ended up with all primes - 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300. At least Pentax lenses are cheaper :D

I am toying with the idea of going for primes on my Canons although I'm so happy with the zooms I have that I might just stay with zooms for the moment.

[cdifoto]

donSchap, while i agree with the approach, not everyone can start off with good lenses or add good lenses to a collection. sometimes people dont have the resources, but still require the flexibility that certain lenses offer. what would you do then? just wait it out? it's not easy finding good people to lend you their $1700 L lens. :eek:

you're very much an advocate of not missing the shot, and in a case where you need a lens but do not have the resources to get the best one, why not purchase a budget option? the budget option might not offer the performance or IQ, but it can certainly allow someont not to miss an important shot. and ultimately, isnt that what you, or myself, or avid photographer is about?

unless you are the type to say 'give me the most perfect shot, or give me death!' :p

Of course there's also a difference between a reasonable compromise budget and an impossible compromise budget. OP is going with the latter.

[TenD]

DUDE its a simple question, get your hands out of your PANTS. I ain't trying to start an argument. PEOPLE, meaning you and me, have their personal preferences. I happen to have a liking on cheap lenses and PERHAPS I also have a motive for it!

If you are lucky I may be able to send you a long list of my motivation when Santa comes around this Christmas. In the meantime, you are gonna have to DEAL with it.

So if you cant be constructive, dont criticise. Its NOT NEEDED.



"You don't need an SLR to learn about photography." Hmmm, I don't need?
Last time I checked, I was only ONE person. So I'm pretty sure I know what I need.

I am learning a heck-a-lot more with a DSLR. I can say that. Its a different learning curve, and I'll add, if thats ok with YOU, that I am having fun at it!



Woohoo, guess you hit the bell there buddy. Thanks for answering the question. It would have been music to my ears, had you just left the assumptions and criticism by the door
First of all, my hands are no where near my pants, but your head seems to be up your...nevermind. There are people here, including myself who have been in the same place that you are now, many years ago and have the benefit of experience. From your queries here, you reveal your lack of experience. You know very little of the terminology, but reject the advice of those who do. You ask questions here ad nauseam, and if you don't get the answer you are looking for you ask again. You basically asked this same question about three weeks ago:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24232
And again 5 days later:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23994
And again now. You have received nearly the same answers in all of these threads. Some Tamron, some Sigma, 50mm, 28-105, don't buy cheap lenses, the body isn't as important as the lens...More than one of the experienced people here have given you great information, but since it doesn't agree with your ideas, you reject the information. If you have your mind so made up why do you come here and ask for us to do your research for you?
After a few years you will see that I am right, along with several others that have stated the same things I have, maybe not so bluntly as I have, but basically good lenses are far more important than the body is. The kit lens is a fine lens to learn on, but to continue to buy lenses of that quality level will lead to nothing but frustration. Your body will want to perform, but the lens will limit it's performance. Use the 18-55 learn how to use the camera, post some photos, ask for criticism, figure out what your needs are through that experience, your experience.
"You don't need an SLR to learn about photography." Hmmm, I don't need?
Last time I checked, I was only ONE person. So I'm pretty sure I know what I need.
When I said you don't need an SLR to learn about photography it wasn't meant personally but more, a person doesn't need an SLR to learn about photography. A person doesn't. The relationships between aperture/ shutter speed/iso work the same whether your camera is a compact with manual capabilities, or a pro SLR.

If you are so sure of what you need, why do you come here and ask for help all of the time with your purchases?
Buy everything YOU think you want...I don't care what you get, but when you ask for my help, along with the others here, then be ready to accept the help, even if it disagrees with your pre conceived ideas. There is a lot of knowledge here, and many that agree with my observations, read the follow ups to your posts. Many if not all agree, great glass=great pictures, great body without great glass...not so good. And BTW, I'm NOT your buddy.

[krzkrzkrz]

First of all, my hands are no where near my pants, but your head seems to be up your...nevermind. There are people here, including myself who have been in the same place that you are now, many years ago and have the benefit of experience. From your queries here, you reveal your lack of experience. You know very little of the terminology, but reject the advice of those who do.

As I have said already. I'm not trying to start an argument. Please bare this in mind before you switch your gears onto defensive mode.

I lack experience in photography, thats true, as I am still a beginner. I do not reject other peoples advice. My advice to you, is to read your first response. Reflect on that response and consider whether it was an appropriate reply.

You obsessed over your body purchase
I dont think so.

There is nothing wrong with looking for economical lenses, but to ask for a lens that is "good enough" is very subjective and silly
Silly? I dont think so.

You ask questions here ad nauseam, and if you don't get the answer you are looking for you ask again. You basically asked this same question about three weeks ago:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24232
And again 5 days later:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23994
And again now. You have received nearly the same answers in all of these threads. Some Tamron, some Sigma, 50mm, 28-105, don't buy cheap lenses, the body isn't as important as the lens...More than one of the experienced people here have given you great information, but since it doesn't agree with your ideas, you reject the information.


The topics in those threads, are different from the topic on THIS thread. To make things easier for you: Top 5 ECONOMICAL lenses for Canon Rebel XTi 400D in difference to Lens suggestion for Canon XTi 400D

Think twice before you use this as a defensive statement. Last time I checked, this is a forum. I'll ask again if I have to. If you don't like it, then dont comment so negatively. Im assuming you are an adult, so it's best you put your adulthood into play.

If you have your mind so made up why do you come here and ask for us to do your research for you?

Like I pointed out above, this is a forum, a place to have discussions. I'm not asking anyone to do any research for me.

If you are so sure of what you need, why do you come here and ask for help all of the time with your purchases?

Forum again. Its open, not private, for anyone to use. Ofcourse there are other several resources online (forums, articles, reviews, etc) that I am involved with.

Buy everything YOU think you want...I don't care what you get, but when you ask for my help, along with the others here, then be ready to accept the help, even if it disagrees with your pre conceived ideas.

I appreciate anyones help. I dont appreciate ignorant answers. AND YES, I thought your first response was ignorant.

Many if not all agree, great glass=great pictures, great body without great glass...not so good.

I agree. But does this answer the topic of the thread? Its quite simple actually. If you have an appropriate list of economical lenses, then mention it, otherwise dont sway from the topic and start a big fuss about other things that are not relevant (i.e. obsessed with the camera's body)

Ill mention it again buddy. I DONT WANT TO START AN ARGUMENT about this. I've gave you my feedback about your responses, which are quite informative at times, but also quite inappropriate. DROP IT :)

[ReF]

krz,

arguing, insults, and asking for help don't mix. probably just lost a lot of future responses. so given your position it would probably be best to take you own advise about dropping it

[TenD]

I have a tendency to be too blunt, and honest with my answers, I don't pull punches, it doesn't help anyone if I do.
Here you go krz, I am going to ring the bell...I'm still NOT your buddy.
Top 5 lenses that are good enough:
Opteka 500mm HD f/8 reflex.
Kenko 420-800mm f/8.3-f/16.
Cosina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5
Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Aspheric
Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6 DC

Tongue firmly in cheek, I'll be needing Andy's filter now...

[unix04]

not sure if you would call it 'budget' but the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 seem like great buys in the 300~350 range. if i do decide to take the jump to the 30D in a few days...i may purchase one of those for the double rebate.