PDA

View Full Version : need a cheap telezomm ~300mm suggestions?

nucki
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 05:50
Hi!

I need a cheap telezoom, ie. 100-300 or 70-200 or so.... ~500€ (600$)
any suggestions?
well it should not be complete worse....

thanks
Peter
Scottes
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 07:08
The Canon 70-200 F4 L fits the bill at about $540, and is very nice (though an F4, and lacking a tripod collar). Great optics, great AF speed, good size & weight.

For much less than half the price take a look at the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. Given it's AF speed and optical quality it's a steal for $260.
nucki
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 07:16
The Canon 70-200 F4 L fits the bill at about $540, and is very nice (though an F4, and lacking a tripod collar). Great optics, great AF speed, good size & weight.

For much less than half the price take a look at the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. Given it's AF speed and optical quality it's a steal for $260.

Hi scottes!
yes, I know the 70-200 F4. its seems to be a very good lens. the problem is just that this maybe is to short! but its really cheap! I'm really in trouble, I dont know if I should spend more. my favorite is the sigma 100-300 F4 HSM, but thats currently to much money.
The canon 70-200 is fine, but then I would need the expensive 1.4 TC. alltogehter its more expensive than the sigma. and its longer...


I think I will wait and then buy the sigma!

thanks
Peter
jalafer
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 08:06
The 70-200L f4, you can buy it in Spain for 585€ TVA included.
Try in fotoboom in Madrid:
mailto:javier@fotoboom.com
CyberDyneSystems
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 10:23
That 100-300mm f/4 Sigma is sweet!
sjprg
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 10:37
Don't forget the Sigma 50-500. $765 from Deltainternational.com Best bang for the buck IMO.
sjprg
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 10:39
For even cheaper the Canon 75-300 at $169.00 does a very creditable job.
Some images from both at www.pbase.com/sjprg
SoCal69
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 10:44
If you're looking for low cost, consider the Tamron AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD Macro. I think they currently run about $200 and the quality is pretty decent.

here's a sample image taken @300mm.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=960327&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
pompeygreg
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 11:09
For even cheaper the Canon 75-300 at $169.00 does a very creditable job.
Some images from both at www.pbase.com/sjprg

And shop around and you can get the IS version for the equivalent of $500.
fox1
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 11:50
For even cheaper the Canon 75-300 at $169.00 does a very creditable job.
Some images from both at www.pbase.com/sjprg

Very creditable....

This image was taken at the extreme 300mm end of the Canon 75-300
non IS version.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=175485
nucki
26th of January 2004 (Mon), 12:48
For even cheaper the Canon 75-300 at $169.00 does a very creditable job.
Some images from both at www.pbase.com/sjprg

Very creditable....

This image was taken at the extreme 300mm end of the Canon 75-300
non IS version.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=175485

well, this one looks good! I've heard much of this lens, not all was good! wich one is better, the one with, or the one without IS?

thanks, best regards Peter
fox1
27th of January 2004 (Tue), 05:28
[/quote]This image was taken at the extreme 300mm end of the Canon 75-300
non IS version.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=175485

well, this one looks good! I've heard much of this lens, not all was good! wich one is better, the one with, or the one without IS?

thanks, best regards Peter

They are reputed to be the same glass but the bell's and whistles
of the IS version cannot be overlooked.
nucki
27th of January 2004 (Tue), 06:41
This image was taken at the extreme 300mm end of the Canon 75-300
non IS version.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=175485[/quote]

well, this one looks good! I've heard much of this lens, not all was good! wich one is better, the one with, or the one without IS?

thanks, best regards Peter

They are reputed to be the same glass but the bell's and whistles
of the IS version cannot be overlooked.[/quote]


read the review on http://www.cmpsolv.com/cgi-bin/output2.cgi
it looks almost bad....

or on this website: http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

Canon EF 4-5.6 75-300mm USM IS 2.62 (5) = sub-average

compared to the 70-300mm sigma APO (not superb but better and cheaper)

Sigma AF 4.0-5.6 70-300mm APO Macro Super 3.21 (2) = average
(to compare the Canon 28-135mm IS USM got 3.25 Points)

its really difficult to decide. on one hand, I would a lens wich is actually not that bad, but on the other hand I think, maybe its better to wait and save the money for a better one...

but your photo, fox1, looks good! so maybe the canon is enough! who knows...

best regards
Peter
fox1
27th of January 2004 (Tue), 08:21
>> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=175485

>> but your photo, fox1, looks good! so maybe the canon is enough! who knows... Peter

One always strive for that extra inch... I'm sure all the comments and
samples in this forum will be digested...

"If it's not white, it's ****e" Isn't always the case.. :roll: