nearly fell on my kester!!!

[intolight]

while waiting for my rebel to come (should get it tomorrow) i thought maybe i should look into getting a nice telephoto zoom to augment the kit lens that comes with it. (i don't have an old collection of Canon lenses). So i looked at the Canon web sites EF telephoto listings. There was such an assortment of seemingly similar range lenses, but i saw this one, the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, and thought wow that looks so nice and compact. I did a search for a retailer and... you know where this is going now, right? ...the Price :shock: Ok so you also know by now that i am new to pricing quality lenses. Must be the cost in grinding down the Hope diamond.

Anyway, please forgive me if this has been asked before. Anyone have any recommendations on a resonably priced (something that costs less than the camera itself), decent quality telephoto zoom. Doesn't have to be Canon brand.

thanks

peace
gregory

[kb244]

Well you can look up the price for the non-IS version. If I am not mistaken the 75-300 canon USM ( non-IS ) is about 300$ or so. But if thats still too expensive, You may want to try a Quantary, or Tamron. I picked up Quantary 70-300 "high speed[trust me its not that high speed]" , lens for about 150$. But do keep in mind, you get what you pay for and the 150$ quantary was not very sharp, and most of the time required manual focusing, as the AF wasnt always good other than dead-center. I ended up returning the Quantary, got a smaller zoom canon lens, the 28-135 USM IS , which did run me about 400$ , but it was very sharp, and with the 1.6x magnification on the digital rebel was actually upto a 216mm. But just keep that in mind when you are searching for a "budget" lens. Also keep in mind not to use slower lens combined with a teleconvertor. As the Teleconvertor reduce the aperture by 2 stops, and if your lens you are using is a 4-5.6 , this means that the lens will become slower than the 4-5.6 and the rebel cannot effectivly Auto-focus slower than 5.6. I feel the only time a teleconvertor will become useful is with the Canon L series 2.8 or another fast lens.

But anywho take a look on ritzcamera.com or so for the quantary lineup, and if you do order online, try to see if a local retailer has it in stock for you to at least try it a little.

Also if you did not know, the IS = Image Stabalizer, this feature useful for low-light or just situations where you need to reduce the shakes on non-moving subjects ( or panning subjects ). Typically a Lens having IS will be almost double the price of the lens without.

[intolight]

thanks for the reply KB. Although the IS sure would be nice to have, i'm not at the level to spend that much on a lens now. Image sharpness is something that is a requisite though. I could even go for non AF. If the Quantary lenses aren't sharp, i'll stay away from them. Must i stick with a Canon lens to get the sharpest image? or are there other brands that can deliver excellent sharpness?

thanks again

[daaaveman]

Have a look at the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. It's a great lens that is extremely sharp and it's the most reasonably priced L lens at about $550-$570. Great lens.

Check out B&H. You can build a "wish list" which let's you spend some time comparing lenses. Besides reading lots and lots of posts in this forum, also, check out these links. Good luck.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

[ShutteringFocus]

If you spend $1000 on the camera...you can expect to spend at least half that on the lens.

That's what I found out. Lenses are no place to skimp on quality. But it all depends on what you want to do. I personally found that 4.0 was too slow for any indoor shooting. Outdoors its ok. But that's why I'm saving for the 2.8 200mm.

I decided to take a few extra months and save for the better lens.

[daaaveman]

Another thought, if the Canon f/4 isn't fast enough for you, have a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It's about $700 or so. With both the Canon and Sigma, you can extend your reach with teleconverters. Just realize that with the 1.4X you lose one stop and with the 2X, you lose two stops. Have a look at that lens test guide link I gave you. From everything I've read, it's pretty accurate.

[kb244]

guys... guys... yer giving him a heart attack with all the prices above 500$ (hehe)

[Haifidelity]

try a second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM EX or Tokina 80-200 f/2.8.

No USM, but optically good (should be around 400-600 bucks on the used market).

I used to have a 70-200 F/4L--a super lens. Oustanding optics.

But I agree, i've spent more on lenses than my camera body, because down the road, your camera body will be replaced more than your lenses.

-hza

[kb244]

try a second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM EX or Tokina 80-200 f/2.8.

No USM, but optically good (should be around 400-600 bucks on the used market).

I used to have a 70-200 F/4L--a super lens. Oustanding optics.

But I agree, i've spent more on lenses than my camera body, because down the road, your camera body will be replaced more than your lenses.

-hza

I guess thats one of the reasons people are rather weary when trying to pick a brand. Because even if the body goes out, the lens are supposed to work on any newer body of the same brand. You cant easily just switch over to another brand without spending close to the same ammount of money on similar lens sets, and even if you sold the lens, dont know if that would ammount to the equal value.

[IndyJeff]

kb take a look at Canon's 75-300 4-5.6 II. It's not a bad lens and costs less than $200. I got one off eBay for $165 and have been pretty happy with it.
The Canon 100-200 4.0 L is $550 at Roberts (http://robetrsimaging.com) and they have them in stock. They are refurbished from Canon. When I bought mine the salesman said it could have been one that had been returned and repaired or more than likly Canon had used them as demo's for their staff.
If your looking at a 200 2.8 but think you will need to get out there a little further with an extender then the extra money spent on the 2.8 is a waste.

It would be helpful to know what your planning on shooting too. A lot will depend on if your doing wildlife, people, sports action, portrait etc.

[kb244]

kb take a look at Canon's 75-300 4-5.6 II. It's not a bad lens and costs less than $200. I got one off eBay for $165 and have been pretty happy with it.
The Canon 100-200 4.0 L is $550 at Roberts (http://robetrsimaging.com) and they have them in stock. They are refurbished from Canon. When I bought mine the salesman said it could have been one that had been returned and repaired or more than likly Canon had used them as demo's for their staff.
If your looking at a 200 2.8 but think you will need to get out there a little further with an extender then the extra money spent on the 2.8 is a waste.

It would be helpful to know what your planning on shooting too. A lot will depend on if your doing wildlife, people, sports action, portrait etc.

Well I'm not the original person seeking a lens, but yes the 75-300 was a lens I was on the waiting list for, but because it came when i could not afford it I had to pass it onto the next person that was waiting.

[AzzKicker]

Have you thought about older lenses.


I just bought a Canon EF 70-210 f/4 lens. Its an older model though AF.

Its not Ultrasonic or anything so its kinda loud, but for the price you cant beat it. It goes under 100.00 used. Not to mention you get F/4 throughout the ranges.

Another thing though is its a push pull style zoom. Not the twist type.


Newere expensive lenses arent your only options :)

[ShutteringFocus]

I know how it is though...

$500 for a lens!!!!?!?? :shock:

There is no doubt that you can take great shots with a less expensive lens.

They are tools!

Without YOU they cannot DO anything

[G3]

It's not unreasonable at all for me spending more on the lens than the camera. If you think about it, the camera is essentially just the image sensor (or film holder) and shutter. As long as the film plane is flat and in proper alignment and the shutter is accurate, it doesn't have a lot of effect on the quality of the picture. The lens is a whole different story. It is critical to the quality of the picture. If the glass isn't of very high optical quality and ground to precision, can't accurately focus on the film plane and, can't focus all of the colors in the same spot, you aren't going to get good photos. If you take two photographers of equal ability, give one a 1Ds with a Quantaray POS lens and the other a 30 year old Pentax K-1000 with a high quality lens, who do you think will end up with the better images?

[timmyquest]

http://www.canon.com.au/images/products/ef_1200mm_f56l_usm.jpg%20

A mere $60,000 will get you this

[kb244]

Well getting a 600mm f/4 with a 2X canon teleconvertor would be cheaper, but I dont know how the extra 2 stops will affect the camera's AF :p also its not 60,000$ although when holding it , it sure feels like it.

[ron chappel]

This has been gone over a great many times.The usual recommendations (and i can personally vouch for many of these) are:

A)Cheapo- sigma 100-300 DL

B)Better but still cheap - canon 75-300 (any) or canon 90-300

C)Quite good to very good -Canon 100-300 or sigma 70-300 APO macro super II

D)Stonkingly good!!! - canon 70-200/4 L...etc,etc

Personally i wouldn't have anything less than 'C' ones above but i have many nice shots from the 75-300

all the best with it!