What is the best telephoto lens for a money

[Mikesht]

I just would like to know, what do you think is the best telephoto (200-400 range) lens for a money for a non-professional shooter. In Canon mount family that is. For somebody who is not poor but on a budget.
Your input is much appreciated. Thanks!

[Andy_T]

75-300 IS?

I've seen a lot of great pictures from that one on this forum.

70-200/4 L (might be on the short end of your scale)

Best regards,
Andy

[Mikesht]

75-300 IS?

I've seen a lot of great pictures from that one on this forum.

70-200/4 L (might be on the short end of your scale)

Best regards,
Andy

Thank you , Andy. I know about this two, but I have 70-200 and I have heard that 75-300 is not very good picture quality wise...
I guess I would not opposed to Tamron or Sigma if it comes highly recommended....

[Cadwell]

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

That page might give you some pointers as to where to start looking.

[Mikesht]

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

That page might give you some pointers as to where to start looking.

I have been there, I am looking for a subjective personal experiences.

[DAMphyne]

I use the 75-300 IS for outdoor sports, baseball, soccer, football ect.
It does have limitations, but if you're working in good light, and try to keep from shooting at Max zoom, I don't think you can beat the price.
Number one on the list of getting good photos with that lens is to remember that you're usins a 480mm lens, holding still is the real challange.
Of course, steadiness is the advice I give to most people when they ask me about their problems with getting good pictures.

[DAMphyne]

I use the 75-300 IS for outdoor sports, baseball, soccer, football ect.
It does have limitations, but if you're working in good light, and try to keep from shooting at Max zoom, I don't think you can beat the price.
Number one on the list of getting good photos with that lens is to remember that you're usins a 480mm lens, holding still is the real challange.
Of course, steadiness is the advice I give to most people when they ask me about their problems with getting good pictures.

[Jim_T]

I've got the Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM that I carry when I want to travel light... It's 1/4 the weight of the 100-400L and a lot cheaper.

It''s a good lens.. I like it.. It makes a good macro lens with the Canon 500D closeup adapter.. The only bad thing is that it is prone to purple fringing in bright light... It's not my main long lens, but it produces decent shots...

[daaaveman]

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 comes very highly recommended -as it should at about $1,800. How about the Canon 300mm f/4. Just over a grand. Or even the Canon 200mm f/2.8L at about $650..... The standard recommendation around here though is the Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS at about $1,350. Very flexible lens.

Good luck.

[Volatile]

I have the Tamron 200-400 f5.6 (IF). You can get it on ebay for ~$200 USD, which I think is pretty cheap for the focal length. It's a big and heavy lense, may or may not come with a lense hood, but does come with a tripod mount, which is a must for something this big. So far I've had good luck with it, but I haven't tried shooting indoor sports...

[IndyJeff]

I think a lot has to do with what you will be doing with a lens. I have noticed a lot of people come on here and ask advice on what lens should I buy. Will you be shooting daylight? Strobe? Low light conditions? Fast sports? All these can be a factor in what lens you would want that could be the most bang for your buck.

I have a 75-300 4 5.6 II and have been pretty darn happy with it. I couldn't have gotten by last year at Chicagoland Speedway without the 300 length. Altho it was useless after sundown at the Nashville Speedway, I still could have used a strobe but, too much recycling time. Cost $165 about a year ago.
I also have a 100-200 4 5.6 that I have used for 10 years and has produced photos that went out over the AP wire. After letting that lens be passed around on a camera and a girl in a photo club tried twisting it instead of pulling, it will now only focus at 100, but like an old friend I keep it around out of loyalty. Cost $125 in 1993 used.
The newest lens in my collection is a 70-200 4 L. I haven't had a chance to use it at the track yet to evaluate it but, the quickness of the AF is pretty darn good. Cost $550 this past winter.

The thing you want to consider most, along with costs are the needs you will be asking of this new lens. Not every lens has to be an L to do the job you want it to do.

[iamhives]

Canon 70 200 F4. Very sharp, contrastly pretty compact. Well priced.

[Mikesht]

Canon 70 200 F4. Very sharp, contrastly pretty compact. Well priced.

I have it. I need something longer.

[iamhives]

Oops - should have read the thread closer. I have the 100-400 - its great but potentially more than you are willing to pay. One point to note though - L glass (like the 100-400) keeps its value very well. I paid $1050 second hand and expect to be able to sell for the same or more if I decide to change.

[Volatile]

How about starting with a price you are willing to pay, and then getting the best lens available for that price?

[Mikesht]

How about starting with a price you are willing to pay, and then getting the best lens available for that price?

I should have done that from the start, even though I am not 100% sure on price myself... Let's say I am willing to spend $500-600 at most, and I am not shy of Sigma/Tamron either. I just want to hear some advices based on first hand experience.
I am going to shoot all kinds of things with it, from kid's sports to animals in the Zoo and upnorth. So far I have been using my longest lens (70-200) for a candid portraits of kids on different events, like birthdays and "bring kids to work" days, I am known as "that guy with a camera" now. But I am finding that 200 is not enough sometimes...

Everybody, thanks for your input so far, I really do appreciate your willinless to help!

[Canuck]

How about starting with a price you are willing to pay, and then getting the best lens available for that price?

I concur with this statement. Are you looking for great optics, budget, or somewhere in the middle? I can plug the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX ($1900, lens alone) and it is 5.75 lbs! The best bit has to be that you can make it a 600mm F5.6 w/ a 2x tc, or effectively 960mm (in 35mm terms) w/ 10D/300D still F5.6 and AF if you so choose! Just a few points to ponder...

[Longwatcher]

I can only give a good comment on the lenses I have
The 75-300 IS, very good lens for the price, light weight; issues: a bit slower focusing then "L' series, can not use a Canon extender and prefers daylight.

The 70-200/2.8L IS is a much, much better lens, but I only bought it for the lower light capabilities. I only get a bit more quality in a daylight picture, but it really shines in lower light and I love the IS and the fact it still auto-focuses with the extender on. (a we bit over your price range ;)

I have the 100-400L IS which is also over your budget, but if you can get I highly recommend.

Otherwise for you budget go for a sigma lens and then a Tamron lens if they meet your needs.

All that said, your best bet is to get a 1.4 or 2x extender for your already existing 70-200 (F4 I presume). You will add range at very little additional cost. The 1.4x will lose very little light or quality (but it will lose some), the 2x you will drop noticeable, but in bright daylight you probably won't notice. And then save up for the 100-400L. when those extenders will come in really handy over buying a 500mm+ range lens.

Just my experience and opinion.

[skiphoto]

Hi....I have L lenses but also have a 50-500 sigma which rocks..I love this lens if you don't mind the weight and the fact that it is not a White lens.

It is available for around $700 and is tremendously versatile..works great on my 10D and my 1D Mk11

Just my 10 cents

[Andy_T]

MAybe the 1.4 TC for your 70-200 lens would be the best (at least most flexible) alternative in the short run.

Best regards,
Andy

[Mikesht]

Hi....I have L lenses but also have a 50-500 sigma which rocks..I love this lens if you don't mind the weight and the fact that it is not a White lens.

It is available for around $700 and is tremendously versatile..works great on my 10D and my 1D Mk11

Just my 10 cents


Are you talking about Sigma 50-500 4/6.3 APO EX HSM ?
Can you tell me where you bought it, I would like to check it out a bit? Thank you.

THanks, everybody, for your kind input!!!

[rick barclay]

The EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS seems pretty popular to me. Lots of people
have been posting pictures and advertising their recent purchase of this
fine lens. It is the highest rated lens in its class at http://www.photozone.de,
and you can purchase one for several hundred dollars less than you would
spend for Canon's famous 70-200mm L IS. I purchased mine recently for
$1215 and I simply love it. So, maybe I'm a little prejudiced. :)
To paraphrase: I wear Canon, or I wear nothing at all.

[sjprg]

I will second the Sigma 50-500 choice. Its big, its heavy, but it is probably the best dollar value around for a long lens.

Paul

http://www.pbase.com/image/24175152

[CyberDyneSystems]

For the money.. the 50-500mm is very hard to beat!

[jimtfoto]

Picked up the 50-500 mm a couple of months ago and it has hardly been off my 10D since ... funny how you get used to all that weight when you see the results ... when I do switch lenses it's usually to another Sigma, the new 15-30mmEX, which I bought just after its big brother ... very satistifed with both.
jim

[DieselGirl]

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

That page might give you some pointers as to where to start looking.

Great site! Thanks for the info

[sanjeedbd]

I'm not gonna ask what u will do with a tele lens; the category says it all.

Since I'm a hobbyist; I'll talk about consumer glasses. To start with, EF-s 55-250mm IS is capable of taking decent pictures both in good and low light (price around $ 250/-). Next best glass is, EF 70-300mm IS USM. Longer range, good AF and decent output (price around $ 550/-). The price difference between these 2 doesn't justify the quality differece as it is negligible. The ultimate for hobbyists can be any of these three - EF 300mm f/4 L IS, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS or EF 400mm f/5.6L USM (price $ 1,100/- $ 1,600/- and $ 1,300/- respectively). Yes L lenses perform better than consumer lenses as those are built with superior quality glasses.

[xarqi]

I'm not gonna ask what u will do with a tele lens; the category says it all.

Since I'm a hobbyist; I'll talk about consumer glasses. To start with, EF-s 55-250mm IS is capable of taking decent pictures both in good and low light (price around $ 250/-). Next best glass is, EF 70-300mm IS USM. Longer range, good AF and decent output (price around $ 550/-). The price difference between these 2 doesn't justify the quality differece as it is negligible. The ultimate for hobbyists can be any of these three - EF 300mm f/4 L IS, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS or EF 400mm f/5.6L USM (price $ 1,100/- $ 1,600/- and $ 1,300/- respectively). Yes L lenses perform better than consumer lenses as those are built with superior quality glasses.

Just a tip to a new POTNER - check the date of posts before you reply. This thread is over five years old, and I'd expect the original poster has made a decision by now.

[hannibal31]

I just would like to know, what do you think is the best telephoto (200-400 range) lens for a money for a non-professional shooter. In Canon mount family that is. For somebody who is not poor but on a budget.
Your input is much appreciated. Thanks!

Try the sigma 120-400 MM
New for $900 includes image stabilazation. The Canon equivalent (100-400 IS) goes for around $1,600 new.

[Eaton Photos]

Try the sigma 120-400 MM
New for $900 includes image stabilazation. The Canon equivalent (100-400 IS) goes for around $1,600 new.

You must have missed the post by Xarqi, in which he clearly stated, that this post is more than 5 years old.

[mrkgoo]

Just a tip to a new POTNER - check the date of posts before you reply. This thread is over five years old, and I'd expect the original poster has made a decision by now.

I wonder what he got? A 5 year perspective could be interesting. I didn't even have an SLR 5 years ago.

[Abzzi]

Hi Xarqi.. I didnt see the problem with his answering a five year old post... as the information is still relevent.. Im just learning and researching lens so its all new to me :)

[Jman13]

Well, the problem with reviving a 5 year old thread like this is...the OP doesn't need help any more....and in the last 5 years there have been MORE than a few threads addressing the same subject, so there is absolutely no need to resurrect this one.

[Chrazer]

since the OP has not posted anything for four years it would be difficult to ask him.

[gasrocks]

Bang for buck? ef-s 55-250 IS, no doubt. Avoid the already mentioned Tamron 200-400. Worst lens ever tested at the old (now) Photodo site.

[nightcat]

For prime L lenses, many consider the 200mm 2.8 to be the best telephoto for the money.

[sanjeedbd]

Pls correct me if I'm wrong. Do the threads have expiry dates? If so, I would request the organizers to kindly look into it so that very old threads are not dragged on, at the same time knowledge sharing process also continues.

[Collin85]

This thread is over five years old, and I'd expect the original poster has made a decision by now.
:lol:

[Collin85]

Pls correct me if I'm wrong. Do the threads have expiry dates? If so, I would request the organizers to kindly look into it so that very old threads are not dragged on, at the same time knowledge sharing process also continues.

No expiry dates. Just keep your eyes open a bit and check the dates before you post.

[JWright]

Pls correct me if I'm wrong. Do the threads have expiry dates? If so, I would request the organizers to kindly look into it so that very old threads are not dragged on, at the same time knowledge sharing process also continues.

The owner of POTN is in Finland and, if I'm not mistaken, Finnish law requires he keep all threads and posts ever made here. Even deleted posts go into an archive regular members can't see.

[gasrocks]

Moderators can lock a thread, then it cannot be added to = dead but readable.

[footballdude2k3]

i would like to know the logic of a law to require all threads are kept.

[Persephone]

May 2004...wow.

The 70-300mm didn't even come out until August 2005...if Wikipedia is right.

[aviator.4.life]

OMG this is the oldest thread I've seen brought back. I thought three years was old...

[JWright]

i would like to know the logic of a law to require all threads are kept.

Ask the Finnish government...

[Collin85]

2004. Wow, I wasn't even born then!

[Amamba]

i would like to know the logic of a law to require all threads are kept.

"There's no reason for it, Sir, it's just a company policy" (c) Unknown

[avan]

the best telephoto for the price are the 70-200 f4; even if it's a zoom, it's really sharp and have a real USM. New they are cheap, and used it's a terrific bargain. Next can be the 200mm f2.8. The old 300 f4 USM that I have see used for as low as 450CDN .

[sanjeedbd]

First let's recognize that 'L' lenses are different from non L lenses. This is because L lenses are made with better quality glass. For a starter, EFs 55-250mm IS is a good choice. No need to grab the pricier EF 70-300mm IS USM. I've tried both and found little difference in IQ and and other areas.

Once you graduate, you can upgrade to the great EF 70-200mm f/4L USM non-IS version. Next step can be procuring another great warrior EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. These should be enough for a hobbyist. I use the 400 version and couldn't be happier.

Other high end lenses are pro's requirements. Of course there are customers who possess funds to sprinkle around and buy the highest end lenses despite being hobbyists. But that's another story.

BTW, the thread is old however, the topic isn't.

[DreDaze]

First let's recognize that 'L' lenses are different from non L lenses. This is because L lenses are made with better quality glass. For a starter, EFs 55-250mm IS is a good choice. No need to grab the pricier EF 70-300mm IS USM. I've tried both and found little difference in IQ and and other areas.

Once you graduate, you can upgrade to the great EF 70-200mm f/4L USM non-IS version. Next step can be procuring another great warrior EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. These should be enough for a hobbyist. I use the 400 version and couldn't be happier.

Other high end lenses are pro's requirements. Of course there are customers who possess funds to sprinkle around and buy the highest end lenses despite being hobbyists. But that's another story.

BTW, the thread is old however, the topic isn't.

this thread is close to 6 years old...if you want to discuss this topic, why not start a new thread...a lot changes in 6 years...

[aaxxii]

55-250, 70-200 f4

[sanjeedbd]

If continuing this thread is against the rules; I would ask the Administrators to kindly close it. In case it's done, it would be helpful for all concerned to have a new thread addressing this issue. Unsure what category of members are entitled to open new threads. May I draw the Administrators' kind attention please. Thanks.

[DreDaze]

If continuing this thread is against the rules; I would ask the Administrators to kindly close it. In case it's done, it would be helpful for all concerned to have a new thread addressing this issue. Unsure what category of members are entitled to open new threads. May I draw the Administrators' kind attention please. Thanks.

you can start a new thread...click ont he EF and EF-S categories...the top left corner of the topics will say start new topic


it's perfectly fine to comment on this thread...i'm just saying it's 6 years old...a lot has changed...