PDA

View Full Version : Best Telephoto Lens Under $400?


Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 20:11
I have decided that I will get the Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm lens. To go along with that, I want a good telephoto lens. I am willing to spend about $400. What would you recommend?

awagner
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 20:30
For the price canon's 75-300 usm f4-5.6 is pretty interresting or wait a bit more and save i think the 70-200 f4L is not that much more expensive.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 20:55
Which of these would be better and why?

Canon 75-300 F/4.0-5.6 USM Image Stabilizer Lens $409
Sigma Telephoto 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Compact Hyper Zoom Aspherical Lens $399

What is your opinion on these?

robertwgross
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:01
You will notice that of the two, Canon and Sigma, the Canon lens is faster at the telephoto end, which is the area of interest.

---Bob Gross---

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:06
For the price canon's 75-300 usm f4-5.6 is pretty interresting or wait a bit more and save i think the 70-200 f4L is not that much more expensive.

And one of the best rated zooms on the planet. Save for this lens if you can, Spargo.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:10
I see the CanonEF 70-200 f/4L USM as $569.99. Too much for me. :shock:

Btw, thanks for the replies.

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:16
I see the CanonEF 70-200 f/4L USM as $569.99. Too much for me. :shock:

Btw, thanks for the replies.

Just another $169. Go mow some lawns or something. ;) It IS worth it.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:25
What makes it so much better?

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:37
L-lenses are a much better build and the glass is of the highest quality available. The clarity, color, brightness, contrast are second to none. You'll probably have your L-lenses for life. No matter how old you are now.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 21:44
How far can the Canon 70-200 f/4L zoom in compared to the Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6?

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:02
100mm less. :)

Vinny454
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:05
What makes it so much better?

1 year ago I just bought the DRebel and the 75-300 with IS. Now it's the 10D and the 70-200L. I won't go into the specs, but take everyone's advice and wait the extra month or until you can afford the L. You will never regret it.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:09
What about the 70-200L not having IS? Will it make that much of a difference? Also, will 100mm less zoom hurt very much?

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:17
IS buys you a stop or so. Depends on what you shoot. If you shoot daytime stuff mostly, no big deal. If you shoot nature/shady stuff, IS helps.

Honestly, I have IS on most of my lenses, but rarely use it. My wife loves it though as she's Miss Shaky Hands.

The loss of 100mm will make a difference, but you can make up most of that back with a 1.4x teleconverter that you can purchase at a later date.

So, the short question would be: What do you shoot?

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:19
Well it's a hobby, so I shoot whatever comes my way. If I'm around people I may shoot them. If I see a neat bird 100 feet away I may want a picture of that. If I see a deer/bear in my back yard I would definately want a picture of it. I would also shoot scenery (i.e. mountains, buildings etc.)

DocFrankenstein
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:26
Listen to what these guys are telling you and get the 70-200 L. Better everything...

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:28
I just may end up doing that... Seems like you guys really know what you're talking about. Although 1 thing I don't like is the fact it's only a 200mm.

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:40
Problem is your budget is severely limited and I can see you winding up with some really cheap glass like Ritz/Kits Quantaray junk, and then be totally dissatisfied with the results.

For a max budget of $1500 and wanting to get into dSLR-land, you're gonna have to make some serious concessions.

A good setup right now could be:

10D
Bag of choice
Grip
4 sets batteries
6 512meg CF cards
17-40L
50mm f/1.8
70-200 f/4
1.4x TC
100-400L

And you can't come close to that for $1500.

Spargo
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:45
I know I can survive with the DR instead of the 10D, and I don't need 4000 hours of battery life, 20GB of storage or 63 different lenses. I want a good camera (rebel), 1 battery, 1 flash card (512mb or 1gb), and be able to take good closeup pictures as well as far away pictures (2 lenses, right?).

defordphoto
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 22:47
I know I can survive with the DR instead of the 10D, and I don't need 4000 hours of battery life, 20GB of storage or 63 different lenses. I want a good camera (rebel), 1 battery, 1 flash card (512mb or 1gb), and be able to take good closeup pictures as well as far away pictures (2 lenses, right?).

I wasn't suggesting any of that.

Get a used Rebel
1 512mb card
1 battery
2 cheapo lenses

You could probably do that for $1500

cc10d
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 23:39
that 20-200 L is probably the very best tele zoom VALUE available today. You would be well served to hold out for it. The 300 mm lense you looked at is not as sharp. I would estimate that you could take the same picture with the 200 and enlarge it in elements and get a better picure at the same size as the 300 without enlargment. Just a thought, not verified. I find that to be true of many of my lesser lenses vs. L glass. Not all L's are created equal though. It just happens that the 70 200 L is one of the better lenses out there in its range and right now is priced low for its calibre. Rebel kit 900. 70 200 L 569 = 1469, mem card 89 extra bat. 40, only about 100 bucks over your budget! And you got a GOOD tele that you will not be tossing anytime soon. Enjoy your new camera whatever you decide !!

cc10d
1st of September 2004 (Wed), 23:45
20-200 L is typo, I was refering to 70-200L

Andy_T
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 03:38
Take a look at www.photozone.de/bindex2.html !

There are two sections, 'Lens test guide' and 'Canon EOS' where you can find user reviews of selected lenses.

You will notice that the Canon 70-200 L lens is a very good lens and rated noticeable better than the 75-300, which in turn is rated noticeable better than ANY 28-300 lens. So don't get one of these :x

Another option might be the Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (HSM), but this lens is even more expensive than the 70-200 L.

However ... if you spend 300$ on a lens that is crap, then you've lost 300$.

Best regards,
Andy

Hatem Eldoronki
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 04:35
Spargo,
I have the 75-300mm IS, and I can tell you that the picture quality sucks BIG time..I sort of use it for macro shooting (when I can't get close to the subject with my 100mm Macro lens), other than that, for far away subjects it is quite disappointing.

rpmx
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 04:58
If this is your first venture into a Rebel SLR, like me, I can tell you that you will like the kit lens that comes with the camera, That is, until you upgrade to a better lens, which I did, ( 55-200 EF). Then, you will think it is the cats meow, till you gt to actually use one of the L Lenses, and you will very quickly (like 10 pictures)figure you how poor these other lenses actually are. I am using a 70-200 F2.8 lens now, and it is a night and day difference. I got better pictures, the first night out, than any other shooting all of last year. It is that big of a difference. I never know what the difference was, until using one. I now have to have one.

Welcome to the world of hobby photography, they are setting the hook, and going to reel you in. In one year, I'm on my third camera bag.(ie larger0 I really wonder when it will end.

vfilby
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 13:08
Spargo,

I bought my 75-300 III as a budget lens for $100 used because I knew that I wouldn't be able to afford better glass for quite some time. It is really soft, I have to stop down to about f/11 or more for usable shots. So I can really only use it outdoors on sunny days. Also the image qualtiy degrades at the long end, so you will need to shoot at less than 300mm.

Dubcat
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 13:51
I like my Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro II 4-5.6 loads. It will do macro mode from 300mm down to 200mm and it will do regular zoom from 300mm down to 70mm. The best bit is it costs about $200. I plan to use it until I can justify an L lens (probably for as long as the lens physically works then :)).

I think this lens might also suffer from degradation of image quality above 250mm or so. I have no experience of this but others have stated that is the case....

CyberDyneSystems
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 14:33
Spargo.. if you MUST have 300mm, but still want quality. you will have spend a bit more.

1st be aware that with the 70-200mm f/4 you can then buy at a later date a 1.4X Teleconverter. This peice installed between the Camera and lens will multiply the lens focal lenght times 1.4X

thus a 70-200mm becomes a 98-280mm lens. Almost 300mm

By adding the "T-con" you loose a little light effectively stopping down to f/5.6 from f/4. But the image quality will remain excellent.

2nd You could look at the prime 300mmf/4 IS but ti is much more expensive. (about $1,000.00)

3rd there is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 Again pretty pricey.. about $800.00 last I checked.. but it is a solid high quality lens. And it too will work with a 1.4X T-con..


Latly.. if budget is of more concern than quality.. I'd try one of the super cheap Sigmas at about $200.00... and then see of that works for you. If it does.. well.. then more power to you and you save $400.00

If not.. then you'll have trouble selling it at half the price.. but we get to say "I told you so" :lol: :wink:
Hope this helps.

gcogger
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 14:51
Many people have said that the Sigma 70-300 is soft at over 200mm. Here's a 100% crop at f/8 and 300mm, taken in RAW and processed with:

Sharpness -2 <-- NB!
Contrast -2
Saturation -1

NO post-processing or sharpening applied.

http://www.gcogger.dsl.pipex.com/Untitled-1.jpg

Bearing in mind the almost non-existent depth-of-field, the in-focus bits seem pretty sharp to me :-)

JABACo
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 15:42
IS[/b] worth it.

I'll pay $50.00 for you to mow my lawn. It'll take you about 4 hours on a John Deere tractor.

BA

Hatem Eldoronki
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 16:03
Many people have said that the Sigma 70-300 is soft at over 200mm. Here's a 100% crop at f/8 and 300mm, taken in RAW and processed with:

Sharpness -2 <-- NB!
Contrast -2
Saturation -1

NO post-processing or sharpening applied.

Bearing in mind the almost non-existent depth-of-field, the in-focus bits seem pretty sharp to me :-)

The problem is, we don't want to buy a telephoto lens to mainly shoot close-ups. The picture is nice (not as sharp as the Canon in my opinion), but could you please show us a picture of something shot at a greater distance?

DocFrankenstein
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 16:05
The problem is, we don't want to buy a telephoto lens to mainly shoot close-ups. The picture is nice (not as sharp as the Canon in my opinion), but could you please show us a picture of something shot at a greater distance?
Yeah, and also open it up :roll:

Hatem Eldoronki
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 16:10
Yeah, and also open it up :roll:

Excellent point!

Mogwyth
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 16:20
I recently brought the 50mm f1.8 and it revealed how weak my other lenses are, so I begged and borrowed various zooms from other people to see what's what and the end result was my £350.00 budget is not enough, I want a 80-200L so I have deceided to wait rather than compromise. If you can do the same you'll see what I mean.

defordphoto
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 16:58
IS[/b] worth it.

I'll pay $50.00 for you to mow my lawn. It'll take you about 4 hours on a John Deere tractor.

BA

Mow it 4 times and there ya go. $169 with money for lunch! :D

DocFrankenstein
2nd of September 2004 (Thu), 17:27
Mow it 4 times and there ya go. $169 with money for lunch! :D
50*4=169 :lol: