New lense purchase imminent

[ChrisN]

Hey.

I have been reading a lot about lenses from this forum and all over the internet.

My budget is pretty modest sadly as I already spent most of it on unexpected bills :(

Anyhow. I am going up to the Agawa Canyon (in Northern Ontario) next weekend and was told by another photo friend that I should have a longer range lens than the 18-55mm for this trip. (He was willing to give me all of his lenses to use but he has a Nikon, we tried, they don't fit my Rebel)

My local camera shop turned me on to the Sigma 70-300 AF lens. This is all that he wrote down about the lens when I left the store.
What I want to know if this lens is worth spending money on or should I just lump it, forget about taking the long range shots and save my money. Will I get frustrated because of Image Stabilization issues or is that even a concern with a lens this long.

Guru's Please Help. My limit is about $250 CAD. Not much but all I have right now.

[timmyquest]

stay far away from that lens

http://www.antiwall.com/August2004/sigma.jpg

[psychedelic_never]

Hey chris,
Try Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 Di it should be around C$270.

[Scottes]

stay far away from that lens

I was waiting for that.. ROFLMAO!

TQ *hates* that lens.

[cmM]

how about Canon 75-300 USM (non IS) it will easilt fit in your budget, and it's a good lens for the money. Much better than the Sigma I would guess, based on Timmy's passionate hate for that lens :P

http://www.cmuntean.net/images/sep19sparrow1.jpg

[timmyquest]

stay far away from that lens

I was waiting for that.. ROFLMAO!

TQ *hates* that lens.

Every man must have a crusade!

:lol:

[ChrisN]

This is exactly the advice I was looking for. Good or bad, I need to hear it.
I spook very easily right now, since I am still pretty new to the SLR game.

Soooo... Then, How about the Canon 75-300 USM...

Pro's? Con's?? Same questions from my first post above apply.

Thanks so much. I knew I could count on this group.


Edit: Will I also need to bring my tripod for a lens this long?

[cmM]

when you have enough light you can hand hold it, but if you need to go under 1/500 you *should* use some type of support. I use a monopod for wildlife, tripod when I have enough room and time, and handhold when I can.

It's very light, and quite small. It has USM, so it focuses pretty quickly and quietly.

It's sharp enough, but it's no L. There are some who call this lens mediocre, I call it better than mediocre. I think it's great for starters with a limited budget.

[Jon]

Edit: Will I also need to bring my tripod for a lens this long?

At max zoom, you'd want to be hand-holding at 1/500 or faster. Unfortunately, all the best nature shots occur at dawn or dusk, or in deep shade! So, if you can take the tripod without too much extra effort, it would be good to have. Also think about what you can use as a camera stabiliser (bean bag on a rock/tree limb, strap or mounting screw on a hiking stick, . . . ) if that's just too unwieldy.

[ChrisN]

I am calling up the photography store right now to see about the availability of this lens.

Thanks again. If there are any further comments good or bad about the Canon 75-300mm USM lens, I would love to hear about it. :D

[cecilc]

If there are any further comments good or bad about the Canon 75-300mm USM lens, I would love to hear about it.

I've had that lens (don't have it anymore, though....).

But when I had it, I used it a lot - mainly because it was the only "reach" I had or could afford at the time. But it's not a "bad" lens. For the money, it does what it's supposed to do. It's not very good for low-light situations, but if you've got plenty of light you can get some good shots with it.

This entire gallery of lacrosse shots was taken with the Canon 75-300 lens: Ga/Ga Tech women's lacrosse (http://www.lassiterlbc.org/gameshots/gatech/index.html)

[Shakespeare]

Problem is, even with B+H prices, that lens costs about $513 Canadian...well out of the $250 price range.

S

[Ogrt48]

I have the Canon 75-300 non usm but tried the usm version at the local store. It barely focuses any faster so I just saved the money. It's a great lense for the cost. It's rather sharp upto 200mm but gets soft as you get close to 300mm. Photoshop does a great job fixing that though. For a budget it's a great lens.

[ChrisN]

Problem is, even with B+H prices, that lens costs about $513 Canadian...well out of the $250 price range.

S

This is the lens that I called the store about. Running about 300. I think I can swing that with about 18% interest (Credit Card) LOL

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?itemID=37237&storeId=10001&catalogId= 10101&departmentId=10407&categoryId=10412&keywords =canon&order=ASC&sortKey=default

[Shakespeare]

That's like $239 US. What am I missing here?

[ChrisN]

He possibly saw the price of the IS lens? not sure.

I called and they have lots of these (non IS) in stock. Might take a walk over this week with my camera and try one on for size :wink:

[mdude85]

For what it's worth, I've been in contact for several days with reps from the Sigma Corp. They told me that the Sigma 70-300 DL MACRO is a "film only" lens and will malfunction on dSLRs. I don't know if this is the lens you've looked at.

But I've heard good things about the Canon 75-300 USM, and no need to worry about compatibility issues .... I think you can get that lens used at KEH for less than 150 USD.

[cmM]

It's $189 at B&H...

[OviV]

Problem is, even with B+H prices, that lens costs about $513 Canadian...well out of the $250 price range.

S

This is the lens that I called the store about. Running about 300. I think I can swing that with about 18% interest (Credit Card) LOL

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?itemID=37237&storeId=10001&catalogId= 10101&departmentId=10407&categoryId=10412&keywords =canon&order=ASC&sortKey=default

You'll be happy with that lens. Like its been said, its not L glass but it will take nice pictures.

Ovi

[su719]

Chris,

It may be worth while taking a look at a few of these links. For the same price as the Canon you can get the Tamron 70-300 LD.

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keywords=Tamron+70-300&catGroup_ID=all&curr=CAD&type=0&storeId=10001& imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0

Here is a link to the review on Photography review for the Canon 75-300
http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Canon/PRD_83424_3128crx.aspx

It is not that favorable. Below is a link for the Tamron.
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tamron/PRD_85117_3128crx.aspx#reviews

And finally a link to the mighty 70-200 F4L
http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Canon/PRD_84503_3128crx.aspx

As you can see the Tamron is much better review than the Canon 75-300. It is quite close to the L and for the price of the L you can have 4 of them.

[ron chappel]

The canon 75-300 is a decent enough cheap lens.It feels cheap,focuses slow (even the usm version) and is quite soft above 200mm.
But it DOES get quite good pics at times :D

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

...which is more than i can say for the sigma/tamron equivilants!!
Maybe i've had bad examples of the 3rd party brand lenses but they were truly,horrificly bad !:shock: (very much like the above example by TQ
Also avoid the canon 90-300 if they sell that model where you are.

After trying many cheap telezooms i recommend the following:

Canon 75-300....the best budget telezoom around

Canon 100-300...seriously nice to own and use compared to the 75-300.Better in every way except optically where it is only slightly better

Sigma 70-300 APO macro super II....i havent used this one but many owners say it is slightly better (?) than the canon 100-300 optically

[eastcoast909]

Same lens cheaper at Camera Canada.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=6472A002&type=1,3

[Perfect_10]

...........
...which is more than i can say for the sigma/tamron equivilants!!
Maybe i've had bad examples of the 3rd party brand lenses but they were truly,horrificly bad !:shock: (very much like the above example by TQ
Also avoid the canon 90-300 if they sell that model where you are.
..........


I have to agree with Ron .. I have had bad examples of 3rd party lenses. You'll also find as you need to sell lenses to upgrade to L you'll get a better return on your buck :wink:

[hank1105]

You might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f/4 Lens. Although you would be sacrificing 100mm it is an awesome lens and I have been extremely happy with it. Just my .02 cents - non Canadian ;)

[cmM]

You might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f/4 Lens. Although you would be sacrificing 100mm it is an awesome lens and I have been extremely happy with it. Just my .02 cents - non Canadian ;)

Guru's Please Help. My limit is about $250 CAD. Not much but all I have right now

the 70-200 is a 'little' off :)

[hank1105]

Whoops, I don't know the currency exchange as compared to dollars. My fault.

Hank