help me choose a zoom telephoto lens

[commando]

I've been reading a LOT about zoom telephoto lenses recently, but i've not been able to decide which lens to get. My Tamron 28-75 is great but doesn't have the range to isolate smaller or distant objects, which i'd like to be able to do. Two recent examples are ducks in the middle of a pond, or cheerleaders I was watching from a grandstand. I'm a casual photographer, shooting for my own enjoyment.

I don't know whether to get myself a lens like a 28-135 and use it as my general walk-around lens, or get a dedicated zoom lens, something like a 70-200L or a 100-300. The 28-135 option makes life a lot easier, and I can always change to my 28-75 to get high quality/wide aperture shots. The 70-200/300 option means more changing of lenses which is a pain in the arse, but will give me better quality photos. What would people suggest is the best option here?

Typical prices:
- Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS ($409)
- Sigma 28-135 3.8-5.6 ($139)
- Canon 70-200L ($569)
- Canon 100-300 ($259)

[IncompletePete]

A second hand 70-200 f4 L with a 1.4 TC would be ideal if you're shooting in bright weather.

[wolf]

I would say the 70-200 would compliment your 28-75 quite nicely. The 28-135 would be kind of redundant IMO. The 100-300 quality is not as good as the 70-200 nor as fast.

[HJMinard]

You already have the 28-75 ... getting the 28-135 would be wasteful (and a step backwards) in my opinion.

The 70-200/300 option means more changing of lenses which is a pain in the arse

I would definitely recommend the 70-200/4L. Changing lenses (and the inherent flexibility that affords) is the point of SLR systems.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you allready have the Tamron.. I would ignore the 28-135mms.. why duplicate most of the range you allready have when there is so much you don't have covered yet? Plus the Tamron will do it better anyways,.. and there is not a lot more magnification in a 135mm over a 75mm.

I'd look for either quality in the form of a 70-200mm f/4 to which you can add a 1.4X T-con for 280mm at the long end,...

Or forgo top quality for lenght and go straight to a 300mm zoom.

If you wnat quality and 300mm... there is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, but it is a bit higher priced.

[commando]

Sure, the overlap of the 28-135 would be annoying, but that's not a huge issue. If I end up not using the 28-75 I could always sell it. I've read the image quality of the 28-135 isn't as good, but to be honest I can't see much of a difference between the kit lens and the Tamron.

I know the point of an SLR is changing lenses, but if I have to change lenses for each shot it'd get damned annoying. The real first question for me is for casual use, would I really need to change lenses all that often. I just don't know.

I also wonder if 200 would be enough zoom for what I want. Isolating birds (which I do occasionally) might want more, but like you say the extended (which is about $300) would do that quite well in good light.

[commando]

If you wnat quality and 300mm... there is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, but it is a bit higher priced.

3lb/8 inches makes it a bit big for a walk around lens, for me at least. The 70/200 is 1.5lb/6 inches, with the extender 0.5lb/3 inches = total of 9 inches/2lb. That's getting pretty big for a walk around hand held lens.

Does anyone have any sample images comparing the 70-200 with the 100-300 lens? The size and price of the consumer lens is enticing, although price isn't a huge issue for me.

[wolf]

How about a 50-500 Bigma do-all lens :lol:

[HJMinard]

If I end up not using the 28-75 I could always sell it. I've read the image quality of the 28-135 isn't as good, but to be honest I can't see much of a difference between the kit lens and the Tamron.

If that's true, I'd say you got a bad copy. Mine is waaay better than the kit lens.

I also wonder if 200 would be enough zoom for what I want. Isolating birds (which I do occasionally) might want more, but like you say the extended (which is about $300) would do that quite well in good light.

Another possibility with a little more $$: sell the Tamron and buy the 100-400L (or the Bigma) ... use that with the kit lens.

[commando]

How about a 50-500 Bigma do-all lens :lol:

The image quality must be pretty bad on that?



If that's true, I'd say you got a bad copy. Mine is waaay better than the kit lens.

Another possibility with a little more $$: sell the Tamron and buy the 100-400L (or the Bigma) ... use that with the kit lens.

I really have to compare them on a fair test. The link below to my website was from the first day I had the lens.

50-500 or 100-400 L are both large and expensive, not really walkaround lenses?

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you want to keep the size down.. then you are looking at the 75-300mm lenses... or if price is no object there is the 70-300mm DO IS... but at that price.. you could do MUCH better.

Evrything in life is compromise.. lenses are no exception.

The factors are allways;
Image Quality
Max aperture
Weight/Size
Affordable Price.

Getting ONE of the above in a lens makes a good lens.. getting two of the above in a lens makes for a great lens.

Getting three? Makes for something short of a miracle. Especially at the long telephoto end of things.

All four is essentially impossible.

[CyberDyneSystems]

How about a 50-500 Bigma do-all lens :lol:

The image quality must be pretty bad on that?


50-500 or 100-400 L are both large and expensive, not really walkaround lenses?

Actually.. I'd take the 50-500 over the 28-135mm or 75-300mm any day of the week.

As for the 100-400mm IS.. that is my walk around lens :mrgreen:

[commando]

Actually.. I'd take the 50-500 over the 28-135mm or 75-300mm any day of the week.

As for the 100-400mm IS.. that is my walk around lens :mrgreen:

3lb/7 inches - you must have strong arms! It's like $1400 too.

Then there's the vivitar 100-400 4.5-6.7 at $229 and half the weight. I've only seen one review, which is good.

[rkoshy]

... I know the point of an SLR is changing lenses, but if I have to change lenses for each shot it'd get damned annoying. The real first question for me is for casual use, would I really need to change lenses all that often. I just don't know....

Command Why don't you just walk around with a couple of camera's hanging off your neck like some of the shots I saw of the pro's shooting a skating event :lol:

[commando]

Commando Why don't you just walk around with a couple of camera's hanging off your neck like some of the shots I saw of the pro's shooting a skating event :lol:

Are you trying to bankrupt me?!?! :shock: :D

[wolf]

The image quality must be pretty bad on that?

Actually the optical quality is pretty amazing considering that it is a 10x zoom. Yes, is does weigh a lot at 4.10 lbs. I just sling the monopod with lens and camera attached over my shoulder and off I go.

[commando]

Actually the optical quality is pretty amazing considering that it is a 10x zoom. Yes, is does weigh a lot at 4.10 lbs. I just sling the monopod with lens and camera attached over my shoulder and off I go.

"Amazing considering..." isn't really what i'm looking for. I'm shooting more for "amazing" :)

My priorities are:
- great photos - weighted at 10
- convienence - weighted at 5
- price - weighted at 3-5

[commando]

One thing I could do is buy a cheapie Tamron/Sigma 75-300 and see what sort of use I get out of it. Once I work out what I need I can sell it for hopefully a reasonable sum and get what I really want - an L lens that suits what I want to do.

Good idea? Bad idea?

[Headcase650]

If you want a good consumer lense with reach and think changing lenses is a pain why not pick up the tamron 28-300. this would be good for casual photography and when image quality is importaint slap on the 28-75/2.8.

[CyberDyneSystems]

One thing I could do is buy a cheapie Tamron/Sigma 75-300 and see what sort of use I get out of it. Once I work out what I need I can sell it for hopefully a reasonable sum and get what I really want - an L lens that suits what I want to do.

Good idea? Bad idea?

On the one hand you are concerned about the image quality of a fine $1,000.00 lens not being good enough.. on the other you want a $200.00 plastic 300mm which you think might be good enough?

.. not that this has much bearing on the actual original post.. but the contradiction is odd.

Again..The Sigma 50-500mm image quality will positively blow away the lenses you mention here.

Back on topic.. the lenses mentioned will have a very poor resale value. But if you want a stop gap.. maybe thats the way to go.

[commando]

On the one hand you are concerned about the image quality of a fine $1,000.00 lens not being good enough.. on the other you want a $200.00 plastic 300mm which you think might be good enough?

.. not that this has much bearing on the actual original post.. but the contradiction is odd.

Again..The Sigma 50-500mm image quality will positively blow away the lenses you mention here.

Back on topic.. the lenses mentioned will have a very poor resale value. But if you want a stop gap.. maybe thats the way to go.

As i'm sure you can tell, i'm kinda new to this and not entirely sure what I want, or need. I don't know if I want one huge lens to cover the range, or a few lenses that cover the range seperately. I assume that a few lenses will do the job better than one big lens, but I need to weigh up price vs performance. Price isn't a big issue, within reason: the 70-200L F4 is within my range, then 2.8 isn't.

The suggestion of getting a cheap lens was because it might help me work out what I want. The idea would be i'd take a bunch of photos using it over a few weeks, see what lengths I actually used, and from that decide what decent lenses to buy. Maybe I should look around for a cheap 2nd hand zoom lens, use it for a bit, get what I really want and resell the cheap one.

Any thoughts or suggestions are most welcome.

[daaaveman]

You can never go wrong with the 70-200 f/4 L. It's a great lens which is very reasonably priced. It would extend your range to 200, compliment your 28-75 well and being light-weight, is easy to carry around. If you want to shoot birds and wildlife, this isn't the right lens, but for an every-day telephoto, it's hard to beat.

[Olegis]

As for the 100-400mm IS.. that is my walk around lens :mrgreen:

Oh, man - where are you walking around ? :lol:

commando, I second the 70-200 f/4L recommendation, it's a great lens - relatively small and light, relatively bright, optically excellent and has excellent build.

[commando]

Take a look at my post on this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48194#343575). People rave about the quality of the Tamron 28-75 and badmouth the kit lens, but I can barely tell any difference between them. I wonder if the same is true for the consumer lenses vs the L lenses.

[Aylwin]

Like you, I'm more of a casual shooter. I hardly ever get the chance to go anywhere for the sole purpose of taking photos. So I can't afford to have a big L with me all the time. Plus, I'm small and I hate carrying around big, heavy loads.

For my purposes, the 70-300 DO IS is perfect. Yes, it may be over-priced and it's not exactly an L lens. However, my main consideration was weight, size and portability, with decent enough image quality. And with that in mind, this lens was pretty much my only option.

Anyway, no harm in checking out this lens. You might like it. :)

[commando]

Damn, that 70-300 DO's expensive! It looks great and the photos from it i've seen are fantastic, L quality, but I don't think I can justify a lens that expensive given how much i'll probably use it.

All I want is a decent enough telephoto zoom that will give me more reach than the 28-75. I don't know if I need L quality, but I guess it wouldn't hurt, and i'll have it for years. The 70-200L is a contender right now, or possibly the Canon 100-300. I know the 200L would be sharper, but it has less reach and it costs about twice as much. Given how little difference I can see between the Tamron and the kit lens, I wonder if the L and the 100-300 would be much different to me.

I guess I just need to think about it some more.

[rkoshy]

darn, that 70-300 DO's expensive! It looks great and the photos from it i've seen are fantastic, L quality, but I don't think I can justify a lens that expensive given how much i'll probably use it.

All I want is a decent enough telephoto zoom that will give me more reach than the 28-75. I don't know if I need L quality, but I guess it wouldn't hurt, and i'll have it for years. The 70-200L is a contender right now, or possibly the Canon 100-300. I know the 200L would be sharper, but it has less reach and it costs about twice as much. Given how little difference I can see between the Tamron and the kit lens, I wonder if the L and the 100-300 would be much different to me.

I guess I just need to think about it some more.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 -- got it for $699 new from DeltaInternational in June -- has served me well till now. I just ordered Sigma's 2x TC ... so effectively I have a 70-200 f/2.8 & a 140-400 f/5.6.... the TC was about $150...

[blackviolet]

People rave about the quality of the Tamron 28-75 and badmouth the kit lens, but I can barely tell any difference between them.

i noticed your examples in the other thread -just out of curiosity, what is your workflow process? also, do you have any samples taken in a much brighter environment? its clear you can see the differences in contrast and colour, but yes as you say, there isn't too much to be excited about in your examples...

generally speaking, the difference between an 'ok' quality lens and, say, 'L' (or even sigma 'ex') glass is glaringly obvious.

[commando]

i noticed your examples in the other thread -just out of curiosity, what is your workflow process? also, do you have any samples taken in a much brighter environment? its clear you can see the differences in contrast and colour, but yes as you say, there isn't too much to be excited about in your examples...

generally speaking, the difference between an 'ok' quality lens and, say, 'L' (or even sigma 'ex') glass is glaringly obvious.

It was a bright day, but where I took the photos wasn't overly bright, but there was plenty of light around. I would have thought the Tamron would be better in lower light compared with the Canon.

My workflow was very simple:
- do custom white ballance
- take shots
- open two shots in photoshop, copy and paste into a new 8 bit canvas
- save as jpg max quality (12)

I might do some more tests some time, in bright light with different subjects. Right now i'm wondering if people here are overly fussy, are plain giving bad advice, or if I have a faulty Tamron/super Canon kit lens.

[Cadwell]

Right now i'm wondering if people here are overly fussy, are plain giving bad advice, or if I have a faulty Tamron/super Canon kit lens.

Do you find it at all strange that you are about the only person saying this about the Tamron 28-75mm lens?

[commando]

Do you find it at all strange that you are about the only person saying this about the Tamron 28-75mm lens?

Yes. Yes I do. I have very bad luck with products, if anyone's going to get a dud, it's me. I've emailed Tamron for their advice.

[commando]

I just missed a GREAT shot because I didn't have a long enough lens. Well, I got it, but it takes up about 1/12 of my sensor, so it won't look great. It was an old style ship coming into the harbor with all sails (like 8 of them) hoisted high.

I was offered a 90-300 lens at a very good price by a local store, i'll go have a play with it and compare it with a better lens The reviews are quite poor though, so I might go for the consumer 100-300, or maybe the 70-200L. Hmmm.