Telezoom lens, which one to get?

[Claire]

Hi,
I was looking at the prices on the B&H website and compared it to Swedish lens prices. Gosh, it's cheaper! And with the dollar being the way it is... :D

I'm awfully tempted to get a zoom lens to accompany my DRebel kit lens. I'm still on a budget here, so looking for something good but won't bust my cashflow too much. At the same time, I don't want to just stare at the price and end up with a crap product.

As I know nada about lenses. Want to mainly shoot portraits, landscape/nature (casually). So far looked at these:

Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM II ($194.95)
Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 EF IS ($389.95)
Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 III ($169.95)
Canon 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 II ($109.95)

If there are any Tamrons/Sigmas out there that you can recomment too, feel free to do so.

Thanks a bunch.
/Claire

[Canuck]

Oh, ouch...I hate to say it but I don't see one I'd recommend. You might look at the Sigma EX line like the 100-300 F4EX, or 50-500mm or even the 70-200 and 1.4x TC that will get you out justa little past 300mm. If you can swing it try the Sigma EX APO line.

[Toogy]

I suggest you bump up your budget slightly and get a Canon 70-200 F4L

Very nice lens for the money.

[ScottE]

In your price range I would look at the Sigma 70-300. They have two versions, one with and one without an APO lens element.

[Canuck]

In your price range I would look at the Sigma 70-300. They have two versions, one with and one without an APO lens element.

The non APO one isn't worth the glass/plastic it is made of; the APO seems to be a little better. I had athe non APO version and sold it.

[gramps]

I suggest you bump up your budget slightly and get a Canon 70-200 F4L

Very nice lens for the money.

I would have to agree with this one. It seems to be close to your price range and I think the quality of it is way above the others.

[ron chappel]

Um..maybe i've missed something here? but the 70-200/4L is not in this price range

The 55-200 i don't know alot about.It's a new model and is still overpriced as new ones tend to be
(i still cringe at the thought of a friend being offered a -then new- 28-90 lens at a massive premium when she went to buy a camera... :shock: :twisted: )
I haven't seen any great pics from this lens-it may be ok to good but prob best to get some solid evidence first.

The 75-300 models are the same optically but the IS model has the benifit of image stabilization.
They are (optically) good basic consumer grade lenses.You'll get some very good pics with them but they are not anywhere near the league of an L lens.
I presently have both of the 75-300 types.I tend to think that the IS feature may be a little overpriced for most people.Yes it is usefull but not as much as i thought it would be...
and it still has slow focus(all these models focus abit slow!) and average optics.
Here are some pics from the 75-300
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

The 80-200 (II version) is a great little lens! In sharpness,it's abit better than the 75-300 models and allmost the same as the 100-300.There are two example pics on the page linked above.A bargain if you don't need 300mm

I would highly recommend the canon 100-300/4.5-5.6!
It's a very good allround lens with good build and fast true USM focus.Not as sharp as an L zoom but not far off either.
Here is a comparison with a 75-300
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html (also next page)

Unfortunately i don't have any general example pics from the 100-300,i need to do some site repair/maintainance

As an allternative to the canon 100-300 you might consider a sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II
It gets some good comments from owners and is better than the 75-300-
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

I kinda second Canuck's experience with the non apo sigma.We prob both got dud lenses but mine was SO bad i'm just wary of ever recommending that model :shock:

[Canuck]

I kinda second Canuck's experience with the non apo sigma.We prob both got dud lenses but mine was SO bad i'm just wary of ever recommending that model :shock:

Idunno how dud mine was, it was bought in Dec, 1999 if that is any indication. I also don't know how much I can put into a lens that is only $150.

However, I still have a Sigma lens, an EX one the 120-300mm F2.8EX which is many time the cap you have put on us that is an outstanding lens. The down side is that it is about $2000. I would expect it to be such at this cost. Once again I can't compare them fairly. This is much like comparing the A70 (3.2MP) to a 10D (6.3MP). They are both great cameras in their niche, but again we're comparing app;es and oranges....or lemons in the case of the cheap Sigma lens.

[robertwgross]

For shooting a wedding, I think you want to look at something like 28-135mm I.S.

---Bob Gross---

[Claire]

Hi and thanks for your replies. The lenses mentioned are cheap, I know, but my budget right now is no more than $285. This is because I'm unemployed apart from occasional substitute teaching. In Sweden those lenses mentioned are almost twice the price!

I'm not sure I need up to 300mm, could probably do with just 200mm.I've been to a store and felt out a Sigma 70-300mm which was on sale here. Not sure it if was the APO one (eh ,what's APO btw?)

I'm still scouting around, gonna go to a store and try out some other lenses too. Just to get a feel for them. I'd really appreciate whatever suggestions you can give me.

/Claire

[eastcoast909]

My son has this one and he is very satisfied with it. Here is a link that you might find useful for pricing.

http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL70%2D300SC.htm

I have also seen people suggest beachcamera.com but have absolutly no experience with them.

Of course you can't go wrong with B&H. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[mdude85]

I suggest you bump up your budget slightly and get a Canon 70-200 F4L

Very nice lens for the money.

"slightly"? I would not call a 400% increase in price "slight." If the person is on a budget and is looking for a $150-$200 lens, a $600 lens is probably out of the question. Some people do not have money burning holes in their pockets... I would personally go with the 75-300 USM, for getting the best results for the best price. Another option to consider are older Canon zoom lenses -- 70-210 f4 (the precursor to the 70-200 f4 L: I just ordered one of these and will post some sample shots) and 70-210 f3.5-4.5 (for an extra half stop at the low end). You can find these pretty cheap -- usually around $120. But they won't be new.

I have also heard decent things about the 55-200 from Canon. I would not spend the extra money for the 75-300 IS...I hear the IS doesn't really increase the quality on that lens very much.

For a hobbyist these lenses will be fine.

[tim]

APO is apochrimatic, not sure what it means.

Have a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49815) and the photos I took with the Sigma 70-300. Not a bad lens at all, just not great for low light. I returned it, but now I think I should have kept it.

[MikeL117]

Hi Claire

Have you looked at the second hand market. Sometimes it is the only way when on a tight budget. As long as you are careful it is possible to still get a bargain (you may have to wait a while before a suitable lens comes along though). ebay is worth a look but it is getting increasingly more difficult to get a bargain there.

Go for the best optically you can afford even if it means you are more limited in range. Look at primes. A good one to consider is the 50mm f1.8 which is excellent for portraits, a good price even new and quite plentiful second hand (the Mark 1 is a better build, not sure if there is any difference optically).

Good luck

[tim]

Go for the best optically you can afford even if it means you are more limited in range. Look at primes. A good one to consider is the 50mm f1.8 which is excellent for portraits, a good price even new and quite plentiful second hand (the Mark 1 is a better build, not sure if there is any difference optically).

The 50mm 1.8 can't really be called either a telephone lens or a zoom, and is completely different to the kind of lenses she was asking about. The advice about primes is good, but they could be more expensive than the cheaper zooms.

From what i've read the 50mm 1.8 II is just as good optically.

[MikeL117]

OOPS!

Missed the Telezoom reference it is only on every heading :) must be getting late.

[tim]

OOPS!

Missed the Telezoom reference it is only on every heading :) must be getting late.

Late? It's 2 in the afternoon man, what are you talking about! ;)

[MikeL117]

Almost two in the morning here ;)

[Claire]

Ok, today I went by two stores. One had a Tamron 70-300mm and the other one had the Sigma 55-200mm and 70-300mm II Macro Super. I tried them all and the Sigma 70-300 was so much heavier than the Tamron one! Yes, I know, I'm a wimp. Naturally it should be a bit heavier than I am used to, but I was surprised the Sigma felt so much heavier compared to the Tamron. Now I'm wondering what the Canon one would feel like...

The 55-200mm was not that much bigger than my kit lens, and I'm now debating if I should get something like that instead. Do I really need up to 300mm? :? Is it an ok lens? Compared to the Canon 55-200?

[ron chappel]

While the 55-200 may be OK there is no guarantee.It's a new model and there's little info yet about wether it's above average or below,etc
One thing i have noticed is that it is blatantly overpriced!! (as all newly released lenses are)

One thing i can say for sure is that the canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 II *IS* a great little lens and sells for a bargain price.
Grab it if you only need a 200mm zoom! :)
Here are a couple of example pics (last two on the page) http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/
-note that these pics were proccessed and saved for the web twice .They are sharper AND smoother than this shows....i'll upload orriginals again sometime in future.

[robertwgross]

Claire, for purposes of wedding photography (that's what this is about, isn't it?), you need something to go as wide as about 20 or 30mm, and you need something to go as long as about 120 or 150mm. That could be in one lens, or it could be in multiple lenses.

I think that is why I recommended the Canon 28-135mm with or without I.S.

I have the I.S. model, but that isn't important if you are shooting off a tripod. You are, aren't you?

---Bob Gross---

[colblaha]

i'm also looking for a telezoom, and i've been trying to find good things about the ef 100-300 and have only found a few things on it.

No one here has mentioned it yet, so i was wondering if no one uses it, or if it's just weird lens in limbo.

[ron chappel]

i'm also looking for a telezoom, and i've been trying to find good things about the ef 100-300 and have only found a few things on it.

No one here has mentioned it yet, so i was wondering if no one uses it, or if it's just weird lens in limbo.
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html
I mentioned it before but may not have said much about it because claire wanted something cheaper(?)

Anyway it's an *excellent* lens-definitely the best consumer telezoom that canon makes
It's sharp (see example comparison above),well built,has fast genuine USM focus (not the cheap usm type)

[Cadenza]

Another telezoom question: for the best low light
performance in midrange, generally speaking, which
one is more important, f2.8 or IS? If you had to
choose between Canon 28-135 IS or Tamron 28-75
XR Di, for instance.

[markubig]

Another telezoom question: for the best low light
performance in midrange, generally speaking, which
one is more important, f2.8 or IS? If you had to
choose between Canon 28-135 IS or Tamron 28-75
XR Di, for instance.i had asked this question earlier. People gave some helpful responses:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50904

Good luck!

[Cadenza]

i had asked this question earlier. People gave some helpful responses:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50904

Good luck!

Thanks for the link; can't believe I missed it -- would have
felt even more stupid if I had started a new thread with
the question!