Cheaper zoom for 300D

[condyk]

Just bought a 300D with kit lens. Pretty much total newbie in DSLR world, though had digitals for several years, incl. nice Panny FZ3, and used to have a Sigma SA5 a few years back with a big 400mm lens which worked well. So, keen, but know nowt and need help!! I'd like mto make it a real hobby now I have more time.

Anyway, need a zoom ... budget up to £200/US$400 and happy with new or VGC second hand. Age not an issue. It'll be used for wildlife and birds mainly (95%) and primarily in Africa and Australia. Probably not too big/heavy would be best, if possible.

I am thinking maybe 300mm would do but 400mm would be great if I can find one. I appreciate zooms are 'bigger' with this camera :-) Needs to be very decent quality, but clearly not top notch due to budget constraints. Decent resale value is an issue as I'll probably get a top notch lens in time.

I am thinking of the Sigma 70-300 APO, Canon EOS EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 AF, 400mm f5.6 SIGMA HSM and Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO, but this list primarily based on what I have found on second hand market so far. Any user experience of these would really be helpful. I guess the Sigma 70-300 APO is a safer bet as would be new.

Any suggestions very welcome :-)

[cactusclay]

Not too big and heavy excellent quality 70-200 f4 with 1.4 TC= 448mm. There are used ones around, but I don't know if they are quite as cheap as you are looking for.

[condyk]

Assume that's a Canon lens? The reviews look good but pricing too high, even second hand :-( Nice sugestion for future tho'.

[HJMinard]

Is that a Canon lens?

Yes, it is ... the Canon EF 70-200/4L ... about $580.

The Canon 1.4 extender is about $280

This combination would be much better than anything you've listed, but it's also obviously out of your price range.

I believe the Canon 100-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=USA) is held in higher regard than any of the 75-300 lenses.

[DocFrankenstein]

You are asking for a crappy lens.

Anytime "cheap" is combined with "zoom", poop is produced.

[condyk]

Ok ... I may as well just give up then and go back to point and shoot. Thanks a lot for your advice :rolleyes: Must be nice having money to burn.

[Ogrt48]

I have the Canon EOS EF 75-300mm and it's ok for the price. It hunts a lot sometimes if you're not shooting outside in the day light. Pictures can be a rather soft but they do sharpen nicely with some USM. I haven't tried those other lenses yet though.

[Medic1]

Ok ... I may as well just give up then and go back to point and shoot. Thanks a lot for your advice :rolleyes: Must be nice having money to burn.

There is no need to get upset about the advice you are being given. Even though it may not be worded to your liking, Doc is giving you practical advice. You may want to spend a small amount of money now, but a "get whatever you can now" attitude will only lead to disappointment later. I had the same attitude once until I actually sat down and actually asked myself how happy I would be with "decent" so-so quality and soft pictures requiring alot of PS help. You said in your original post you wanted a "very decent" lens....how happy will you be with a lower end lens honestly?

I do not know your financial situation, but the best route may be to spend a little time with the 300D and kit lens and get to know the camera while you save up some money. Being upset about the reality of lens qualities vs. pricing will not make the lens any more affordable.

[condyk]

Ok, thanks Ogrt48

As I mentioned, I'll mainly use it in Africa and Aussie and so lots of light outdoors. It's looking like the best all round option for my current budget. Shame pricing is same in pounds as in US$'s tho!!

[Medic1]

Not too big and heavy excellent quality 70-200 f4 with 1.4 TC= 448mm. There are used ones around, but I don't know if they are quite as cheap as you are looking for.

Doesn't a 1.4 TC make a 70-200 a 98-280mm, not a 448mm?

[Wazza]

I have the Sigma 70-300. Does the job for bright situations. But I find it's very soft from 200-300mm. I'm only using it to shoot aircraft.

But I also shot these with it:

http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/prey.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/prey2.jpg
The zoom was probably a bit over 200mm at the time. The lens can only stop down to 5.6 when extended that far, so you have to rely on higher ISO. I was using ISO 800 at the time, and could have probably used 1600.

Good luck in your quest for a good quality starter lens.

[cactusclay]

I was adding the 1.6 crop factor.

[Mac]

Doesn't a 1.4 TC make a 70-200 a 98-280mm, not a 448mm?

They are factoring in the 1.6 crop factor for the sensor size. Effective range is 448...

Oops...beat me to it...hehe...;)

[jfrancho]

Doesn't a 1.4 TC make a 70-200 a 98-280mm, not a 448mm?
He figured in the 1.6 factor to account for the sensor size.
200 * 1.4 * 1.6 = 448 which would be the approximate 35mm equivalent.

[jfrancho]

Wow! Like sharks in feeding frenzy, we are.....

[cactusclay]

Something you might consider is to get the 70-200 f4 Canon, used, for somewhere around 500 US dollars, then save up and get a 1.4 TC. Like has been said, it is sometimes better to wait a bit, rather than get something that will disapoint you.

[condyk]

Being upset about the reality of lens qualities vs. pricing will not make the lens any more affordable.

LOL ... strange interpretation you make!

I am more surprised and disappointed that people can believe that decent, even outstanding, images can't be produced on inexpensive gear. I have half a wall filled with prints that say otherwise: taken variously with a Kodak cheapie digital, Panny FZ3, or Sigma SA5 SLR. Spotting an opportunity, ability to work with the equipment you've got and having a decent eye count too and I dunno if you get that built into camera firmware yet, however expensive it is!

Not sure how 'practical' the advice was either. Maybe it was clumsily worded. Maybe he didn't mean to say stop taking shots of animals and birds until you can afford it, but if you do carry on they'll be poop! Cynical, or sarcastic at best. At least that's how it was received. Who knows?

Quality is up to me at the end of the day and I asked for advice within clear parameters. Some people have offered it, so thanks to them. I'm not 'getting whatever I can now' either. I am asking for advice and gave examples of some options offered within budget. I shoot 95% wildlife and birds ... can I do that well with the included lens? I guess not! If I'm going to 'get to know the camera ' then I need something at least half decent to have a go at what I enjoy.

[Medic1]

I was adding the 1.6 crop factor.

Ooops.....my apologies, little brain drain there!!

[condyk]

Something you might consider is to get the 70-200 f4 Canon, used, for somewhere around 500 US dollars, then save up and get a 1.4 TC. Like has been said, it is sometimes better to wait a bit, rather than get something that will disapoint you.

Hmm ... cheers. That's seems sensible advice as gives something of an upgrade path while letting me have a half decent go meantime.

It's also the case that even if I am disappointed in a second hand lens, such as one of the ones mentioned, I can always sell it on at minimal loss. The key is to get something generally well thought of at a decent price. That's a win-win for me: get to use a lens but don't lose much if I don't like it :D

[DAMphyne]

Don't let these " L-Lens Prima-Donna's" discourage you. Get that great camera, buy the lens you can afford today, start shooting tommorow.
I've used the "Poop" 75-300 lens for 3 years, I know I should give up everything else in my life and buy an "L". But in my life, car repairs, food, rent, insurance, medical bills, sometimes take presidence over getting that supremely better lens.
Look at my blog, you'll see about half of the photos there are with the 75-300 canon lens.
Check out your cash supply, and then make your decision.
Mostly, have fun.

[condyk]

I have the Sigma 70-300. Does the job for bright situations. But I find it's very soft from 200-300mm. I'm only using it to shoot aircraft.

But I also shot these with it:

http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/prey.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/prey2.jpg
The zoom was probably a bit over 200mm at the time. The lens can only stop down to 5.6 when extended that far, so you have to rely on higher ISO. I was using ISO 800 at the time, and could have probably used 1600.

Nice shots ... I see some softness but that quality would be fine (brilliant!) for me. First shot is fab. You really got the 'character' of the bird.

So, the Sigma 70-300 and 70-200 Canon lenses are on the shortlist.

[Medic1]

LOL ... strange interpretation you make!

I am more surprised and disappointed that people can believe that decent, even outstanding, images can't be produced on inexpensive gear. I have half a wall filled with prints that say otherwise: taken variously with a Kodak cheapie digital, Panny FZ3, or Sigma SA5 SLR. Spotting an opportunity, ability to work with the equipment you've got and having a decent eye count too and I dunno if you get that built into camera firmware yet, however expensive it is!

Not sure how 'practical' the advice was either. Maybe it was clumsily worded. Maybe he didn't mean to say stop taking shots of animals and birds until you can afford it, but if you do carry on they'll be poop! Cynical, or sarcastic at best. At least that's how it was received. Who knows?

Quality is up to me at the end of the day and I asked for advice within clear parameters. Some people have offered it, so thanks to them. I'm not 'getting whatever I can now' either. I am asking for advice and gave examples of some options offered within budget. I shoot 95% wildlife and birds ... can I do that well with the included lens? I guess not! If I'm going to 'get to know the camera ' then I need something at least half decent to have a go at what I enjoy.

For one....you take my post the wrong way. I was merely relaying that I once too felt as you did....looking for a good zoom withing my budget (which was very similar to yours is now). However after posting on here and recieving good advice from people such as Doc, I decided to wait 3 months (use the kit lens only, and get used to its features and not its interactions with a long lens) and then buy the L glass. Otherwise, I can say with absolute certainty that I would have a 75-300 in my bag not getting use because I would have bought the 70-200 L anyways because the image quality is so much better.

I am not saying the equipment makes the photographer....but it is a part of the tools needed to produce high quality images. Otherwise professional photogs would be using 2MP P&S's for their work (a little exagerrated, but you know what I mean). I too have great prints with a Kodak P&S, but I have more from my 70-200 f4L. No one here is trying to attack you for wanting to stay within your budget, or saying you cannot take good pics without good equipment. Doc was merely stating a fact that lower end zooms will produce LESS quality pictures (by amount) on average than an L glass lens. Any lens you use if you take enough images your bound to get one thats sharper than an expensive lens, but for the most part you will consistently produce sharper images with a better quality glass.

You seem thorough in your search for a new lens, which means you care about quality. Take the advice of the folks on here.....I would be willing to bet that even if you buy the 75-300 now, you will replace it with higher quality glass as soon as you get the money. This means you will end up spending $400-$500 more than your original budget and will most likely have a lens getting little to no use in your bag.

Don't be offended by what people say on here....Doc was not demeaning you, but stating an opinion in a joking (maybe sarcastic) manner. But thats all it was meant to be....your reply seemed as if you had taken offense to what he had said and jabbed back with a sarcastic comment of your own. That is why I posted the original.

Lets end this here...I do not want to debate back and forth..you asked for opinions and you recieved them. I was dissapointed originally too that I had to spend more to get what I knew I would eventually want anyway...but have never regretted saving for the better lens.

Good luck in your search......

[condyk]

Don't let these " L-Lens Prima-Donna's" discourage you.

Mostly, have fun.

LOL ... absolutely. Insecurity is a difficult thing for some and I do understand it ;-)

For me hobby = fun.

Ok, let's see what's on ebay this week. Any other second hand sites worth looking at, with UK people selling stuff preferably, so save on delivery charges.

[condyk]

Any lens you use if you take enough images your bound to get one thats sharper than an expensive lens, but for the most part you will consistently produce sharper images with a better quality glass.

You seem thorough in your search for a new lens, which means you care about quality. Take the advice of the folks on here.....I would be willing to bet that even if you buy the 75-300 now, you will replace it with higher quality glass as soon as you get the money. This means you will end up spending $400-$500 more than your original budget and will most likely have a lens getting little to no use in your bag.


Ok, thanks. I think you're right about quality glass. As to losing all that money then I think my previous post indicates that a careful second hand purchase will lose little if any money at resale. The money is actually lost at initial purchase by paying too much for the wrong thing so can't sell on. I am a very astute buyer and it's rare for me to lose much when I come to upgrade, be it TV, MP3 player, hi-fi, whatever. As long as I pay a keen price for a resellable lens then I can play and worry later about whether to upgrade or not. No risk, lots of fun, some poop ... maybe I'll even make some money on the deal LOL

[eljustino]

I have a Canon "compact zoom" 80-200mm. Not very "fast" (f4.5-5.6). Plastic mount Gets very bad press, especially from the "L" brigade. My best lens is the Tamron 28-75Di and I know two people with "L" lenses of different lengths who say the Tamron is better.

Where does the Canon compact zoom fit in with this?

Well, under ideal conditions it takes pictures nearly as good as the Tamron 28-75, which most people agree is of "L" quality. Try to find a bad review!In general I think it's better than the Canon "kit lens" and certainly better than 2 other zooms I have owned - Sigma 28-105 and Sigma 28-300 - neither of which were "crap" by the way.

Guess what? I've taken loads of great pictures with the Canon 80-200 which cost me £46 on Ebay. One day I'll get a 70-200mm "L" lens which will weigh twice as much and be a pain in the arse to lug around, so I'll probably keep the "compact zoom" even then! :-)

I can certainly vouch for the basic Canon 80-200 4.5-5.6. You will not find it to be "poop"!!!!

[condyk]

Guess what? I've taken loads of great pictures with the Canon 80-200 which cost me £46 on Ebay. One day I'll get a 70-200mm "L" lens which will weigh twice as much and be a pain in the arse to lug around, so I'll probably keep the "compact zoom" even then! :-)

I can certainly vouch for the basic Canon 80-200 4.5-5.6. You will not find it to be "poop"!!!!

Cool ... the lugging around is an issue to consider for sure, especially in 'wilderness' locations where you have to be looking where you walk and checking for Lions, etc!! Unless you just jump out the car and straight into a bird or animal hide then some big stuff isn't very usable!!

I had a big heavy Sigma 400mm lens from ebay (£80) that looked ancient, though mint. Took loads of great photo's with a Sigma SA5, but you had to 'ready' and sorted to go. The good thing about the smaller camera's I've had is that you can be a bit more spontanious. I guess I want the quality of big stuff, but don't want to lose some of the spontenaity. Usability and speed is a big part of it all and knowing your gear inside out.

[rbush83]

The highest regarded lenses in the parameters you are looking for are the Sigma 70-300 f/4 - 5.6 APO Super II which is $209 at B&H. Lookout because there is a cheaper version of this lense, the "DL" which is ~$150, stay away from that one. You can read owner reviews of the APO version here (http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83600_3128crx.aspx)
Search these forums for "sigma 70-300" as there have been previous threads about it.

The second lens (in no particular order, just pointing out the top 2 from my readings) is the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 - 5.6 USM which goes for ~$280 at B&H. The main advantage of this lense is its ring-USM autofocus which provides fast and quiet autofocusing. The main negative point owners site is zoom creep, when you tilt the lense down it will slide right out. You can read owners reviews here (http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Canon/PRD_83408_3128crx.aspx)
You can also search these forums for "Canon 100-300" for more info.

At photosig.com there is a huge gallery of user submitted photos that you can browse by many different parameters, including the lens that was used. The only bad thing there is people name the lens themselves instead of picking it, so for popular lenses there will be 4 or 5 groups depending on how people typed it out. Have fun in your search.

[Phil V]

You're absolutely right, if you look for s/h bargains, you won't lose a fortune on your way to getting what you really want. I bought (in order) Sigma 100-300 (slow but OK), Canon 135mm 2.8 prime (stellar excellent portrait and motorsport lens) Canon 200mm 2.8L (excellent too long for digital for my needs) 70.200 2.8L (perfect, may get the IS version if I find a bargain).

The only one bought new was the Sigma (and the only one I lost money on LOL). I've handled a few others, the Canon 75-300 focusses too slowly for me to contemplate, but I've seen some very god images from it. In your shoes I'd look for a second hand Canon 100-300 USM, or the better Sigma one (APO super II?).

There are many second hand shops in the UK with web sites, let me know if you need details.

[condyk]

There are many second hand shops in the UK with web sites, let me know if you need details.

Thanks rbush83 and Phil.

If you have a few second hand options then please post links. My experience of shops tho' is they are rarely offering bargains. Happy to find one though :-)

I am pretty sure I'm going for the Sigma APO 70-300. Cheapest I found new so far is £140, with many places selling at £200+. One just sold for £120 on ebay (the guy beat me by 5 seconds posting the same finishing price!!) so I know if I buy cheap I won't lose much ... and still get several months experience from it. It has decent reviews.

The Canon 100-300 doesn't seem to be available anywhere I have found and I guess it is discontinued. I also think, from what I have read, that it won't have the responsiveness I want. The Sigma may be similar in that regard, but it is readily available and a current lens, so easier to sell ... potentially.

However, ex-wife and a friend are both heading to US (separately!) in next two weeks and so they could bring one back if I locate a cheap supplier local to where they'll each be. I will continue research and if I can't find a UK bargain I may splash out a tad more via that route, subject to VAT/duty of course.

Thanks everyone for your help ...

[rbush83]

It's possible you could order from B&H and have it shipped to wherever they are staying in the US, with good timing. It's $209 at B&H, about 108.5 GBP. Wow, that's a weak dollar.

[condyk]

It's possible you could order from B&H and have it shipped to wherever they are staying in the US, with good timing. It's $209 at B&H, about 108.5 GBP. Wow, that's a weak dollar.

It's an idea but I don't think they'd deliver to an address that wasn't registered to the credit card. I will do some research and there may be a place localish to where one or other is staying that has similar or better pricing. One is off to LA for 10 days tomorrow PM and the other I need to check where, but middle next week. I think SF.

[DocFrankenstein]

LOL

I'm an L lense prima donna! :D

*wiping his 2500$ L monocle*
Please forgive my snobbism, dear sirs. Let me demonstrate some 600*400 samples from 28-300 zoom. Taken in bright sunlight with a flash, as you see the quality and sharpness is excellent! ;):p
[/sarcasm]

Medic: Thanks, but it looks like a waste of time.

I must now depart to caress some L glass. I think it's getting lonely.

tata!

[tim]

The Sigma APO 70-300 lens mentioned above is fine for shots during the day and takes quite nice photos with good contrast, but in low light or indoors I found it to be too slow. I returned it. I wish I hadn't now, the 20D is much better at high ISO than my old 300D was.

[Wazza]

The Sigma APO 70-300 lens mentioned above is fine for shots during the day and takes quite nice photos with good contrast, but in low light or indoors I found it to be too slow. I returned it. I wish I hadn't now, the 20D is much better at high ISO than my old 300D was.

Hehe. Wanna swap for your Macro? ;)


condyk: That 2nd bird shot, was only 1/60th compared to 1/250th of the first. The eyes aren't too bad though.

As for its prime shooting range. This shot was at 190mm, before it softens itself off.
It's probably my sharpest aircraft shot taken with this lens.
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/zk-oji.jpg (f8, ISo 100, 1/320th, in the evening light). Only photoshop alteration, was a slight sharpen.

Edit: Also, where I am.. the 70-200 canon is 3 times more expensive than the 70-300 Sigma.

[tim]

Hehe. Wanna swap for your Macro? ;)

Edit: Also, where I am.. the 70-200 canon is 3 times more expensive than the 70-300 Sigma.

Swap the one I returned already? ;)

Lenses here are horribly expensive, I don't bother even looking here any more.

[Dante King]

I know there are a lot if differing opinions on the tamron 28-300 zoom, I kove it. One for the price. Picked one up for 420USD. has nice range for my all around shooting as I am waiting for a nifty fifty to show up and saving for some nicer (but more $$$) glass. I have found the top end of this lens to get soft but as said some good post processing produces some great shots. The low end is crisp and mid range dont suck.

Getting rid of my old 300D and kit lens for my 20D set me back some cash but I have so far liked tamron products and would definately buy one again. like what I hear about the tamron 28-75 but would miss the long range of the 28-300.

[condyk]

The Sigma APO 70-300 lens mentioned above is fine for shots during the day and takes quite nice photos with good contrast, but in low light or indoors I found it to be too slow. I returned it. I wish I hadn't now, the 20D is much better at high ISO than my old 300D was.

As I've mentioned, will be used outdoors in Africa and Aussie. From experience, I reckon the light will be bright enough most of the time :lol: :lol:

[tim]

What about photos at dusk? If it's all you can afford then it's not a bad choice at all, but for what you want i'd go with the 100-400L. Of course that costs quite a lot more.

[D Boone]

I have the canon 75-300. It is soft at full zoom. I took a bunch of bird photos yesterday, mainly of woodpeckers. I hate cropping, and I was only about 20 feet away, but it still dissappointed, I had plenty of light too. I can/will argue the point that I wouldn't have the shot at all if I had the kit lens, and its the 300 that stays on my camera all the time. Its more often that I encounter a shot that is too long for the kit lens than is too close for the 300. All in all, I am thinking in a year or so I will invest in some quality "L" glass, and then become a snob. I don't regret the cheaper lens. It has captured some treasured images in the meantime.

[Jon]

I have a 100-400 L and the 75-300 IS. I'm not getting rid of the 75-300, either. It isn't as good as the 100-400, but there are times when the weight of a long L gets in the way. Without the 75-300, I wouldn't have anything along (and my bag weighs in the neighborhood of 30 lb. last I looked, thank you very much!) for when I might need more reach. OTOH, even 300's on the short side for most wildlife photography. Anything shorter just won't cut it unless you're actively stalking your subject.

[DavidEB]

It's not either/or - you can have both. Buy what works for you now (second hand), learn how to use it, learn what's wrong with it firsthand. Then sell it on e-bay to another beginner, and move up. The difference between what you pay for it and what you get back later is the cost of learning, and you get to have something in your hands right away. Plus, when you do go out to buy a more expensive lens you will know better exactly which features you want.

[condyk]

Spot on DavidEB. Exactly what I thought.

Ok ... after all the research, great advice, and even a few snorts of derision, I have opted for the Sigma APO 70-300 Super II as a 'learning what the hell I'm doing' zoom. Bought one SH for £100 incl P&P, mint, from seller on another forum. Won't lose cash on it if I sell and I'll get several months of use until i head off on next Africa trip. Sorted

Longer term, I have researched and listened and decided (at least at the mo') to go for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX. This is a variation on cactusclay's recommendation. Great reviews, great sample shots, same price as Canon equivelent F4 L new, give or take, but F2.8 and includes tripod mount. Seems to be cheaper SH which is why I fancy it. Will get the Sigma extender too and already have the grip to give better balance with a heavier lens. If a bargain Canon 70-200 L + extender or 100-400 L came up I would also be happy to take it, of course.

Am also considering the Tamron SP 24-135 as a carry everywhere replacement for the kit lens. The extra zoom would make it really practical for around town shots where you don't want to be flashing big zooms around. We'll see how well the kit lens performs. Initial test shots indoors seem encouraging.

Anyway, 300D/Rebel finally arrived from US ebay seller this AM. No VAT/Duty :lol: :lol: and the guy had even gift wrapped it so felt like Xmas! Total for camera and lens kit £310 and P&P/Insurance £35, which is a steal compared to the Joker who charges £80 P&P PLUS insurance. Lovely jubbly! Grip £70, Sigma zoom £100. Bargain city in my place today! A great camera, so one happy bunny! Seller is caller 'custom-tek' if anyone interested, tho' dunno if he has any left!

Thanks for all the help ... now, where's the decent weather?

[johndm]

Spot on DavidEB. Exactly what I thought.

Ok ... after all the research, great advice, and even a few snorts of derision, I have opted for the Sigma APO 70-300 Super II as a 'learning what the hell I'm doing' zoom. Bought one SH for £100 incl P&P, mint, from seller on another forum. Won't lose cash on it if I sell and I'll get several months of use until i head off on next Africa trip. Sorted

Longer term, I have researched and listened and decided (at least at the mo') to go for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX. This is a variation on cactusclay's recommendation. Great reviews, great sample shots, same price as Canon equivelent F4 L new, give or take, but F2.8 and includes tripod mount. Seems to be cheaper SH which is why I fancy it. Will get the Sigma extender too and already have the grip to give better balance with a heavier lens. If a bargain Canon 70-200 L + extender or 100-400 L came up I would also be happy to take it, of course.

Am also considering the Tamron SP 24-135 as a carry everywhere replacement for the kit lens. The extra zoom would make it really practical for around town shots where you don't want to be flashing big zooms around. We'll see how well the kit lens performs. Initial test shots indoors seem encouraging.

Anyway, 300D/Rebel finally arrived from US ebay seller this AM. No VAT/Duty :lol: :lol: and the guy had even gift wrapped it so felt like Xmas! Total for camera and lens kit £310 and P&P/Insurance £35, which is a steal compared to the Joker who charges £80 P&P PLUS insurance. Lovely jubbly! Grip £70, Sigma zoom £100. Bargain city in my place today! A great camera, so one happy bunny! Seller is caller 'custom-tek' if anyone interested, tho' dunno if he has any left!

Thanks for all the help ... now, where's the decent weather?

Whos a happy bunny today then...:D

Guess this means rain for the entire easter holidays...;)

[condyk]

I know there are a lot if differing opinions on the tamron 28-300 zoom, I kove it.

Getting rid of my old 300D and kit lens for my 20D set me back some cash but I have so far liked tamron products and would definately buy one again. like what I hear about the tamron 28-75 but would miss the long range of the 28-300.

Thanks Mr Dante ... seems good advice ;)

I'm an L lense prima donna! :D

Medic: Thanks, but it looks like a waste of time.


Thanks Doc ...

...when you do go out to buy a more expensive lens you will know better exactly which features you want.

Good advice ... thanks a lot Mr DavidEB

Whos a happy bunny today then...:D

Dunno John, what happened to you? You still shooting that crummy L trombone? You still around all this time after my first post back in March 2005?

From 1 to 10,000th for me :lol: :lol: :lol:

[::John::]

Well done, Dave. I had a feeling you would do something different than most for your milestone post. (Congrats, btw).

[Miyagi-san]

lol, good choice for your 10k post! :)

[saravrose]

Thanks Mr Dante ... seems good advice ;)



Thanks Doc ...



Good advice ... thanks a lot Mr DavidEB



Dunno John, what happened to you? You still shooting that crummy L trombone? You still around all this time after my first post back in March 2005?

From 1 to 10,000th for me :lol: :lol: :lol:

very cool dave.. and on the original side as well.. i'm impressed.. Now, I'm thinking belize after Africa... wanna go?..

[LightRules]

This is cause for celebration. Congratulations, great one. I'm 1/4 of the way there ;)

[condyk]

Well done, Dave. I had a feeling you would do something different than most for your milestone post. (Congrats, btw).

Cheers John Boy ;)

lol, good choice for your 10k post!

:lol: :lol: Funny eh? A Leopard never changes spots!

very cool dave.. and on the original side as well.. i'm impressed.. Now, I'm thinking belize after Africa... wanna go?..

Sure ... you paying? ;) Good spot to head to no doubt about that.

This is cause for celebration. Congratulations, great one. I'm 1/4 of the way there

Well Jo, we both know it's not how big the number but what you say ;) Funny I'm saying the same things :lol: :lol: What a waste of my time :evil:

[PetKal]

(1) Funny I'm saying the same things :lol: :lol:
(2)What a waste of my time :evil:

(1) Probably so....but spelleted differently every and each time.
(2) Not really, if you accept the notion that spellunken practice makes us perfect. Just ask DavidEubola.

[DavidEB]

Oh, man. Did I really advise you to buy and sell lenses secondhand? What have I done?

congrats.

[SeattleSpeedster]

Get a used Magic Drainpipe...on FM, ebay, KEH or wherever

[Dale Siscoe]

I picked up a 75-300mm af zoom on ebay for about $ 125.00 and 13.00 shipping it was not a Canon but a Tameron and it works great. D.

[PetKal]

Oh, man. What have I done?



Make Dave use spellcheque regularly ?;)

[condyk]

(1) Probably so....but spelleted differently every and each time.

I need at least some variety ... or maybe I should set up a macro to just paste in the same paragraph for every response I do, having first had it chequed by DaveyEB :D

Oh, man. Did I really advise you to buy and sell lenses secondhand? What have I done?


Gud advize Davey ... haz held mi in gud sted eva sinze.

Get a used Magic Drainpipe...on FM, ebay, KEH or wherever

I picked up a 75-300mm af zoom on ebay for about $ 125.00 and 13.00 shipping it was not a Canon but a Tameron and it works great. D.

Thanks lads ... Thanks for the advice lads ;-)

Make Dave use spellcheque regularly ?;)

I just spelchequed yu and yu cum out as Poetic-Petal :lol: :lol:

[Olli]

Just bought a 300D with kit lens. Pretty much total newbie in DSLR world, ... So, keen, but know nowt and need help!!
I wish you have good time with your gear, condyk! :D Being new in this field myself, I can to give you any good help. :(