WHICH TELEPHOTO LENS?!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hey everyone! Lookin for a relatively cheap telephoto lens. Probably use it for some sports, wild life, stuff like that.

So far I've found the 28-300mm Tamron, and the 75-300mm IS Canon.

Anyone have any opinions? The guy at ritzcamera store told me that the tamron produces sharper, better images than the canon 75-300mm IS plus it has an advantage on the wide angle end. Could use it for some landscape, portrait, stuff like that. Seems to have some pretty considerable advantages, but I'm just wondering if anyone has these two lenses? Which do you prefur? Is there anything better out there?

Thanks!

[condyk]

Sigma 70-300 Super II APO Macro

[sageone]

I have the Sigma 70-300 Super II APO Macro. It's a really nice lense. It's great for sports. Check out some of my stuff here taken with this lense:

http://www.maldencatholic.org/malden.aspx?pgID=1295

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

This one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=163657&is=REG

That's... incredibly cheap!!!! Looks like a decent lens. Anyone else have anything to say about this lens? Or any other lenses?

[nitsch]

I can highly recommend the Sigma 70-300 APO II as well. For the money it is truly incredible. I got mine on Ebay a couple of weeks ago for about 100 GBP and have been loving using it ever since. If you look at some of my recent posts you'll see some squirrel and small bird shots I have taken with this lens on the 300D.

[condyk]

Nitsch

Maybe you bought my old one, which I sold on ebay for around a £100 a few weeks ago.

That was indeed a nice lens :) and you've definately had some nice shots with it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't suppose any of the info in this discussion;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70590
... on telephotos just half way down the page would be of any help?

Or the -=TOP 10=- recommended lens polls? There are at least four polls that apply to telephotos.. and two that are specific to wildllife with a wealth of information allready discussed.

Might be worth a look.

[mikesd]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=USA Can't beat it for the money, and faster focus and sharper than Canon's 75-300's.

[KevC]

Woah... it has a red stripe too! :D

[nitsch]

Nitsch

Maybe you bought my old one, which I sold on ebay for around a £100 a few weeks ago.

That was indeed a nice lens :) and you've definately had some nice shots with it.

Hi Condyk, I did see your auction but at the time I hadn't made my mind up whether to go for that lens or not but I bought mine soon after yours ended. However it was some of your comments that definately helped to persuade me that it was a good choice, so thanks! :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Huh, wow, everyone seems to love this lens, and it's very cheap.... about 200 dollars in savings. Guess I could put that towards a second lens later on..... this might be a good idea. I looked at nitsch's recent photo's taken with that lens and they are all very, very sharp. I'm surprised it works so well for such an innexpensive lens!!!

Makes me wonder..... why is it so much cheaper than the other lenses?!?!?!?! What do the other lenses have that make them so much more expensive?

And... Is there any lens anyone out there would recommend something different over this lens performance wise? (Within reasonable price range)

[johnlo]

i used to have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 (older model-mid 90s). I sold it and replaced with the Canon 75-300 IS. I love the Sigma lense, but it was to heavy and huge to be carrying around everywhere I go. the Canon was much smaller and lighter to carry around.....

[Jackal]

Someone mind posting a 100% crop of the Sigma 70-300 APO Super II?

(at 300mm would be good)

[condyk]

I looked at nitsch's recent photo's taken with that lens and they are all very, very sharp. I'm surprised it works so well for such an innexpensive lens!!!

Makes me wonder..... why is it so much cheaper than the other lenses?!?!?!?! What do the other lenses have that make them so much more expensive?

The Canon 50mm II is a similarly cheap yet outstanding lens. It just happens now and again! Also, remember that:

1. It doesn't have IS
2. It's not branded Canon

You're comparing different price points too. The Sigma is competing most directly with the Canon 75-300 USM and, at the upper end of the price point, the Canon 100-300 USM. It's not competing with the Canon 75-300 IS even though it may produce as good or better results.

Alternatively, it contains a chip which records the TV programmes you watch and then Sigma sends you appropriate junk mail :lol: :lol: .

Johnlo ... I don't see any basis of comparison between the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 f2.8. They are a different class of lens, very different prices, with different lengths and one has IS and the other doesn't. An f2.8 will always be relatively larger and heavier than a competing slower lens of similar zoom length, such an an F4, or whatever. The logical comparison is with the Canon 70-200 F2.8 which is also heavy. :D

[ron chappel]

Wow,the salesman told you that the tamron 28-300 gives sharper pics than the canon 75-300 IS ??
He sure is doing his job then (not quite telling the truth and certainly not telling you the whole story!)

The truth is that the tamron 28-300 has a very usefull focal length range, but the vast majority of people just aren't satisfied with the sharpness they give.I'd advise to avoid it (or any other so called hyperzoom)

The canon 75-300 IS lens is really just a cheap set of optics with a very expensive image stabilization system added.It definitely gives sharper pics than a 28-300 lens ....but not by alot.

To be more precise,it gives quite good pics when used zoomed less than 200mm ,but is not very good closer to 300mm.
This is a problem with all consumer telezoom lenses to some extent (the tamron 28-300 does it too)

So,where does that leave you?
Get the canon 75-300 IS lens if you really want/need the image stabilization.It's not the best choice but is at least OK.
On the other hand you can spend less and have a nice sharp lens if you are prepared to do without the IS feature

The most recommended lenses in this category are the canon 100-300 usm and Sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II (as you can see above! :))

Personally i have had much better results with the canon 100-300usm and wouldn't hestitate to recommend it over the sigma 70-300 APO
But then maybe i have a slightly dud example of the sigma (just bought it brand new)?

Unfortunately not many people on this forum own the canon 100-300usm so you tend to see more praise for the sigma
Anyway i guess the point is that they are both very good-you would be safe choosing based on features -
The canon 100-300usm has genuinely quick focus speed,nice build,very good optics,etc
The sigma 70-300 Apo II has excellent macro ability,has good optics and is cheaper.

[ron chappel]

Someone mind posting a 100% crop of the Sigma 70-300 APO Super II?

(at 300mm would be good)


While they're at it could they also post an equal crop comparison taken at about 150mm? (so move back twice as far for the 300mm shot) I would really love to know how much the sigma 70-300 APO image quality degrades when zoomed right out.
If someone is actually going to do this ;) please take al shots wide open:)

Frankly mine is pretty pathetic at 300mm and im wondering how normal this is....

[Medic1]

Hey everyone! Lookin for a relatively cheap telephoto lens. Probably use it for some sports, wild life, stuff like that.

So far I've found the 28-300mm Tamron, and the 75-300mm IS Canon.

Anyone have any opinions? The guy at ritzcamera store told me that the tamron produces sharper, better images than the canon 75-300mm IS plus it has an advantage on the wide angle end. Could use it for some landscape, portrait, stuff like that. Seems to have some pretty considerable advantages, but I'm just wondering if anyone has these two lenses? Which do you prefur? Is there anything better out there?

Thanks!

Don't know just how much you need in focal length, but at my local shop the 70-200 f4L is only about $150 more than the 75-300 IS USM. If you need the full 300, then you could go for the 75-300, but I love my 70-200 f4L and I get just as good of shots cropping and enlarging as friends do with their 300mm lenses.

[whchan]

I saw a lot of praises on Tamron 70-300, how does it compared to the Canon and Sigma?

Thanks.

[cfcRebel]

FWIW, this site shows the Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II scores higher than the EF 100-300mm USM in the optical quality test.
http://martyfoto.kbx.cz/LensTestGuide.htm

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hmmm, the 100-300mm, the 70-300mm Sigma...... the canon IS....... the canon 70-200 f/4...... this is beginning to become a very, very hard decision. Does anyone else recommend the 100-300mm canon over the Sigma 70-300 like ron chappel? (P.S. Thanks chappel, very helpful comments!)

And Medic 1, you have the 70-200 f/4? How is it? Fantastic for sports? Sharper than any of the 300mm zooms we've all been discussing? And is it really good enough that I could take a picture of lets say a bird in a far away tree, and crop it enough to get the zoom I need while maintaining a sharp picture? Because I definately want to buy that lens, but 200mm is just too SHORT! I don't think it's enough, but then again I want a really good sports shooting lens, because I'll be doing a lot of action as well as still subject matter. Such a tough choice...........

aawwww anyway right now I guess i'm leaning towards the Sigma 70-300 APO because it's cheap, and that would give me some extra for the Canon 17-40L that I also want to get........

Man, sometimes I wish we had a semi communist economy.... cause having so much to choose from is a pain in the @$$.

[Medic1]

And Medic 1, you have the 70-200 f/4? How is it? Fantastic for sports? Sharper than any of the 300mm zooms we've all been discussing? And is it really good enough that I could take a picture of lets say a bird in a far away tree, and crop it enough to get the zoom I need while maintaining a sharp picture? Because I definately want to buy that lens, but 200mm is just too SHORT!

If you are looking to do birding, this lens is definetly too short for you. For sports or fast moving subjects I would definetly say it would depend on your distance to the subject. I do alot of aviation photography, so I guess its a little different. Heres a couple of my more recent shots. The first one is not the greatest as it was an overcast day, but it is cropped and then resized 200%. The second one was taken on a decently lit day. Gives you a bit of an idea how the 70-200 f4L handles moving subjects.

WestJet Takeoff (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=463881) 200mm, f4, 1/1000

Air Jazz Landing (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=451021) 145mm, f4, 1/2500

Good luck with your decision...

[ron chappel]

The 70-200/4L is definitely sharper than any consumer x-300 zoom,it's also sharper than the old 100-300/5.6L zoom
..and even with the 1.4TC it's still sharper than the old 100-300/5.6L
http://www.pbase.com/token/lens_comp

Have a look through all recent threads discussing the 70-200/4L -there are a few mention the cropping option

[mdr]

I'd highly recommend the 70-200mm f4 L and the 1.4x TC, see also my new post on this combination: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71569.