lens for low $$

Looking to pick up a good but rather budgeted distance lens. I have a canon rebel. I am very much into the wild life shot and being a distance away will help get better shots.

Maybe try the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens. I had one when I first started out an was looking for a budget lens. Took many great shots with it before I upgraded.

kcrunchone wrote in post #15615307
Looking to pick up a good but rather budgeted distance lens.

What do you consider "budgeted"? For some that might be $100 for others it might be $1000.......

^^^ this.

If your budget is $400-ish, I think the Tamron 70-300mm VC is a great value buy. Sharp, good image stabilization, comes with a hood and it's slightly cheaper and sharper than the Canon 70-300 (not the L version of course).
Another good value lens for about 2/3rd the price is the 55-250, but it's a bit behind the Tamron 70-300. If you can find one used, they might go for as low as $150.

Best bang for the buck is the 55-250, it has IS and it's quite sharp for the price. It's also very light weight and small so it's easy to carry, this lens is often supplied as a "kit lens" for the Rebels so used ones are easy to find. If you can stretch your budget the 70-200 L F4 (non-IS) can be found used for $500 or less and is tack sharp. Check out the lens forums for both of these lenses and you can see the quality of photos they are capable of.

The Canon 55-250 is surprisingly good, and very affordable.

50-250.

55-250IS is your best bet

I disagree, 55-250 doesn't have AF that is, in most circumstances, quick or accurate enough for wildlife. I'd look for USM or equivalent in a wildlife lens.

Apricane wrote in post #15616217
I disagree, 55-250 doesn't have AF that is, in most circumstances, quick or accurate enough for wildlife. I'd look for USM or equivalent in a wildlife lens.

I don't entirely agree here. It certainly isn't as fast as the best but it isn't to shabby. It is as fast as the cheaper canon usm models such as 75-300 in my experience

Apricane wrote in post #15616217
I disagree, 55-250 doesn't have AF that is, in most circumstances, quick or accurate enough for wildlife. I'd look for USM or equivalent in a wildlife lens.

You do realize that all wildlife photography before 1983 was done with manual focus?

Budget and long. In my experience with wildlife, almost no lens is long enough. Long with great quality and budget are usually mutually exclusive. For budget and a decent lens: 55-250.

Apricane wrote in post #15616217
I disagree, 55-250 doesn't have AF that is, in most circumstances, quick or accurate enough for wildlife. I'd look for USM or equivalent in a wildlife lens.

it's definitely fast enough for wildlife...might not be the best for small BIF, but it'll work better than anything else near it's price point...

casaaviocar wrote in post #15616274
You do realize that all wildlife photography before 1983 was done with manual focus?

I don't see how that's relevant; it is certainly possible to do so, but it's still not a reason to still recommend doing it. My first wildlife lens was the 55-250, and I'm quite happy I was able to afford a good upgrade.

I know the 70-300L is way beyond the OP's budget, but other people have suggested the Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 70-200L USM non-IS; I've never used either lens, so I can't comment on them, but to me they sound like they'd be better options than the 55-250, and likely still within the OP's budget.

Apricane wrote in post #15616217
I disagree, 55-250 doesn't have AF that is, in most circumstances, quick or accurate enough for wildlife. I'd look for USM or equivalent in a wildlife lens.

I have 635 shots, all about the same level of sharpness or better (H shoots pretty fast at 5 fps)... tossed about 20 because I wasn't adept enough to put the object where the 60D could see it.

It is the 18-200 and it doesn't say USM anywhere...

MakisM1 wrote in post #15617079
I have 635 shots, all about the same level of sharpness or better (H shoots pretty fast at 5 fps)... tossed about 20 because I wasn't adept enough to put the object where the 60D could see it.

It is the 18-200 and it doesn't say USM anywhere...

See my post just above yours.

And I'm not under the impression that the OP has 635 shots either, or nearly the practice you must have.

But it is indeed a very good shot.