Zoom lens options

I want to get a 70-300 zoom lens for my canon but I've seen prices ranging to just over $100 to over $1,000; and I'm confused.

I have a Budget of $200; 250 max. Does that limit my options, for getting good optics, in a very significant way?

What are you using it for and what are your expectations , what wont your 135mm do for you ?

David

55-250 IS II is about the best in your budget. or the 100-300L that is in our classifieds section if the guy still has it.

mikecox wrote in post #17056450
I want to get a 70-300 zoom lens for my canon but I've seen prices ranging to just over $100 to over $1,000; and I'm confused.

I have a Budget of $200; 250 max. Does that limit my options, for getting good optics, in a very significant way?

Are you certain it isn't the 75-300 that you're seeing priced around $100? If that's the case then it's about $100 to much.

For your budget you can find a Tamron like this one LINK in the zoom range you mentioned or the Canon 55-250 if you decide to stick with Canon only.

Fwiw when I shot with Canon bodies I had both the Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 55-250 and preferred the extra reach and optics of the Tamron lens. Both are good lens however and are capable of helping you to produce quite good images.

I've had two different 55-250. Optically, you'll find nothing to complain about. Well worth the money for about $150, used.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17057043
I've had two different 55-250. Optically, you'll find nothing to complain about. Well worth the money for about $150, used.

+1 on this. The 55-250 is an amazing and affordable lens, especially for the price.

I second the Canon 55-250. I have the STM version and it is unbelievably good. I used to have the Mk II version and it is also amazing. It is very sharp throughout the zoom range and color and contrast is very good too. It vignettes more than my 70-200 f/4L, but with Lightroom corrections on I can't really tell which lens took which picture. Plus the 55-250 has very good IS and the STM motor is quieter and just as fast as the USM.

FYI, I have the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD and it is not as sharp as the Canon 55-250 above 200mm, but colors are a little better. I like the Canon 55-250 so much I am considering selling both the 70-200 L and the Tamron 70-300. If you can stretch your budget I'd get the 55-250 STM. If not the 55-250 II would be a good alternative.

My wife uses a 55-250 STM on her SL1. She's getting very nice bird photographs at our local nature preserve. Almost as good as I'm getting with my 70-300L. Even though it's inexpensive, it's a very capable lens.

Canon makes a 75-300 which is a low-end zoom ~$150, a 70-300 IS USM mid-range line ~$350, and a 70-300 L high-end lens ~$1200. Performance is as you would expect with the price range.

Of these I've owned two copies of the middle-of-the-road 70-300 IS USM lens. It is a good lens with good reach. Images can be a bit soft at the long end but overall a good buy in the used market.

Within your budget, as others have said, the 55-250 may be worth considering. The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II can be found below your target budget and the newest STM version can be found for slightly more than your max budget.

I've only heard good things about the 55-250 version. The latest STM version being even sharper.

I've had the 70-300 IS and it is sharp at f/8 and f/9

Frankly I would suggest you save for the very capable 55-250 IS STM and eventually - if you desire, go for the 70-300L IS or similar (the yet-but-probable-to-be-announced-replacement to the EF 100-400L IS would be something worthy to surely save up for)

Immaculens wrote in post #17058134
I've only heard good things about the 55-250 version. The latest STM version being even sharper.

I've had the 70-300 IS and it is sharp at f/8 and f/9

Frankly I would suggest you save for the very capable 55-250 IS STM and eventually - if you desire, go for the 70-300L IS or similar (the yet-but-probable-to-be-announced-replacement to the EF 100-400L IS would be something worthy to surely save up for)

Neither of the two 55-250s I had were STM. One original, one II. I also had a 70-300 (not the L-version) and I think the 55-250 is better wide open at 250 than the 70-300 is a 300. IIRC, it did sharpen up a lot by going to f/8 at 300.

Nobody is going to get a 100-400L II for anything close to $250. Maybe 10 times that. IF recent Canon glass is any indicator, it will be worth it to lots of folks.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17058181
... I also had a 70-300 (not the L-version) and I think the 55-250 is better wide open at 250 than the 70-300 is a 300.

Yes, that is what I read too:

"...The 55-250 delivers better image sharpness at 250mm than the 70-300 does at 300mm."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17058181
Nobody is going to get a 100-400L II for anything close to $250. Maybe 10 times that...

That is why I suggested "(the yet-but-probable-to-be-announced-replacement to the EF 100-400L IS would be something worthy to surely save up for)"

dpds68 wrote in post #17056475
What are you using it for and what are your expectations , what wont your 135mm do for you ? David

I'm shooting performers from the lip of the stage and 40 or 50 feet from above the stage. I just can't quite get close enough; even when I crop the image; I just need tighter shots.

Thorrulz wrote in post #17056515
Are you certain it isn't the 75-300 that you're seeing priced around $100? If that's the case then it's about $100 to much.

For your budget you can find a Tamron like this one LINK in the zoom range you mentioned or the Canon 55-250 if you decide to stick with Canon only.

Fwiw when I shot with Canon bodies I had both the Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 55-250 and preferred the extra reach and optics of the Tamron lens. Both are good lens however and are capable of helping you to produce quite good images.

Thanks; I'm not married to Canon lenses and have been told that Tamron makes good lenses; thanks for the links

beatle34 wrote in post #17057550
I second the Canon 55-250. I have the STM version and it is unbelievably good. I used to have the Mk II version and it is also amazing. It is very sharp throughout the zoom range and color and contrast is very good too. It vignettes more than my 70-200 f/4L, but with Lightroom corrections on I can't really tell which lens took which picture. Plus the 55-250 has very good IS and the STM motor is quieter and just as fast as the USM.

FYI, I have the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD and it is not as sharp as the Canon 55-250 above 200mm, but colors are a little better. I like the Canon 55-250 so much I am considering selling both the 70-200 L and the Tamron 70-300. If you can stretch your budget I'd get the 55-250 STM. If not the 55-250 II would be a good alternative.

Thanks for commenting on the Tamron; I was leaning in it's direction but the general consensus seems to bebleaning in the direction of the Canon.

I'm confused about IS vs STM I know what IS is but what does a STM do?