What is a good third choice?

I just purchased a used 40d here, and it did not have a lens. I know that I want the 100mm f/2.8 macro for my bug shots for sure. I also know that it can be used as a portrait lens as well. I was also thinking about a nifty fifty. However, I am wanting a telephoto lens as well, but currently am unable to shell out a lot of money. I'm thinking about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Silly idea, or are there any better? I really don't want to currently spend more than $500-600 for a lens. What about Tamron or Sigma? Quite frankly, I'm still a little bit new to the lens jargon, even though I shoot nothing but manual mode on my now broken S1 IS.

For a real tight budget: EFS 55-250IS.
Its an EF-S though.

Hey mate,

I've been researching a lot over the last year and have been using these forums as a great guide.

I would recommend the 55-250 IS over the 70-300
Also grab the 50mm 1.8 its a great little lens - just take care of it im on me 2nd!
That leaves you with some wide angle of which someone else can recommend as im not sure....... what sort of or how wide you need?!

The 70-300 IS is a great lens for the $$. Optically it is very good, almost as good as my 100-400 and the IS is outstanding, much better than the 100-400. I have had some real nice shots as slow as 1/30 hand held at 300mm.

You may want to look at a wider lens, I know a nifty-fifty isn't very wide for indoor shoots or groups (2-3 or more) and then look into something longer later. If you have kids (guessing you do) a wider lens than a fifty is going to get you shots that you might otherwise miss.

I have the 70-300 Sigma that I find to be a pretty decent lens in good light. I paid around $200 a couple of years ago, make sure you get the APO version.

My 0.02 cents.

So, EF and EF-S lenses are both compatible with the 40D? What are the cons of the EF-S, other than the mount is plastic. I do not EVER plan on upgrading to the Mark cameras, as I doubt I will be able to afford them, and plus the hubby is NOT happy that I bought this one (even though it was with my own money) although I have been asking for one for a couple of years.

davecole650, thanks for the Sigma idea. I am looking for something that will work not only for sports when my son gets old enough (he's only 21 months), but also for some wide angle astrophotography as well, along with some wildlife shots.

I think in your position your first lens purchase should be the 18-55 IS. Very good image quality, useful range, and IS, with decent build for the price.

That will solve most of your daily needs I expect, and maybe even some of your "bug" ones until the 100/2.8M comes along.

You'll have enough in the budget after the 18-55 IS to get the companion lens, the 55-250 IS, and maybe the 50/1.8 too.

All that said, yes, the 70-300 IS is a decent lens.

P.S.
Oh - I meant to stress that it was the IS 18-55, not the earlier, inferior non-IS 18-55 that I'm recommending here.

drevilsmom wrote in post #6463085
davecole650, thanks for the Sigma idea. I am looking for something that will work not only for sports when my son gets old enough (he's only 21 months), but also for some wide angle astrophotography as well, along with some wildlife shots.

Not for $600, and probably not for $6000; not a single lens, at any rate.

I'm going to be the odd ball here...personally I'm a very big fan of Tamron. Up till recently my main lens has been a Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0 - 5.6 LD (no IS) which I got on Ebay for $65 used and I have gotten some amazing images with it. If you look thru my older postings, you'll see a great many images shot with that lens and as they say, "the proof is in the pudding". Most recently I picked up the new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 ($700 on Amazon) and again it has been a truly exceptional lens to say the least. I also frequently use my Tamron 28-80 which I've also gotten some really great results with.

My suggestion would be that if you can live without the IS, I'd go for the Tamron 70-300mm LD. Even new they can be had for well under $200. I have two of them now (the first one broke on a sidewalk when the strap on my camera bag broke) and both have been quite exceptional for the money. If you really need the IS however, I would seriously look at the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC. I haven't used one personally (yet) but they got some fantastic reviews when they first came out. While at f/6.3 on the long end it is a little slower than the Canon lens you mentioned, it's actually faster on the wide end plus, it's wider on the wide end (over 40mm wider), it has one of the longest zoom ranges available in any price range and it has a 3 axis image stabilization system as apposed to Canon and everyone else's standard 2 axis system. For $600 new, it's a very hard lens to beat!

Honestly, if you are on a budget Tamron really is quite hard to beat. Yes, they tend to focus a little slowly (the lower end Tamron's will focus on par with your nifty fifty) and at least my two lower end Tam's are a bit noisy...although no where near as noisy as my Sigma 18-55 (and my new 70-200mm f/2.8 is fast and very quiet). When it comes to image quality and sharpness, all of my Tamron's have been on par with lenses costing a great deal more...including many high end Canon's. Please feel free to look thru the images that I've posted here on POTN and if you would like I can even send you more...don't let people BS you into spending more money than you have to to get a sharp lens .

Now as far as the wider vs. longer issue that dave mentioned above, that should be determined by what you plan to shoot. As he stated, if you're looking to shoot large groups indoors or even if you're looking to capture sweeping landscapes and sunsets, you may be better off going with something wider than the nifty fifty (also a fine lens BTW). On the other hand, if you know that you're going to need the longer reach...say shooting critters at the zoo (or in the wild) or something, then the 70-300mm is a very good range to start with. Just my opinion here, but focal length should always be determined by need.

I know I'm starting to sound like a sales rep here (and I'm honestly not) but if you have any questions about Tamron, please feel free to either PM me here at POTN or drop me an email. Alrighty, I hope this helps!

Peace,
Jim

If I were in your shoes, I would start with a Sigma 24-60 2.8 from Cameta thru Amazon.com or eBay for about $225 shipped. It's not as long as you may want but it is an awesome lens and dirt cheap while it is still in stock as it is discontinued. I love my 50 1.8 and I wish I had gotten it first as I learned so much from it.

i love my 70-300...but if i were you...i'd go for a 55-250IS...and then use the extra money left over for some wide-angle type lens...one of the 17/18-XXmm variety...

DreDaze wrote in post #6463449
i love my 70-300...but if i were you...i'd go for a 55-250IS...and then use the extra money left over for some wide-angle type lens...one of the 17/18-XXmm variety...

Agree with this. 17/18-50 and a 55-250IS or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 would be a great combination.

gjl711 wrote in post #6463043
The 70-300 IS is a great lens for the $$. Optically it is very good, almost as good as my 100-400 and the IS is outstanding, much better than the 100-400. I have had some real nice shots as slow as 1/30 hand held at 300mm.

I'd second this, but make sure it's the 70-300 IS not the 75-300 non IS.

You might also want to "combine" your macro and 50mm desires and go for Canon's 60mm F2.8 macro.

2nd the idea of the 60mm 2.8 Macro (if you get the 55-250 IS, I think y ou could squeeze this in).