Cheaper zoom for 300D

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Wazza wrote:
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://wazza.nfscity.c​om/20d/prey.jpg
http://wazza.nfscity.c​om/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.

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......

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.

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

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"!!!!

eljustino wrote:
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.

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
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
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.

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.

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 ...

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.