What New Lens? - £600

m3csl2004

m3csl2004

m3csl2004

Associate
Joined
17 Jun 2005
Posts
622
Location
Sheffield
At current, I don't really have anything at the long end of the range. With an upcoming holiday is some great countryside, I was looking to spend around £600 on a telephoto lens (second hand is fine).

My question is, given my price range and current gear (list below) - what would you go for? and would you spend all of the money on 1 lens - or would you save some and spend on upgrading some of the existing gear?


Current gear:

Canon 550D + Grip
Nissin Di622 Flash
EF 28 f/2.8
EF 50 f/1.8
EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro
MF 055 tripod and cheap ball head
 
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 non-macro non-dg.

Really old lens. When I had mine I was really happy with it. Took a 1.4x really well too. I've not heard such good things about the newer models though - so if you can find the one above it's well worth it. Expect to pay £450 for the old model. And bewteen £375-£500 for the newer variants.

To be honest the only real benefit from the upgrade to the [IS Mark I]for me was the weather sealing & cool-looking factor. Optically it matches up .


Using that money you've saved put it towards a wide angle such as the Tokina 12-24 to complete the set-up.
 
Hmmm... With £600 you may just be able to squeese a 70-200 f/4 IS in there (probably a bit too tight) or you may be able to get a 300 f/4 IS (again very tight) if you want a prime. Alternatively you could look at the 300 f/4 (non IS) which goes for around £400-450 (but since I expressed an interest in selling mine i've had half a dozen enquires so you may be on a wild goose chase with that one. :p)

I guess it really depends on what sort of length you want to go for and how big you want the lens. Personally I think an f/2.8 lens will be a little big as a carry around lens so i'd suggest if you don't want or can't afford the above I mentioned to go for the non IS 70-200 f/4. :)
 
Well shorter lenses are fine, just walking around on the off chance of a shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 would put me off a bit... :p
 
Amp34 said:
Well shorter lenses are fine, just walking around on the off chance of a shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 would put me off a bit... :p
Click to expand...

Why? The 70-200 2.8 is not that heavy, a bottle of water basically. I walked 27km + 1600m ascent last saturday with a 70-200 2.8.
 
That's not really on the off chance though. I have the 300 f/4 which is around the same size as the 70-200 f/2.8 but it's not a lens I just take to the beach or an afternoon stroll with the family, along with my other kit.

Either way that's my personal opinion is I don't like carrying large lenses (along with other stuff) round on the off chance. :p
 
Tysonator said:
Sigma 120-400 DG HSM apz £599.00
Big lens and cheap compared to a canon !
Click to expand...

And terrible quality control and mediocre optics compared to a canon.

You get what you pay for mostly in this world. The odd bargain and the odd rip-off aside.
 
m3csl2004 said:
At current, I don't really have anything at the long end of the range. With an upcoming holiday is some great countryside, I was looking to spend around £600 on a telephoto lens (second hand is fine).

My question is, given my price range and current gear (list below) - what would you go for? and would you spend all of the money on 1 lens - or would you save some and spend on upgrading some of the existing gear?


Current gear:

Canon 550D + Grip
Nissin Di622 Flash
EF 28 f/2.8
EF 50 f/1.8
EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro
MF 055 tripod and cheap ball head
Click to expand...


From looking at your list you have nothing remotely wide. 28mm on crop is a fairly boring place to start form. I would think about the excellent Canon 17-55 IS and get rid of the 28 2.8 and 28-105.
 
D.P. said:
And terrible quality control
Click to expand...

That's the canon POTN user talk!!

Sigmas quality control is okay. Not quite as good as canon but I've used many canon/sigma lenses and only ever had one bad sigma.

The optics on some sigma lenses (50mm f1.4, 300mm f/2.8, original 70-200, 30mm f/1.4, 500mm f/4.5) are excellent.

Stop believing this 'sigma is always rubbish'. In many cases they are just a few paces behind canon.

Canon also make a lot of lemons too- I (and many others) had a kerwap 24-70L.

Yeah signa make more lemons but it isn't one massive epidemic!!!
 
The Sigma lens I use is the 17-70 DC macro, and it has cracking reviews on the web and in Camera mag's. I am sure there are lemons in their range, well Canon make lemons too in the form of their cheap kit lens. If my kit lens was off a much better quality I would have never purchase the sigma as a standard walk around lens.
Also Canon are very, very expensive and I do not believe that the high price always equals high quality !

My opinion is try each lens and test the quality. Never give in to manufactuer hype on their expensive lens !
 
Think I'm gonna go for a 70-200 F4L non IS and another wide lens (pref a 12-24) - If I then need anything longer I'll have to save up :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom