best / longest lens for small budget

blastman · 18 Apr 2011 at 17:39

hi guys,

I've have about £100 burning a hole in my pocket and I'd love to extend my range.

So far I have a 50mm prime and a 17-70 sigma (which I'm in love with) so I'm looking for something 70 - ???

What are my options?

I'm looking for both length (aren't we all...) and it HAS to be sharp.

any suggestions are very much welcomed.

Thanks guys

Invertigo · 18 Apr 2011 at 17:44

Looking at your flickr, I assume its a canon fit you're after?

I had this feeling a few weeks back, but it honestly seems worth it to spend more. Cheap tele lenses tend to lose sharpness at the long end of their range.

If it's sharpness you crave, it could be worth saving up about £300 and picking up a second hand 70-200 L f4

For around £120, you can get the EF-S 55-250 4-5.6 IS, but it has the issue of losing sharpness at the long end, and at wider apertures

stokecity_m · 18 Apr 2011 at 17:47

For £300 you'd be better getting the CANON EF70-300MM f/4-5.6IS USM for extra length.

But with a budget of £100 your going to struggle to get good length with quality.

you could always get a 55-250mm is lens - they go for around £130ish (this is a great lens and the is helps too)

blastman · 18 Apr 2011 at 18:01

sorry, yes forgot to say, it's a canon fit I'm after.

this is the worry, anything I get is going to be soft at it's longest length and slow.

stokecity_m · 18 Apr 2011 at 18:02

I've got a 55-250is lens, and it pretty good - i'll find some at the 250 end for you to see.

stokecity_m · 18 Apr 2011 at 18:05

mcc49 · 18 Apr 2011 at 18:30

Keep the £100 in a piggybank and save up for a second hand 70-200 f/4

lukechad · 18 Apr 2011 at 19:51

Cat say ive noticed soft images from my 55-250?

Let me grab an example and show you....

Here you go, shrunk down in size and compressed to give a small file size.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Of course its not as sharp at the 70-200 would be, but if your on a tight budget I think you can get the 55-250 for about 150 quid. (New)

matthab · 18 Apr 2011 at 23:45

Another vote for a 55-250mm. I used one at Silverstone as my spare lens and it was OK.

Of course its never going to match a 70-200 L or near but for £150 notes its a good lens.

Ksanti · 19 Apr 2011 at 00:20

The thing about the 55-250, is while it's "okay", it's never more than that.
The 70-200 L, even the f/4.0 non-IS, is that it can produce amazing images. Sure, without the f/2.8 aperture or IS it may be a little harder, but put it in it's element and the L glass will reward in ways the 55-250 never will.

Plus you get the "damn he's pro" look from all the semi-enthusiasts who spot the white barrel

stokecity_m · 19 Apr 2011 at 00:21

Ksanti said:
The thing about the 55-250, is while it's "okay", it's never more than that.
The 70-200 L, even the f/4.0 non-IS, is that it can produce amazing images. Sure, without the f/2.8 aperture or IS it may be a little harder, but put it in it's element and the L glass will reward in ways the 55-250 never will.

Plus you get the "damn he's pro" look from all the semi-enthusiasts who spot the white barrel

It's also twice the cost.

Stupot_ · 19 Apr 2011 at 00:31

I've always heard good things about the sigma 70-300 APO for the price.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-apo-macro-super-dg-lens-canon-fit/p1008569

Make sure you get the APO version.

-Ad- · 19 Apr 2011 at 00:46

stokecity_m said:
It's also twice the cost.

Three times the cost actually :eek:

blastman · 19 Apr 2011 at 08:19

Cheers for comments,

Looks like i'll leave it for now. If I buy something it has to be Sharp at either end of its range so I think i'll re-visit it in a few months.

Might look at some telescopes.......

Cheers again.

Ksanti · 19 Apr 2011 at 09:25

stokecity_m said:
It's also twice the cost.

In my view that's not a huge consideration, if it takes longer to save up then so be it.

There are very few lenses around the £100-£150 mark which are capable of truly producing great images, especially not in zooms. Any zooms, especially longer ones, at this price point are generally just consumer zooms serving no purpose and providing no advantages other than their focal length. Primes might give the IQ necessary, but he wants a longer focal length than the 50, and even the 85mm f/1.8 comes in at £300+. For any creative purposes I'd not want to be using what are basically travel zooms, because at that point I may as well be using a compact. With these consumer zooms, there's always a drop in IQ and a change in the look of the image which I'd always be bugged by.

The_TailGunner · 19 Apr 2011 at 11:22

Stupot_ said:
I've always heard good things about the sigma 70-300 APO for the price.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-apo-macro-super-dg-lens-canon-fit/p1008569

Make sure you get the APO version.

i have one of these. optically its not at all bad. ive gotten some lovely images with it.

the af is a little slow though, and theres no IS. its also rather loud when focussing.

mrgubby · 19 Apr 2011 at 11:36

Unless you're printing out at A3 you're unlikely to see any real difference between the above lenses, some of my best shots have been taken with a Tamron 28-300 "travel zoom"

L glass only comes into its own if you are doing heavy cropping, pixel peeping, need weather sealing or are a brand whore

blastman · 19 Apr 2011 at 13:00

mrgubby said:
L glass only comes into its own if you are doing heavy cropping, pixel peeping, need weather sealing or are a brand whore

Humm, worryingly, you've just described me

PieEater · 19 Apr 2011 at 20:17

I love my 55-250, it's capable of tack sharp images, weighs next to nothing, does wildlife, airshows and portraits plus it's cheap as chips. I'd heartily reccomend it.

Fusion · 20 Apr 2011 at 08:34

The 55-250 may be adequate as a first lens if you're on a tight budget, but I wouldn't say it was capable of "tack sharp" images, even compared to lenses in the £300-£450 price bracket which massively show it up.

My advice is to save more money and plump for something better. You'll be rewarded.