think i am missing a distance lens :/

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,193
Location
Llaneirwg
Keep coming to situations where i would love to have a lens with some reach

i only have

100m L macro f2.8 IS
10-22mm f3.5-f4.5
50mm f1.8

so really no range at all
usually i like to get a half decent lens but the 70-200, 100-400 and 400mm are all a bit much atm

is there anything else worth getting under that price point? or better to hold out
 
Sh4rkie said:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, its not L glass but i think it's a cracking budget lens on a crop body.
Click to expand...

This, also the tamron 70-300 VC is optically quite good but some people don't like the AF for the vibration reduction (VC).

Otherwise if budget allows I would recommend the canon 300mm f/4.0 IS if you don't need the zoom but want top IQ. Use TC to get even more reach.
 
Razor-BladE said:
55-250mm is a superb budget lens but still takes great quality photos.
Click to expand...

If your on a really tight budget or you don't think you'll use the lens a great deal then this is a great piece of kit to have in the bag.

Beyond that the tamron 70-300mm with vc and the tamron equivalent of USM is getting some great reviews.

If you fancy something a little different how about an old canon 70-210 f4 the af is a bit clunky but image quality is great for the price I've had one for years as I don't use a tele lens very much. The 70-210mm f4.5-4.5 USM is also worth a look.

I shot the following with my 70-210mm f4


The Louvre by a1ex2001, on Flickr

 
Last edited:
i have/had a few tamron lens in the past.

gen 1 17-55mm F2.8
gen 2 17-55mm F2.8
75-300mm
200-500mm

all very good with sharpness, but colour tone/saturation/contrast suffer a little bit compare to more expensive options. but they are all very good value for money in my opinion.
 
XE11 said:
i have/had a few tamron lens in the past.

gen 1 17-55mm F2.8
gen 2 17-55mm F2.8
75-300mm
200-500mm

all very good with sharpness, but colour tone/saturation/contrast suffer a little bit compare to more expensive options. but they are all very good value for money in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I started out with a 70-300 and got some good results, but later switched to a Tamron 18-270 VC PZD, and find my copy is a better lens overall. Plenty sharp enough for my purposes, and I say that as a 70-200 f2.8L IS II owner.

Having said that, even on crop 300mm isn't particularly long, but it depends on your subjects. If I had your lens collection I'd be looking at the 100-400L.
 
Thanks guys I'll be looking at these when I get home

Yes ideally I would like the 100 - 400mm L but it's more than I wanted to part with atm

I guess a few more details would help
Price range upto about 400-500 and camera is 60D

It seems that these lenses don't like falling on this price point

Also think I would want around 300mm at a decent quality. Not like my partners old lens which I heard wasn'tgood up at near the top (it may have been 70-300 from cannon but iI'm not aure)
The hardest thing this lens would have to do would be wildlife, I know I have discussed with some of you that 200mm range just doesn't reach far enough

Edit, I can't remember what hers was tbh
Ah, it was the 75 - 300
 
Last edited:
Sigma 150-500 OS is a cheap but half-decent wildlife-capable zoom that might just fit within budget?

When I was looking at long-reach lenses it came up on my shortlist as it gives a lot of reach for the price, has OS, but the requirement (my Son's karting) kind of passed. If I was looking again I'd be thinking of the 100-400L.
 
Depends what you actually want to do with it. Are you buying this because you need the extra reach or just to make up the numbers?
 
Janesy B said:
Depends what you actually want to do with it. Are you buying this because you need the extra reach or just to make up the numbers?
Click to expand...

The areas that interest me most in photography are
Bugs
Abstract macro
Night both city, creative and celestial
Historical
Nature scenes
Buildings in and out
Wildlife, particularly birds

Nothing really portrait

So I wanted to spend a good amount on
Macro
Wide angle
Tele lens

With not much on
Portrait

Hence the 100L, 10-22mm, and cheap 50mm
Thr one I'm missing that I want is 400mm range (also tempted by 400mm prime, but might be too restricted)

So it's not a filler, it's in my top 3 area

Birds
Macro
Night
 
Canon 70-200mm F4 L

Best Lens I have ever owned and sharp as a monkey and only 350 Secondhand.
 
Willis said:
Canon 70-200mm F4 L

Best Lens I have ever owned and sharp as a monkey and only 350 Secondhand.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but far too short for birds even on crop.

300mm is a good starting point on crop for general wildlife, 400mm for birds.
Birds are small and you can only gt so close even without a lot of skill, patience and time.
 
Yeah it is too short 200. It's not the easiest of choices (and unfortunately too much to be an Xmas present)
 
Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L with a 1.4x teleconverter in that case. Gives you a 420mm f/5.6 when you need the extra reach. It's a combo I'm thinking of for motorsport. I have a 70-300, 80% of the shots I use from that lens are at 300mm. By all means look into something like a Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD to get you started, depends how serious you are. I've got that lens, have a dig around in my Flickr profile for samples.
 
Last edited:
eventually i would probably like to end up with the 400mm and a zoom in between 100-300 to fill the gap

i am thinking 300mm f4 L with a TC too maybe to start,
 
That''s an £800 lens secondhand though- why not save the extra £100 and go for the 100-400. You arguably won't miss the extra stop for wildlife, and you gain IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom