affordable but good telezooom advice

[unruled]

hi guys,

I've done a search and read some reviews on the web but I would appreciate some input.
I have right now a 40d with tamron 17-50 2.8, canon 50 1.8 and canon 85 1.8. Basically I love great iq, bokeh in a light and affordable form.

for telezooms ofcourse the canon L glass of 70-200 or 70-300 is typically the yardstick..but its out of budget by a few years for me, and the cheapest one without IS doesn't seem feasible since I can't pump the ISO much on my 40d.

I would like to have an EF lens just in case I later upgrade. Most affordable teles I have seen are 4-5.6 with IS which hurts because I love fast glass but there doesn't seem to be a way sround it. I think the best lens I have seen so far is the tamron 70-300 VC USD 4-5.6. I understood sigmas offerings are not as good, and same goes for canon.

is there any other option for me that I've missed? Or do you have hands on experience that can help inform my decision?

thanks!

 

[bainsybike]

Don't know where you're based, but the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is available right now at Amazon UK for a pretty good price. From the reviews I've read, it looks good but QC may be an issue. I've no experience of it myself.

 

[D.Sim]

to be honest, the 55-250mm EF-S is a pretty good bargain, and for such a cheap lens its got pretty sharp results (for its price...) if you wanted EF glass, the 70-200 f/4 L IS or non-IS would be the way to go... not overly expensive either.

If you're able to, try the lenses out, get a rental or go to a shop you know and see if they'll allow you to take a few test shots with it, or if you have a friend with one, see if you can take it out for a day.

 

[smirkypants]

I get this question asked a lot by people starting out. A lot. The idea is to not pay a lot but to have "decent" quality. They say they are willing to accept "decent" quality, but they are almost always disappointed with the results. I really don't believe there is an acceptable lens for under $1000 that will get you over 200mm. They all have their problems. Even if you get the 70-300L you still don't have particularly good low-light performance. Good quality zooms are heavy and expensive. There's just no way around it. Either spend the money for something good or don't spend the money at all.

Please. Do yourself a huge favor. Rent a couple of lenses.

 

[unruled]

thanks guys,

the 70-200 2.8 tamron doesnt have such a favourabe review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

and lacks IS..which on a telezoom is important since i take pics out of daylight hours without tripod. Im located in the netherlands / UK.

the VC USD 70-300 tamron has a pretty good review on
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/583-tamron70300f456eosff?start=2

so nothing from sigma?

edit: smirkypants, Ive had that opinion for quite a while now.. but Ive come to realize that in not having a telezoom at all, Im missing out on more shots than by having a compromise lens..if you know what I mean. In the long (looong) run, I may be able to go to L glass..but thats not possible in the near future..so its a tough one

 

[smirkypants]

edit: smirkypants, Ive had that opinion for quite a while now.. but Ive come to realize that in not having a telezoom at all, Im missing out on more shots than by having a compromise lens..if you know what I mean. In the long (looong) run, I may be able to go to L glass..but thats not possible in the near future..so its a tough one

What about the Canon 200 2.8 prime? It's less than $800 new. It's fast and somewhat long, though not a zoom. There are some used on eBay. Think about it.

 

[Canon 14-24]

Within the $1k-ish budget, probably a second hand/used sigma 70-200 2.8 apo os would be "good" within your "budget."

Sadly i don't think this one is uploaded yet, for you to compare on the digital-picture.

 

[Fperez]

Hi Unruled, I own the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC USD and for that price it really IS unbeatable; the Canon 70-300 non-L version is more expensive and has less IQ, to add that it's USM motor is not really a proper USM.

I know many people who own this lens and they can't talk nothing but good things about it, I've also seen pretty damn sharp images at 1/30s and 1/50s with the VC. If you want a fast lens but for a good price then you should be thinking about the Canon 70-200 versions without IS... and I'd say that's not a great idea

You don't need to spend $1000 when you can get a great lens like this for $700 less.

 

[katwil]

so nothing from sigma?

I have the Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG OS SLD. While I can’t give it a rousing recommendation, I’ve had no issues with its mechanics or handling. For its price point of under $400, a lens with OS (Sigma’s version of IS) and reach of 300mm, it’s worth a look.

 

[cezargalang]

If I may, I suggest the 70-200 f4L IS, it's under $1000 and it'll give you good results a cheap alternative is the 55-250, but i can't really say much on its lowlight performance..

 

[xROELOFx]

I get this question asked a lot by people starting out. A lot. The idea is to not pay a lot but to have "decent" quality. They say they are willing to accept "decent" quality, but they are almost always disappointed with the results. I really don't believe there is an acceptable lens for under $1000 that will get you over 200mm. They all have their problems. Even if you get the 70-300L you still don't have particularly good low-light performance. Good quality zooms are heavy and expensive. There's just no way around it. Either spend the money for something good or don't spend the money at all.

i could not agree more. i've had my 100-400 for about 2 months, but got more and more disappointed by this lens. the pullout zoom mechanism sucked, the lens was pretty soft and the aperture of f/5.6 was just too high.
the reason i bought the lens was just as discribed above, i thought i could accept the decent quality and save me some money. but i was wrong .

now i've bought a 300 f/2.8 IS + 1.4 extender for almost twice as much as the 100-400. the 300 is a lot heavier, larger, and is only really usable with a tripod. but i love it. the quality is superb, f/2.8 (and even f/4) is awesome and it is completely wheatersealed.

what i try to say, if you want the best you have to spend the best amount you can.
it is better if you save your money and spend it on good glass, instead of buying meh lenses and selling it for less after a couple of months.

 

[Maui5150]

The 70-200 F/4L Non-IS is one of the fastest / sharpest lenses you will find for F/4, built extremely well and can be had for around $600 or less. This may be one of the best all around bang for the bucks in terms of price to performance. You can get some cheaper with IS in non-L glass and from other manufacturers, but for a few hundred more, I would not pass this lens up. Especially on a crop body, this is really a 110 - 320 and useable full range

 

[Loswr]

The 70-200 F/4L Non-IS is one of the fastest / sharpest lenses you will find for F/4, built extremely well and can be had for around $600 or less. This may be one of the best all around bang for the bucks in terms of price to performance.

Agreed - if your budget can stretch to the 70-200 f/4L non-IS, it's an excellent lens. A colleague has the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DI VC, and gets quite good results with it, but elsewhere I've heard mixed reviews.

 

[Maui5150]

for telezooms ofcourse the canon L glass of 70-200 or 70-300 is typically the yardstick..but its out of budget by a few years for me, and the cheapest one without IS doesn't seem feasible since I can't pump the ISO much on my 40d.

I think you might underestimate the F/4. What are you shooting? Tripod or no tripod?

I had no problem shooting my 70-200 F/4 Non-IS hand held in lesser light (think tree shaded ares) at ISO 400 and shutter speeds of 250 or higher.

 

[unruled]

thanks for all the input guys!

the 70-200 f4 l I'm sure has amazing iq but the lack of is does worry me. 97% of the time I don't use tripods, and I don't like to go higher than 800 or 1250 on my 40d. The winters in northwest europe are quite dark and dusk comes early.

a telezoom prime doesn't offer enough flexibility which I look for in such a long focal length. I think the extra 100mm in the tamron is interesting as a proposition.

I suppose I am a little concerned about the bokeh on a 4-5.6 lens. Is it possible to get enough out of focus with a crop body at those focal lengths?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that in the low price range with IS, the 55-250mm zoom is it.

I don't think you really need IS for 200mm on your 40D, if you are shooting moving subjects, it is of little or no help, and a tripod works for still subjects at slow shutter speeds. Below is a cat photo with my old 70-210mm f/4 which can sometimes be found used for a very low price.

The image was taken with either my 30D or 40D handheld at 210mm, and cropped to full size. My daughter now owns that lens, and loves it. She uses it to photograph monster truck shows, which is not totally demanding, but needs a high shutter speed. f/4 is only one stop slower than F/2.8.

 

[Loswr]

the 70-200 f4 l I'm sure has amazing iq but the lack of is does worry me. 97% of the time I don't use tripods, and I don't like to go higher than 800 or 1250 on my 40d. The winters in northwest europe are quite dark and dusk comes early.

As are the winters in New England. IS is helpful...as long as your subject isn't moving. But if you're trying to shoot a moving subject, IS doesn't help as much (more benefit at longer focal lengths, though, where shake is worse). The 4-stop IS on the 70-300L means you can handhold down to 1/20 s or slower...but shooting a person posing for a shot at 1/20 s will still usually have blur due to subject motion.

I suppose I am a little concerned about the bokeh on a 4-5.6 lens. Is it possible to get enough out of focus with a crop body at those focal lengths?

Depends on the how close you are to the subject, and how far the subject is separated from the background. In practice, it's aperture and distance to background that determines background blur, not focal length. For example, if you frame a full-length portrait at 50mm f/2.8, you'll have a certain DoF. If you take that shot with a 300mm lens, the longer focal length would mean shallower DoF, but you'd have to be much further away, and the longer camera-to-subject distance would mean deeper DoF which would exactly compensate for the longer focal length.

But, if you take care to allow good physical separation between your subject and background, you can get decent OOF blur at f/5.6.

 

[unruled]

thanks for the clarifications guys.

I'm still leaning towards the tamron, because at just 300 euros its a bargain. Maybe eventually I can get a 2.8 is from canon, but this should do well as a stopgap until then I think. I have a few months before I make my move, so il keep reading and looking at alternatives until then.

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

I like my Tamron 70-300 VC. I'd prefer something faster, but I think it is a good bargain for a $400 lens. My least used lens, but that's mostly because of the focal length. I have found the VC to be very helpful, and the IQ to be good enough for my purposes for now. I didn't have a long lens, and couldn't afford over a grand for one. So it was buy a budget one, knowing its limitations, or not have those focal lengths at all. I have not regretted the purchase.