Reading mode: Light Dark

A good cost effective long lens

Go to last post
J

JonnyLightning

Member
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hello,

I am a novice! Keep this in mind if I write something stupid!

I've had my Canon 5D for ages now, but only recently managed to invest in some more lenses. I'm now looking at a cost effective long lens. I borrowed a 70-300 Tamron lens for my old Nikon D70 and was quite impressed with it, and wondered if anyone could offer me some advice on a cost effective lens for my Canon, of a similar type.

I was looking at the "70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro DG (58mm)" Sigma lens (around £156) but not sure how this would work out with full frame. I think i'd like to spend no more than £300.

Any advice or suggestions welcome!!

Thanks in advance,
 
Just been looking online and was looking at these two lenses....

Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2

and

70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro DG (58mm)

Does anyone have experience with either of these lenses? It is to be used primarily for outside portraiture (in good light).

Thanks,
 
I have the Sigma 70-300 APO macro, and it's quite soft above 200 mm unless you stop down to f8 or f11, and even then it's not super-sharp.

I don't know the pounds/dollars conversions, but if the Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS would fit in your budget, I'd give it serious consideration. The reviews show it quite good in sharpness, autofocus, and construction.

I'm somewhat of a sharp freak, so I went for the Canon 70-200/4L IS, and I'm quite pleased, but that's outside your budget guidelines.

As for the SDigma or Tamron lenses - far too often we get waht we pay for! So if you don't pay much, don't expect much.
--
BJCP National
 
With a 5D, it makes no sense to economise on glass. No sense at all. If you can't run at least towards the £400 mark, then you'd be better off selling the 5D and using the proceeds to buy a 20D or 30D and a couple of good lenses.

Having got that off my chest, ;-), I'd suggest one of:

Canon 70-200/4L or Canon 70-300IS. Both are just about sub £400 in the UK. Anything less will be a disappointment on a 5D.

Stuart
--
- -

 
Hi,

While I agree that in principal that is most likely true, I've seen many instances where a low cost lens has worked perfectly with an expensive body. My first experience with a £99 Tamron lens was amazing - I produced amazing quality pictures given the conditions.

Most of the work im doing at the moment is studio lit, or location portraiture which will almost always be in bright conditions.

I've actually gone with the EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III USM - simply because im on a budget just now and given the amount of times it will be used, it makes more sense for me to be cost effective.

Having said that, I may eat my words and end up buying one of the aforementioned lenses before long. ^^

Thanks for the replies anyway,
JL
 
That Sigma with APO in the name is perhaps the best quality at the lowest price. There's a similar Sigma without APO that you should probably skip.

BAK
 
Sorry, I should have said - the one I bought is a Canon lens.

Canon EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III USM

It retailed here at around £175 which was within budget and allowed me to get a Lowepro bag in the same order. :-)
 
Oooh, it came today and it's really good!

Will post some pics when I actually get time to get some good ones out and about.
 
bobbyz said:
I would rather have a rebel and put good glass on it.
Click to expand...
Well, what if you have $9,000 worth of lenses and none of them produce sharp images because of the crummy AF on those cheap bodies? There is no way to know if its the lens or the camera.

This drives you crazy. You can't sleep, you spend all your time testing. Your lenses and cameras spend half their time in the mail to Canon.
bobbyz said:
--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
The AF on 20d/30d heck even 10d is not that bad. Look at hawkman's shots. He is using 10d. Sure Af tracking in servo mode is limited but you can't expect rock solid AF like 1dMK2N in cheaper bodies.

Here is one with 500mm f4 IS using 30D. I used one of the side sensors on this pheasant's eye. It is sharp at 100% crop.



--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
 
bobbyz said:
The AF on 20d/30d heck even 10d is not that bad. Look at hawkman's
shots. He is using 10d. Sure Af tracking in servo mode is limited
but you can't expect rock solid AF like 1dMK2N in cheaper bodies.
Click to expand...
I know, many, maybe most have good enough AF, but what if you don't? Right now, my back focusing 70-200 and front focusing 20D make a sharp pair. Put the 500 on the 20D and look out. Focuses fine on a 5D and so-so my 10D.

I thought my lens and cameras were sharp a year ago, maybe they were, who knows, how do you ever know? It could be technique, light, shake, focus, optics, post processing, or oneupmanship here.

You don't know what you don't know.

How about dropping in on my plea for help that I posted yesterday and tell me if my lens needs to go back to Canon. I am not able to judge myself.
bobbyz said:
Here is one with 500mm f4 IS using 30D. I used one of the side
sensors on this pheasant's eye. It is sharp at 100% crop.
Click to expand...
Nice, but I tell you, I never trust anything but center and usually not even center. By the way, you have a nano second with a pheasant, how did you switch focus points?
bobbyz said:


--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Ben_Egbert said:
Ben_Egbert said:
Here is one with 500mm f4 IS using 30D. I used one of the side
sensors on this pheasant's eye. It is sharp at 100% crop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Here is what I see in your shot that I really like. You don't have background noise in the OOF areas, I can't seem to do any sharpening without adding noise unless I mask on my 20D.

The sharp grass directly under the bird is a good focus indicator, it appears spot on. I need clues like this because I can't really see sharp or what is in critical focus without gross indicators like the blurred front and back grass contrasted with the sharp grass.
Ben_Egbert said:
Ben_Egbert said:


--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
And will pose for you. The nosise is less as I was shooting at ISO200. Could have even used ISO100. The IS on 500mm f4 is quite amazing much better than on my 100-400L even though I think it is same generation IS.

I do understand your frustations but it is very hard to believe that almost all your body & lens have soem focussing issues. When I got my 400mm f5.6, it was somewhat soft on my 10d. I sent to canon and they re-calibrate. It got better but when I got 30D, it was almost perfect. The tolerances on super-teles are much higher. I have never heard anyone say that their 500mm wasn't sharp.

BTW - I use AF all the time. MF is pain with 20d/30d and I have almost perfect eye sight. Also once eye shight shouldn't matter that much if you relying on AF. In single shot mode, the camera won't let you take a shot unless AF is achieved. Sometimes in day light, I can barely see the green AF lock indicater as I have my eyes on mys ubject in the VF.

Has some one else tried your camera/lens combo?

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
 
bobbyz said:
And will pose for you. The nosise is less as I was shooting at
ISO200. Could have even used ISO100. The IS on 500mm f4 is quite
amazing much better than on my 100-400L even though I think it is
same generation IS.

I do understand your frustations but it is very hard to believe
that almost all your body & lens have soem focussing issues.
Click to expand...
This is an existential problem. I don't know. People keep dissimh my images, so what would you think? But I think they are right, because eventually I start seeing stuff myself.

When
bobbyz said:
I got my 400mm f5.6, it was somewhat soft on my 10d. I sent to
canon and they re-calibrate. It got better but when I got 30D, it
was almost perfect. The tolerances on super-teles are much higher.
I have never heard anyone say that their 500mm wasn't sharp.
Click to expand...
My problems started when I sent the 20D for repair, and decided what the heck, send the 500 along for cal. I only did that because people here were dissing my images. They always looked good to me.
bobbyz said:
BTW - I use AF all the time. MF is pain with 20d/30d and I have
almost perfect eye sight.
Click to expand...
I have horrible eyes. Been near sighted all my life. My eye doc says I have 20-20 out to about 2-3 feet. When he changes optics and says which is best, I never know they all look the same.

Also once eye shight shouldn't matter
bobbyz said:
that much if you relying on AF. In single shot mode, the camera
won't let you take a shot unless AF is achieved. Sometimes in day
light, I can barely see the green AF lock indicater as I have my
eyes on mys ubject in the VF.

Has some one else tried your camera/lens combo?
Click to expand...
I don't know any photagraphers in my town.
bobbyz said:
--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
I totally agree. The Canon 70-300 I bought for £175 had worked out to be a stunning lens for me! It produces exactly what I had hoped.
 
Ben_Egbert said:
I have horrible eyes. Been near sighted all my life. My eye doc
says I have 20-20 out to about 2-3 feet. When he changes optics and
says which is best, I never know they all look the same.
Click to expand...
Im exactly the same, oddly enough! I can never tell the difference between those damn lenses! :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top