Budget 'long' lens for 5D

Hi Everybody

 

Having acquired my new kit recently (yikes) there isn't a great deal left in

my wallet, but as ever there are countless items I still 'need'. I would very

much appreciate your advice as regards an 'affordable' long telephoto lens for

my 5D. I'm going to be shooting some wildlife over the next few weeks and in

this respect I'm completely out of my comfort zone. All my lenses sit at the

lower end but I will need something suitable for field work. I have looked

around the forum and much as I would love an expensive L lens, this would not

be within my budget at the present time, which is in the region of 'a few

hundred pounds sterling'. I've seen various lenses in this lower price

category, but despite having read some reviews, I would like your opinions on

them please.

 

The animals in question will be in enclosures so I would not require the sort

of focal lengths necessary for game reserve work. I was initially thinking of

a zoom range of up to 300mm, but on the 5D this may not be adequate. I will

happily consider third party lenses which you feel represent good value. I

would like to stay away from front lens rotation. I'm quite small so very

heavy lenses will probably not suit me.

 

Any recommendations would be gratefully received.

 

Regards,

Lindsay

Your budget will probably rule out "very heavy lenses" like the 100-400 anyway, and your choice of the full-frame 5D means a given focal length will give a wider field of view than the same lens used on a crop camera like the 40D. As others will doubtless add, "budget" and "long lens for full-frame" are generally contradictory.

 

That said, the obvious choice is the Canon 70-300IS (I don't know the price in pounds sterling; it's $550 in the U.S.). It's a very good performer, though not as good as zooms in its range and longer that cost twice as much (one gets what one pays for). And unfortunately for you the front element does rotate, but I'm not sure you can afford to be picky about that in the $500-600 price range unless you go with something like a used 300/4 non-IS (in which case you'd obviously be giving up the flexibility of a zoom and the advantages of IS).

 

The other Canon lenses in the 300 and longer range will be both noticeably pricier and noticeably heavier, and there are no third-party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) in the xx-300 range (let alone longer) that will outperform the Canon for the same or less money.

Hi Ralph, thank you for the response. I've put together a quick short-list, and the lens you mentioned is included. IS will be very beneficial for me. I thought these might be contenders:

 

Tamron 28-300 VC Di f3.5-6.3 at ?449.

Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM at ?369.

Tokina 80-400 f4.5-5.6 AT-X at ?500.

Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM at ?600.

 

If the pounds signs fail to show up, they are all in Sterling.

 

If anybody has any first hand experience of these I would be interested in your opinions.

I guess you are looking for new, but the Tokina 200-500 is a very decent lens and used may fit your budget.

What would a secondhand 100-400 L IS cost where you are?

The Sigma 100-300 f4 is an excellent lens and possibly within your budget if bought used:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-100-300-f4-APO-DG-EX_W0QQitemZ270231764642QQihZ017QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Few readers here have used more than one or two of the lenses in question, so it's hard to find good comparisons.

 

Although the fredmiranda.com reviews aren't the last word by any means, for me they are always a good place to start.

 

In your list:

 

the Tamron 28-300 (non-VC; an earlier model) got an overall rating (out of 10) of 6.9:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=247&sort=7&cat=43&page=2

 

The Canon 70-300IS (do NOT confuse it with the weaker 75-300's Canon has offered) got an overall rating of 8.8:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

 

The Tokina 80-400 got an overall rating of 8.1:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=239&sort=7&cat=40&page=1

 

And the Sigma 120-400 got an overall rating of 7.0:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=181&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

 

The Tamron (not Tokina) 200-500 that Manuel suggests has an overall rating of 8.1 at FM and may be worth a look:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=248&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

 

I haven't used it, but considering the 200-500's capabilities, it is neither excessively heavy nor relatively expensive.

 

Bob Atkins has a fairly positive review of the 200-500 on this very Web site (note that in his comparison tests he is comparing the Tamron to the older and far more optically-mediocre 75-300, not the newer 70-300):

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/

Hi Joe, I've found that it's very hard to source second hand equipment in the UK. I would certainly be happy to consider something pre-owned if availability were not such a problem. The new prices for that one in the UK are about 1,000 sterling. Of course, you can get them from HK on e-Bay for about ?760, but I imagine there would be quite a lot of duty to pay on top.

If you want to go with the Canon option, perhaps picking one up via <a href="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-IS-USM-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens_W0QQitemZ300221048546QQihZ020QQcategoryZ30070QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262"> this avenue </a> might be worth considering?<br>Provided, of course, that buying on Flea-bay (via Paypal) is not outside your comfort zone.<p>I have used both extensively since early 2001 and haven't experienced any problems at all.

Remember, guys, OP wants something not too heavy!

 

Note that weight is affected by focal length and maximum aperture, and the Tamron 200-500 does weigh about twice what the Canon 70-300 weighs (the former weighs just under 3lbs). But the 200-500 is probably the lightest lens in that zoom range.

 

Only you can say what qualifies as a "very heavy" lens in your original post; I'm guessing 3lbs is getting up there. As the fredmiranda.com reviews of them show, the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 120-400 are both optically well-regarded (and are in a different price class than most of the lenses being discussed here) but both weigh over 3 lbs. (If you look up the Sigma at fredmiranda, note that the "average price" is skewed by someone who said they paid $90,000 for it.)

Mike, the Sigma you mentioned is lovely, but a little over my budget at 740 Sterling new. It's always quite difficult to find second hand stuff over here, which is a shame since as you say that would make it a good choice.

 

Ralph, thank you very much for the links, it's extremely helpful and I do appreciate the time you've spent gathering them. It will be interesting reading.

Oops! Correction; in my last post above, I meant "Sigma 100-300/f4," not 120-400.

 

The FM reviews of it are here (a 9.5 overall rating is very good for a zoom), but again it's not cheap and it's not light.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=3

 

As I noted above, ignore the "average price paid" at the top of that review page.

Peter, thank you for the link, I don't mind buying off e-Bay, I've had some good deals in the past. What confuses me slightly about the Canon EF 70-300 is how to differentiate between the 'old' version and the new one in terms of what is being advertised. I understand there are significant improvements optically in the latest one, which will certainly make it a viable choice.

"Remember, guys, OP wants something not too heavy!"

 

Last week I was admiring a friend's new Canon 70-200L (not even the IS version) and I could hardly lift the thing once it was on the 5D! I suspect I am just very used to my small primes, and perhaps I will learn to accommodate the weight of a large zoom with practice, but I found it quite hard to keep it perfectly steady. Perhaps a few trips to the gym are in order!

I may have to compromise somewhere in order to get IS. I've just been told the wildlife shoots I'm taking part in must be hand-held (for all sorts of practical reasons), no tripods allowed. Hand-holding has always been my downfall.

"What confuses me slightly about the Canon EF 70-300 is how to differentiate between the 'old' version and the new one in terms of what is being advertised."

 

If it says "70-300" instead of "75-300," you're safe. Canon has only made two 70-300's (one, a compact "DO" model, is a lot more expensive than the one under discussion here). Both 70-300's are still current (the 75-300IS has been discontinued), and they're both optically superior to all of Canon's 75-300's.

"Both 70-300's are still current (the 75-300IS has been discontinued), and they're both optically superior to all of Canon's 75-300's"

 

Thank you Ralph, I'm taking a good look at that lens. It's great for the price, but the rotating front element is concerning me a bit in terms of using my polarizing filters. However, at this price, I know I won't get everything I want and I will need to compromise somwhere.

Ralph Jensen - you actually have another mess up in your post besides the Sigma 100-300

that you caught. You posted: And the Sigma 120-400 got an overall rating of 7.0: - well that

link takes you to the SIgma 135-400. The Sigma 120-400 is not out yet. (may 10th release).

Carnagex, Ralph's link to the Sigma 135-400 was nevertheless very interesting, and helped me discover the 120-400 you mentioned, which could be exactly what I'm after.

"The 120-400 you mentioned could be exactly what I'm after."

 

Lindsay, note that the forthcoming 120-400 weighs a full pound more than the 70-200 that you thought was a beast; in fact, the Sigma weighs almost a pound more than Canon's 100-400, which a lot of photographers consider the upper end for extended handholding. The Sigma 120-400 does have a $500 price advantage over the Canon 100-400, however, so if it's optically good it could gain a following.

 

Carnagex - You're right about my mistake, of course (and I was wrong). Sorry 'bout that, Lindsay.

 

As posted in the introductory thread for the new Photo.net icons a couple of days ago (link below), photo.net is working toward allowing posters to edit typos and other dumb mistakes in their posts for up to 30 minutes after posting. That would be the single biggest improvement I can expect to see on this site; it can't happen soon enough for me!

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PK0s

Hi Ralph, yes the weight is a huge worry, I think I was drawn to the price and the IS, but at that weight, the IS might not do me any good. I've also looked at the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX, from the links you sent it has excellent reviews but again the testers were reporting it as being heavy, and it has no IS. The Tokina 80-400 also came out as being top quality, but has no IS either.

 

This brings me back to your original suggestion of the Canon 70-300 f4.5-6, which certainly seems to represent the very best value for money. I find it odd though that Canon are charging a further 400 Sterling for the 'DO' version, which is smaller, but heavier. I'm thinking of all the warnings I've had that a 5D will not tolerate 'cheap glass', but how cheap is cheap, I'm not sure.

"I find it odd though that Canon are charging a further 400 Sterling for the 'DO' version, which is smaller, but heavier."

 

The "Diffractive Optics" technology does make lenses a little more compact, but at significant cost. Most buyers opt against it (it can create some weird effects in certain light) but many who have it love the smaller size of their long lenses.

 

Here's a photo.net article on the 70-300 IS "DO"; again, note that he is comparing it to the earlier, inferior 75-300 rather than the newer non-DO 70-300:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

 

(Canon's naming conventions can get confusing, and you'll often see people referring to the lens you're considering as the "70-300IS non-DO" to distinguish it from the compact version discussed in the link just above.)

 

"I'm thinking of all the warnings I've had that a 5D will not tolerate 'cheap glass', but how cheap is cheap, I'm not sure."

 

Well, I've used the 70-300IS non-DO on a [full-frame] 1DsII with great satisfaction, so it should do just fine on a 5D. No, it doesn't equal some of Canon's pricier "L" zooms (some of which I also own), but in most situations it is VERY close, it weighs a lot less than they do, and you did put some pretty serious restrictions on price.

Ralph, that was interesting reading and the link absolutely backed up what I have been seeing this morning, as regards the 'unusual effects' that some users are experiencing with the 70-300 DO. It seems very poor for the money. When looking at the non-DO version, there's no contest really - I've read some exceptional reviews and your own opinion is very helpful indeed.

 

That 100-400 is HUGE - I don't know how people manage with those things!

Yes, Lindsay, five hours later we are right back where we started at the top of this thread, looking at the 70-300IS non-DO, but at least the other options all got a hearing. Good luck with whatever lens you decide on...

 

RJ

If you are willing to go to manual focus and stop-down apertures, there are a bunch of older 300mm and up preset lenses that can be put on your camera with adapters. Some of these sell on eBay in the USD 40 to 60 range and an adapter can be had for 10-20 USD. Some of these are surprisingly good in optical terms (e.g. the Spiratone 400mm).

 

If you can manage it, though, the 70-300mm IS (despite its rotating front end) is a quite decent lens for the money (see the Photozone.de review for example).