best telephoto lens for the money

[dganger]

Hey guys, I got my tax refund back and figured hey why not buy some

more equipment! ha ha. No but really i want to replace my sigma

telephoto zoom. It is a 28-300mm. Looking back i should have just

saved my money to buy a better lens then i wouldn't be in this

position. (That was before i asked for advice from you guys) I am

willing to use about 600 bucks. And am currently looking at the

canon 70-200mm f4. I have a digital rebel and really want a good

quality telephoto that i can use for years to come. Thanks for the

advice in advance.

[vorlandphotography]

It's a classic ... you can't go wrong ... I had one before upgrading to the f2.8 for the IS feature and slightly better optics. I miss the f4's more convenient size and weight.

[jeffcallen]

If you shoot indoors or in low light without flash, or you like small lenses, I'd really

consider the 85mm F1.8, it's a gem. It's not a zoom, but it does what it does really nicely

and encourages a totally different way of shooting. With the digital rebel, you'll get about

the same view as you would with a 135mm on film. I'd also look a the 135mm F2, it's

really, really nice optically, though a bit bigger. I found the 70-210 F4 great for outdoors,

but requiring a flash always indoors. Prime lenses are love-or-hate things, I love them but

it takes a while to get used to them.... I usually frame the image in my mind's eye before I

even pick up the camera.

[KenPapai]

Another candidate might be the 200mm f/2.8L prime? It's more than $600 I believe. Sounds like you want a telephoto zoom though and your only option in your limited price range might be the 70-200 4L.

[ken munn]

If you ditch the 28-300 what is the longest lens that leaves you with? That can then be the

starting point for your zoom telephoto. Unless you don't want to go with a zoom. And what

sort of shots do you want to use a tele for?

[w_t1]

I second the motion for the 200 2.8 II L lens. I've had mine about 18 months now, and I have to say it is fantastic, I shoot on film and more recently digital. You'll need the tripod collar too, which will put you well over 600, though. Oh, and a 72mm polarizer and a some colored filters if you shoot B&W adds even more...Work some overtime or cut out the starbucks for a couple months, it's worth it.

[dganger]

if i get rid of the 28-300mm sigma lens i will have a 50mm 1.8 and the the standard lens that came with the rebel 18-55 i think? My dad also has a canon rebel 2000 that has a zoom lense not sure the exact range it is somethin-90mm. Oh yeah and the ideal use is to use it outdoors in nature photography and some action stuff for school like soccer games, golf(maybe), etc. .

[dganger]

can anyone give me an idea of which lens has better quality shots betweent the 70-200mm f4 or the 200mm f2.8? (I figure the 200mm is better since it is a prime lense). Also after buying both lenses and their tripod rings i think the price would be decently similiar.

[dk.]

Sounds to me like you should get the 70-200mm F4L I hear its very good, I have the F2.8L IS version and its a really nice lens.

 

About primes there great too but I think you are looking for a zoom as its more convenient etc.

But between the 200mm F2.8L Prime and 135mm F2L Prime the 135mm is much better, I have had both but sold the 200mm I am not selling my 135mm its about as good as a lens gets. Take care and have fun.

 

DK.

[ifeito]

Replaced my old Sigma 70-300 APO which stopped autofocusing with the 70-200 f/4 and the change in image quailty was very noticeable.

 

Later I purchased the 300 f/4 prime and the Sigma is now on the mexican version of EBay...

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ignacio

[John Crowe]

You could keep the zoom for general images and then have either the 135/2 or the 200/2.8 alongside for more specific needs. I would not get a tripod collar until you find out if you would ever use it. The 70-200/4 and 200/2.8 are lightweight enough for handholding and if you need to use a tripod or monopod with it you can use the body tripod mount. The much heavier lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and 300/4 and beyond are the ones you need a lens tripod mount.

 

 

The 135/2 is supposed to be an exceptional lens, and one day I too would like one, but when doing telephoto work often every mm you can get is worth it, that is why I tend to like the idea of the 200/2.8 better. Good luck.

[rob_murray]

The 70-200 F4L is a good choice so is the new 70-300 IS lens.

[pto189]

It looks like the Canon 70-200 f/4L is the only choice if your limit is $600. Please keep in mind that it's only good for outdoor, and it's nearly white and long. For indoor you need to use flash or a tripod. The tripod collar black version is approximately $85. it's the best lens you can buy under $600. You might want to also consider Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, Canon 135 f/2L, Canon 200 f/2.8L, or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

[ken munn]

For your stated purposes, I reckon the 75-300 IS might be best. For nature photography you

need every mm you can get, and you can't get much more than 300 without spending silly

money. It's also small enough and light enough to use handheld, following sport. On your

digital rebel, it'll be the equivalent of a 110-480, which is a very useful range. And the IS

helps you do without a tripod/monopod. It won't be the absolute ultimate in optical quality,

but even so, it'll produce good work.

[ken munn]

For your stated purposes, I reckon the 75-300 IS might be best. For nature photography you

need every mm you can get, and you can't get much more than 300 without spending silly

money. It's also small enough and light enough to use handheld, following sport. On your

digital rebel, it'll be the equivalent of a 110-480, which is a very useful range. And the IS

helps you do without a tripod/monopod. It won't be the absolute ultimate in optical quality,

but even so, it'll produce good work.

[m_barbu1]

If there's absolutely no way you can spend more, get the 70-200mm f/4.0L USM.

 

If there's any way you can spend extra, get the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM or, better yet, the model with Image Stabilization. I have the latter and, in retrospect, I should have started with it. The experience is similar to your experience with wanting to upgrade from the Sigma. Then again, I might not appreciate it as much as I do if I hadn't first had my experiences with less expensive options.

[whwhitejr]

Get out your visa and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS I've never regreted buying mine (about $1000 used). If you get into sports at night you will need all the f/stop you can get. With the f2.8 you can later get the 1.4 extender that works on the f2.8lens really good (280mm).Regards, Bill

[whwhitejr]

One more thought. I had the 75-300 IS. It was soft most of the time and it would hunt focus all of the time. Low light was impossable with this lens. Other than the IS feature it was no better than your 28-300. The 70-200f2.8L IS may be the finest zoom lenses that Canon makes. Bill

[geoffm]

Don't confuse the older 75-300 IS with the newer 70-300 IS. The newer lens is said to be optically much better.

 

Also don't confuse the 70-300 IS with the 70-300 DO IS for many more $.

[m_barbu1]

I should point out that while the newer 70-300mm may be optically better than the older 75-300mm, it's still limited to an aperture of f/4 at 75mm and f/5.6 at 300mm (probably also 200mm). Whereas the 70-200mm f/2.8L will enable you to use it at f/2.8 at both 70mm and 200mm. While looking at those numbers on paper may not look like a big difference, in practice the difference is huge.

[eric_chi1]

Hi David,

 

The 200 f2.8 is definitely better than all three versions of Canon 70-200 zooms. It's very sharp and have excellent colors. I have the 135 f2 as well. I don't agree the comments that many compare 135 f2 and 200 f2.8 and trash the 200 f2.8. If you want to trash 200 f2.8, you might as well trash all 70-200 zooms. And even then, 135mm +1.4TC still cannot compete with 200mm at 200mm.

 

For your question, do you know what's the most used focal length you like? I have heard there is a program that can show you a statistic of your used focal length. If you used the long ends more, 200 f2.8 is worth consider. But if the lens is for general usage, 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens to have.

 

By the way, I'd suggest do NOT touch the new 70-300 IS. There are so many variations in quality for this lens, it's not worth to even try. (There is one post in dpreview.com today or yesterday that the IS on his 70-300 IS just died. How long has that lens been in the market? Less than a year. What a quality! The 70-200 f4 is much much solid performer.)

 

Eric.

[phredy]

Dear David, check this page out. http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef200usm.htm

Phil.

[dganger]

Ok don't know if anyone will pay attention to this yet, so maybe i will have to make another post. It is between the 70-200mm f4 and the 200mm f2.8L. I am leaning a lot more towards the 200mm 2.8 Let me know what you think thanks again for all the help!

[j_robinson2]

Another vote for the 200 2.8. I have one and it is used for sports work often. Very nice to have the wide aperture. The lens is excellent and the images sharper than the 80-200's friends use. Lightweight & fast focus as well as a nice & bright focusing screen.

[pradeep1]

Choosing between the 70-200 f4 and the 200 f2.8 would, you would need to answer these questions...

 

- are you comfortable with primes?

 

- do you like moving with your feet?

 

- would you like flexibility of a zoom?

 

- how often do you shoot low light photographs and without flash?

 

- do you shoot indoors more often? (without flash that is)

 

- would the color of the lens, white or black make a difference?

 

I bet there are more questions that you could ask yourself, but these should suffice for you to decide between the two. all the very best on your choice, either way you wont regret it.