Which lens, 70-200/300mm range?

[june_daley]

<p>Hi guys</p>

<p>Looking for a new lens, purchased my Canon 40D with a kit lens - 55-250mm f/4-5.6IS. It's OK, But not too impressed with the image qaulity. Would like a bit more range too, anything beginning from a 70mm or even 100mm to 250/300mm would be great - needs to be fast-ish as it's a multi purpose for sports wildlife photography.</p>

<p>I have had a look around on various websites for reviews and posisble options but there are just sooooo many to choose from, I thought I'd come to you guys first for opinions. Yes I'm on a budget - but understand that qaulity comes at a price! I've been eyeing off some of these new Sigma/Tamron lenses that boast focal ranges like 18-300 but are they any good?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help!<br>

June :)</p>

[matt_hein]

<p>Primes. That is the way to go for speed at that length. Cause 5.6 is the fastest zoom in the 250-300 range. The f4 70-200 or the 2.8 70-200. Or you could get primes. They are faster. But then at that length they are L and expensive.<br>

If 5.6 is all you need then go with the 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM.<br>

Don't go for the all-in-ones. They have poor quality since they have to cover such a long distance.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>High June. For multi purpose sport and wildlife there are a range of lenses, each with its own strengths and weaknesses as you have discovered. The lens that will suit you depends on the conditions you intend to shoot under. If you are constrained by poor light, such as sports under artificial lighting then the 70-200 2.8LIS + 1.4X TC is probably the only way to go.<br>

If your sports and wildlife are in sunlight then your options are expanded to take in the 70-200 F4L + 1.4XTC and the 70-300 IS. The 70-300 IS will have similar image qualities to your 55-250. The 70-200F2.8 & F4L will be a cut above these.<br>

For wildlife these lenses are at the margins of acceptablility, something with more reach such as a 100-400LIS would be a good starter if this is your passion.<br>

Some final comments. I would try and find out what's wrong with your 55-250. Its image quality should be good enough. I suggest you look through this forum a bit as your problem could be that it is not being used at optimal settings. (I've just looked at some photos I drove 500 kms to take and they're not good, we all stuff up.)<br>

With the longer telephoto lenses IS is worth it if you can afford it.<br>

So, on a budget fix up your 55-250, or get the 70-300IS. Image quality go for the 70-200 LIS in F2.8 or F4. Low light the 70-200 2.8LIS, Wildlife the 100-400LIS.<br>

The Tamron and Sigma 70-200 and other lenses cost less than the Canon lenses, and I have one of these, an older Sigma 70-200 EX. It has been a good sharp lens but since owning an IS lens I don't think I would go back to these again. I would only consider these if you had decided you did not want IS.<br>

Over to you June</p>

<p> </p>

[june_daley]

<p>Thank you so much for the suggestions - it's a great help!</p>

[authoritee]

<p>I have the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro. When I started taking photographs, around a year ago, this lens was able to satisfy my simple needs, back when I didn't know much about photography. Then, I bought the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, after learning more about the subject and deciding for what type of photography I was aiming for, and must say that (if you can afford it) this is the way to go.</p>

<p>I like shooting concerts at night, indoor events, and portraits, and this lens performs in an excellent manner for all 3 types of photography. If you add a Canon EF 1.4X II Extender, the lens is great for automotive sports, and works for wild life photography.</p>

<p>If you do not shoot so much under low-light situations, you could try out the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM.</p>