Looking for a another lens

[chris_holub]

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I am brand new to the forum and glad to have found it and hope that I can get some help from this huge knowledge base. <br>

I just got my first DSLR in Oct. last year a EOS Rebel T3i Digital Camera with 18-55mm IS II & 55-250mm IS II Lenses.<br>

I am looking to get a little better / longer zoom lens and I cannot affor L glass or even something equivalent so please don't bother suggesting that. What I would like is just a suggestion on which one of these would you get if the cost was exactly the same. My main thing I will be doing with this lens is shooting aircraft at the airport. I am a pilot and I also love to take pics of plane and especially in flight with a nice prop blur.<br>

Here is what I was thinking about:<br>

<strong>Canon EOS EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Ultrasonic</strong></p>

<p><strong>Quantaray 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 autofocus zoom lens (</strong><strong>Canon EOS "EF" mount)</strong><br>

<strong>Tamron AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 Model 172DE Auto Focus Lens EF mount</strong></p>

<p><strong>Sigma 100-300mm F4.5-6.7 DL</strong></p>

<p><strong>Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG</strong></p>

<p><strong>Sigma DG 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3</strong><br>

I could even sell the 55-250mm I have now and take that money and add to the $125 - $150 that one of these will cost me to get something better. I would love to get something in the 400mm range but that starts getting outside my budget. I am basing the dollar amount based on Ebay sales because most likely thats where I am going to buy it from.<br>

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at this and give your opinion.<br>

Here is a sample of some of my pics <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53700117@N07/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/53700117@N07/</a><br>

Cheers,<br>

Chris<br>

</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Best bet for lowest cost, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC USD</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Also consider Canon's 70-300 IS (non-L version). I honestly don't know how it stacks up to the Tamron, but I do know it's a superb and very affordable lens.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>The Tamron is at least as good and $100 cheaper.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>I haven't used any of these lenses myself but I don't expect a huge improvement compared to the 55-250. The extra 50 mm on the long only changes the field of view a little bit. I'd look elsewhere to spend my money (fast prime, tripod, flash,etc) but of course YMMV. Have a look at photozone.de for reliable tests of these lenses.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Why are any of these better than the 55-250 you already have?</p>

[ljwest]

<p>+1 to Bob's suggestion of the Tamron SP 70-300 Di VC USD f/4-5.6 Tamron Model # A005</p>

<p>That Canon 100-300 is an old design, dating to 1990. I'm sure that newer lenses like the Tamron Bob suggests would be a great improvement. Your EF-S 55-250 is a much newer lens (2007), and will likely outperform the 100-300.</p>

<p>Maybe it would be better to wait a while and save up some more. You don't want to spend money on a little more focal length if the image quality is not as good as what you already have.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p><em>All</em> of these are well below a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC USD, or an EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM... both in IQ, <em>and</em> in price. </p>

<p>You might try an ef 75-300 IS USM, as these can regularly be bought on ebay for ~$100. a bit softer than the new ones (see above), esp. at length, but cheap enough for your budget, and as good or better than the ones you've listed.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For an affordable alternative, the original IS lens mentioned - the EF 75-300mm IS- is a much better lens than its reputation. The EF 70-300mm IS in various forms were upgrades.<br>

Another OLD lens, but a goodie, is the EF 100-400mm IS. I bought mine partly out of the fear that they were going to upgrade it soon (if the 200-400mm $10K lens is not the 'upgrade') and that means $$$$.</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<p>JDM, in my personal experience owning that lens, I found it was quite soft at the long end (though obviously that was one lens - and my standards aren't low). However, the biggest thing I disliked about it was not the softness, it was the lack of FTM focus, even though it is USM equipped, when it failed to find focus, manual overide was not an option (except by switching AF off). The IS system <em>alone</em> however made it significantly better than <em>any</em> of the lens listed.</p>

<p>Given the OP's budget of $125-150, I <em>highly</em> doubt he'll find a 100-400 IS L (functional or otherwise) available. ;-)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Actually the Canon EF 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM is a very good lens. Image quality went down when they added all the extra elements for IS, and the price went way up due to the hype over IS. The glass was never improved to overcome the difference until the expensive Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS was introduced. </p>

<p>Another lens to keep your eye out for is the fairly rare Sigma 100-300mm f4. Yes a straight f4! Unfortunately I see they are really holding their value or even inflating due to them being discontinued.</p>

<p>Another possibility that I know nothing about is the Canon EF 100-300mm f5.6 L. It has slower noisier AF since it was not USM but on the rare occasion that I have seen someone comment about it's IQ it seems to have potential to be better than all the lenses that you listed. keh.com has one for a good price with filter ring damage and no caps.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>About lack of full-time manual focusing even though a lens has USM: have you tried a custom function to move autofocus away from the shutter release button? In my experience (with the 28-80L) that allows FTM, and you hit the * or AF button with your thumb when you want autofocus.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>+1 to Jos.</p>

<p>The difference between 250mm and 300mm is minimal.</p>

<p>In what way is the 55-250 not good enough?</p>

<ul>

<li>Length (250mm is too short) (get closer?) (maybe a used Tokina 80-400?)</li>

<li>Sharpness (needs a lot of money for a small improvement) (don't bother until you've got a higher budget)</li>

<li>Shutter speed too low (f5.6 gives too little light and ISO can't be raised) (again a bdget issue, even a 300/4 non-IS will be out of budget)</li>

</ul>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[chris_holub]

<p>Thanks for the info everyone. <br>

I understand that the extra 50mm of zoom is practically nothing. I was hoping to get a couple of things by going to something in the 300mm zoom range. <br />I was hoping to get a little better glass than the 55-250mm. I have somewhere in the $200 - $250 to spend. The other thing I thought I understood was that on the far end of the 250mm of my lens or most lenses for that matter the image starts getting noticeably soft. So if I had a 300mm and backed it down a little it would help with the sharpness. Is that a fare assumption?<br /><br /><br>

These were a few I had my eye on.<br /><a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-EF-100-300mm-f-5-6-Macro-Zoom-Lens-for-all-EOS-Film-Digital-526-3-/390572753080?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5aeff340b8">http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-EF-100-300mm-f-5-6-Macro-Zoom-Lens-for-all-EOS-Film-Digital-526-3-/390572753080?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5aeff340b8</a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-EF-70-300-IS-USM-1-4-5-6-ZOOM-LENS-/230962090230?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35c669d0f6">http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-EF-70-300-IS-USM-1-4-5-6-ZOOM-LENS-/230962090230?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35c669d0f6</a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-APO-Macro-Super-70-300mm-F-4-0-5-6-DG-APO-AF-Lens-For-Canon-Brand-New-/251259150526?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a803660be">http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-APO-Macro-Super-70-300mm-F-4-0-5-6-DG-APO-AF-Lens-For-Canon-Brand-New-/251259150526?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a803660be</a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/TAMRON-AF-ASPHERICAL-28-300mm-F-3-5-6-3-XR-IF-FOR-CANON-LENS-/300889723790?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item460e6cd38e">http://www.ebay.com/itm/TAMRON-AF-ASPHERICAL-28-300mm-F-3-5-6-3-XR-IF-FOR-CANON-LENS-/300889723790?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item460e6cd38e</a><br>

The Cannon 75-300mm that we were talking about is cool too because it's pretty cheap and if you think it's as good as any other option I am good with that too.<br>

If you think it's a complete waste of money that's cool. This is a want not a need and I'll just save my money.<br>

Cheers,<br />Chris</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I've used a 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400L for a little over 10 years, but those get to be heavy lenses very quickly! Just for kicks, I borrowed my Dad's EF-S 55-250mm and was quite impressed with the sharpness and overall excellent image quality. I liked it so much I bought one for myself to use as an everyday lightweight zoom instead of lugging the big lenses around all of the time. I've heard that the 1st version of the 55-250 is slightly sharper than the 55-250 II, so keep that in mind.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The Canon 75-300 is poor and the Canon 100-300/5.6 Macro is not worth buying. I'd stick with the Canon brand though.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I second the Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC absolutely excelent lens and absolutely can not be beat for the super low price tag. I got mine for $399 after $100 rebate.<br>

<a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f9bc">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f9bc</a><br>

Seriously, the sharpness of this lens is unreal. I also own the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC which cost a lot more money but actually I prefer the 70-300 F4-5.6 in my opinion it is actually sharper than the more expensive lens. I disagree with sticking with Canon brand only. There are lots of great lenses which are made by other companies than Canon, I.E. Carl Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and even Nikon. </p>