300mm Lens for a broke mofo

Okay, if I had no more than three hunred dollars and wanted a 300mm telephoto lens, THIS is the specific lens I would buy KEH Camera: Nikon Manual Focus - Fixed Focal Lengths - 300 F4.5 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (72) MISSING TRIPOD MOUNT 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS

Why? This was once a very expensive, state of the art small field telephoto lens. It has an on-lens aperture ring and a 72mm filter size, and it is the lens John Shaw used extensively to do world class closeup photography used in illustrating several of his field guides to nature and close-up photography. I first used one of these back in 1986, when this lens was ground-breaking. It has a feather-touch internal focusing system, with a rather long, precise focusing adjustment at longer distances,and a *very* unusual type of internal focusing that is hard to describe. THis is not like modern AF lenses with hair-trigger manual focusing: this lens is built rock-solid, but is actually small-diameter and fairly light. On APS-C, this lens will allow you to focus manually even on action sports,since only a few internal elements move, and the focusing system is very,very,very different from regular lenses.

This lens functions superbly with extension tubes and works well with closeup "lenses" like the Canon 500D. It is f/4.5, so it is 2/3 stop faster than a cheap, non-ED glass 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 lens. This lens will adapt to a Canon body with a $17 eBay adapter,and is quite usable wide-open,and again, the focusing system is feather-light, and rapid,and yet optimized for manual focusing unlike chap AF lenses. This lens cost $700 in the mid-1980's--this is a former professional-grade 300mm ED-glass lens, for $279 in Excellent shape, $244 in bargain shape with tripod collar. Your Canon will shoot this lens in Av mode or M mode quite well,especially at f/4.5 to f/5.6.
 
So, if you had 200-300$ what lens would you buy. lol
It depends.
What is most important to you?
55-250mm with IS
or
75-300mm without IS?
Or the 28mm-300mm Sigma whatever.

It also depends on what you like to shoot. I found I don't need more than the 250mm zoom. I found I can use 100mm as a walkaround lens (for what I shoot). I learned I am not into landscapes, nor nature (animals). So, it's not about what anybody else would buy, it's about what you need. Or what you need to get you by while you learn what you really need.

Read the reviews of the lenses suggested to you, and decide what limitations you are ok with, and what limitations you will find annoying.
 
Well, I know im flipping the script tonight but I may go in a different direction and get a lens for macro. Ive got the 50 Prime and ordered the kit to flip it around but am not sure if that will satisfy me. Does anyone have a favorite macro lens for 300$

I guess ultimately I have 2 kids under 5 years old and the 200mm-300mm seems like a better investment for activities on down the road. But that 100mm prime seems fun too.

Im just really confused.
 
the EF-S 55-250mm IS is a good lens. I too am fiscally limited and it does a great job for what I use it for.

If you check my flickr, I've got some action shots of aircraft taking off with it.

I checked it out. Thanks! I like my kit lens just fine. I dont pretend to be a pro and dont think Ill ever take photography over the edge but as a side hobby im really enjoying it! Im learning a lot quick and most from this forum as well as youtube, etc. I think ill probably go for the 55-250. Does it do OK for macro, or better than the kit lens I should say?
 
Does anyone have a favorite macro lens for 300$

The Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro is an outstanding lens. If you were to hold out for that one you wouldn't regret it. It's the only macro I plan on owning.

In my opinion, if you really want a macro, spend the extra money for a great one. I just took a quick look at B&H and Adorama, and it appears the price of the Canon macro has actually increased quite a bit since I bought mine.:grumpy:
I bought mine from Newegg, so I checked there, too. It's showing it as out of stock at the moment, but they still have it priced at $479. I believe that's what I paid.

I haven't personally used the Sigma 105mm Macro, but I have seen quite a few images taken with it, and it seems to be on par with the Canon. It's also less expensive than the Canon.

Maybe there are other good macro lenses out there that people might suggest, but I don't know if you're going to find a lens as good as the Canon or Sigma for much less. I know they cost more than what you said you want to spend, but I feel the 100mm is worth every penny I paid for it - it's that good.
 
Hooker, yes the 55-250 does a good job for "macro". Technically I believe it is more "close-up" photography. But this lens will serve you well.

Here is a "macro" example at 225mm:

3666522997_8eaba8fac0_o.jpg



84mm:
3666522925_11f0e383d5_o.jpg



250mm:
3667380182_32f970c3cb_o.jpg


Landscape @ 85mm:

3706189278_f5d111cfec_o.jpg


Hope this gives you a decent example of the lenses abilities.
It's a little soft at the long end, but no worse than the Kit 18-55mm.
Yes the 100mm f2.8 is fun, but outside of shooting macro, you really have to move around a lot to get the shot you want with people and scenes, where it is much easier to zoom in and out a little and get the shot rather than run around a lot and miss it.
 
Last edited:
You can get a Tamron 70-300mm with macro in the 180-300mm range f/4-5.6. Its light weight, it has macro, it has the range you are looking for. I think it was either popular photography or shutterbug magazine that just listed it as one of their best buys and it will also work well on a full-frame camera if you upgrade in the future. Its not the most durable and or most expensive lense, but like bitter jeweler was saying, its a cheap place to start and try out.

Oh yeah its $169 by the way at bhphoto, but you could probably get it cheaper on ebay or something.
 
Loving the examples. That is awesome.

Thanks.
 
Lots of lenses have the term ""macro" slapped on them because they can focus at close distances. It's probably done more for marketing purposes, since many lenses are capable of 1:2 magnification - and that's nothing special. A true macro lens has 1:1 magnification. In other words, at it's closest focusing distance, you're shooting things at actual size.

As Bitter Jeweler said, "close up" is a more appropriate term for these so-called macro lenses. But hey, having the word "macro" plastered on your lens is so much more awesome than "close up". :mrgreen:
 
You say potato...
 
You say potato...
My reason for pointing that out is so you'd know what to expect from a lens that claims macro capability. You can get some decent close up images, just don't expect to do the type of things you see in the "Macro Gallery".

If you do get a lens with 1:2 magnification, you could try extension tubes to get closer close-ups.
 
I was just being a smart ass. Thanks for all of the suggestions. I went ahead and bought the 250IS
 

Most reactions

Back
Top