a telephoto lense for our new T1i

[Ty Cobb]

The wife and I bought a T1i recently, thanks to those of you who helped with some of our questions.

We are really enjoying playing with the 18-55 kit lense that came with it.

Found a lense leash to work with the lense we had.
Had to buy a nikon bag though, as it was the best bag we found. Only canon bags were big or backpacks.

Next thing I think I will get in the future would be a lense in the 200-300mm area.

Was wondering if it is worth saving up and buying an expensive canon lense or if there is a good lower priced one that will work good.

We aren't going to be selling these or doing anything professionally. Will just be for fun and taking pictures of family and wildlife and such in the future.

Have read on here and saw this lense suggested, and wanted to know what other lenses I might want to look at.

Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Di macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report

 

[o hey tyler]

I had a Tamron Telephoto for my Sony. It was a decent lens. Offering good image quality up to 150-200mm, but from 200-300 I would get a little bit of chromatic aberration. I haven't had any experience with Canon lenses, but my girlfriend has a canon zoom lens and the photos she takes with it are pretty excellent in terms of IQ.

 

[Dao]

The low cost EF-S 55-200mm IS lens from Canon is not too bad (for the money) according to the reviews.

Lens review sites:
Welcome to Photozone!
Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ
www.slrgear.com

 

[Big Mike]

What's your budget?

Canon, Sigma & Tamron all make cheap 70-300mm lenses.
Canon has a 70-300mm with IS, which is a much better overall lens.
If you want a really high quality lens, have a look at the four different 70-200mm lenses from Canon.

 

[Ty Cobb]

well my budget would be more a matter of if it is really worth it to wait a little longer and save up for a better lense.

Dropping 1-200 bucks on a lense not such a big deal.

But if it would really be worth it to save a little longer and get a $500 lense or so, then my budget would change and I would be waiting longer to get it.

which if it is worth it would be fine.

 

[Big Mike]

Well, it also depends on what you plan to use it for (what type of situations you will be shooting in) and your expectation of quality. If you are happy with your 18-55mm lens, then you will likely be happy with the cheaper 70-300mm lenses.

I don't know how much of a difference there is between the Canon, Sigma & Tamron models.

Just make sure you buy one that is made for Canon. The one you linked to is for a Pentax camera.

 

[Ty Cobb]

good point.

I was kind of looking at that one as I was told it was a good all around lens.

I have also looked at these two:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS is really highly rated, but that is an insane price to pay for a lens to me.

I have found some of these that second hand fall into my possible price range: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens



Just would like to get a good lens for wildlife or nature shots the first time around I guess.

 

[Overread]

I'm not going ot lie to you, wildlife photography gets expensive really really quickly. If you are looking for a good first time lens the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM would be a good choice - however I would also recomend you to consider the lenses suggested in the following article:
Juza Nature Photography

I know their prices range from lower to a lot more than you are expecting to spend, but many wildlife shooters that I know of use a lens similar to one of these. Wildlife photography really starts a 300mm and shooting under that focal length is fully possible, but it is harder