Advice Needed - Telephoto and zoom lens for APS-C

[dzvolkau]

Hello Everyone,

Recently, I've started to develop my skills in wild and landscape photography. This hobby inspires me to go hiking and spend more time in nature. So at the end of this year I managed to save some money to upgrade my set. I plan to buy telephoto zoom lens for EF mount (It provides flexibility for future choices regarding camera sensors). So my current setup includes:
- Canon EOS 700D
- Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
- Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS STM

and my budget is limited to 300 eur. After checking the market for new lenses, I realized that my budget is quite tight, so I started looking for used lenses. I found the following options:
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM -> ~250 eur
- Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD -> ~250 eur
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM -> ~300 eur

What do you think about these lenses? Alternatively, do you know of any other good lenses that can help me delve into telephoto photography without breaking the bank?

 

[Golem]

Hello Everyone,

Recently, I've started to develop my skills in wild and landscape photography. This hobby inspires me to go hiking and spend more time in nature. So at the end of this year I managed to save some money to upgrade my set. I plan to buy telephoto zoom lens for EF mount (It provides flexibility for future choices regarding camera sensors). So my current setup includes:
- Canon EOS 700D
- Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
- Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS STM

and my budget is limited to 300 eur. After checking the market for new lenses, I realized that my budget is quite tight, so I started looking for used lenses. I found the following options:
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM -> ~250 eur
- Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD -> ~250 eur
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM -> ~300 eur

What do you think about these lenses? Alternatively, do you know of any other good lenses that can help me delve into telephoto photography without breaking the bank?

I use the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO IS for nearly every need in that range. The IS really helps and the lens can render plenty of detail and texture, even at 300mm.

Its more compact than other lenses in that FL range but theres no weight saving. Maybe its even a little heavier than some.

I have used it quite a lot and if youve been wondering about about any odd effects due to the DO design I can tell you I never encounter any ... altho Im not a bokeh cultist and I do like a useful dose of DoF, so Ive never inspected the bokeh. If you care about sunstars, it can make them but theyre not really "spikey", which may be due to the DO optics. The "spikes" are short and fat.

My copy is old but not terribly worn and it has some "gravity creep" but not severe. Its not sloppy loose. Its similar to other zooms. Focus is nearly instant in good light and it doesnt hunt in bad light. I dont know about tracking cuz I dont ever need it. The MF feels direct.

Its somewhat uncommon and since youve been lucky enough to have found one, I suggest that you grab it, assuming that its in decent condition.

 

[dzvolkau]

I use the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO IS for nearly every need in that range. The IS really helps and the lens can render plenty of detail and texture, even at 300mm.

Its more compact than other lenses in that FL range but theres no weight saving. Maybe its even a little heavier than some.

I have used it quite a lot and if youve been wondering about about any odd effects due to the DO design I can tell you I never encounter any ... altho Im not a bokeh cultist and I do like a useful dose of DoF, so Ive never inspected the bokeh. If you care about sunstars, it can make them but theyre not really "spikey", which may be due to the DO optics. The "spikes" are short and fat.

My copy is old but not terribly worn and it has some "gravity creep" but not severe. Its not sloppy loose. Its similar to other zooms. Focus is nearly instant in good light and it doesnt hunt in bad light. I dont know about tracking cuz I dont ever need it. The MF feels direct.

Its somewhat uncommon and since youve been lucky enough to have found one, I suggest that you grab it, assuming that its in decent condition.

Thank you for the advice! I'll try to reach MPB and ask them about this lens. Just to clarify: are we talking about the same lens? https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-do-is-usm <<-- this is one that I found

 

[Golem]

Thank you for the advice! I'll try to reach MPB and ask them about this lens. Just to clarify: are we talking about the same lens? https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-do-is-usm <<-- this is one that I found

Thats the one ! Only a DO has the green ring.

 

[misterjones]

I'll let you know about the Tamron 70-300 in a few days. I just got one yesterday as a replacement for my Canon 75-300 lens.

I have a love/hate relationship with the Canon 75-300 kit lens. Chromatic aberration can get to be pretty bad, particularly against a white/light gray background or if the subject is white and at 300mm it's a bit soft around the edges. That said, I've taken some pretty decent wildlife pics with it, even one of a swan with next to no purple or green CA.

The Tamron is supposed to be better than the kit lens, so this weekend I'm taking them both out and will be switching back and forth. I haven't used either of the Canon 70-300 lenses, but I've read good things about one of them if it's what I'm thinking of.

 

[dzvolkau]

I'll let you know about the Tamron 70-300 in a few days. I just got one yesterday as a replacement for my Canon 75-300 lens.

View attachment 281829


I have a love/hate relationship with the Canon 75-300 kit lens. Chromatic aberration can get to be pretty bad, particularly against a white/light gray background or if the subject is white and at 300mm it's a bit soft around the edges. That said, I've taken some pretty decent wildlife pics with it, even one of a swan with next to no purple or green CA.

The Tamron is supposed to be better than the kit lens, so this weekend I'm taking them both out and will be switching back and forth. I haven't used either of the Canon 70-300 lenses, but I've read good things about one of them if it's what I'm thinking of.

Thank you for your thoughts! It'll be interesting to see the result of this comparison. It looks like the Tamron is similar to the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens.

 

[zombiesniper]

I would agree that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is probably your best bang for the buck in the list.

Here's a decent youtube review.

 

[misterjones]

So about the 75-300mm kit lens' chromatic aberration vs the Tamron 70-300mm:

I took this today with the Canon 75-300: (used the windows clipping tool for this section)

Right away you can see plenty of purple fringing whenever a withe background or subject meets a darker object and vice versa. At 100% resolution you can see just how bad it is:

Now, the same thing but the Tamron lens:

There's an ever so slight bit of discoloration where the light background meets the darker objects. Unnoticeable unless you're at 100% and even then it can be ignored. It's not on the building numbers at all.


This was the main reason I wanted to replace the 75-300 lens.

 

[zombiesniper]

I stand corrected.
That is a pretty good difference.

 

[dzvolkau]

Guys, thank you for your thoughts about these lenses! The images definitely show a difference between the Canon 75-300 and the Tamron 70-300. Unfortunately, the last good examples (within my budget) of the Tamron SP 70-300 and the Canon EF 70-300 DO have been sold out. So I decided to go with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The image quality of this lens seems similar to the Tamron one, and there is a lot of positive customer feedback. I've grabbed the last one in "like new" condition from MPB. It seems this option will be good enough for me to make my first steps in the "telephoto lens" area. Here are few images of the my new lens:

1) 300mm, f/8, 1/25 sec

2) 300mm, f/8, 0.6 sec

3) 135mm, f/8, 0.6 sec

4) 70mm, f/8, 0.6 sec

 

[PhotoHobbyist]

EF lens are rated for full frame bodies. EF-S lens are rated for APS-C bodies.
An EF lens on a APS-C body has more zoom by a factor of 1.6 (your EF 50mm works as 80mm on APS-C).
The three EF 70-300mm lens will actually perform on APS-C as 112-480mm.

The Canon 70-300mm reviews poorly on a APS-C body according to Youtube's Christopher Frost having soft images at 300mm. DO version is no better. He suggests the Tamron over the Canon though it's image stabilization isn't as good as the Canon.

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS 'Nano' USM II lens is highly rated by Frost. It has better image stabilization than the Tamron.

 

[dzvolkau]

EF lens are rated for full frame bodies. EF-S lens are rated for APS-C bodies.
An EF lens on a APS-C body has more zoom by a factor of 1.6 (your EF 50mm works as 80mm on APS-C).
The three EF 70-300mm lens will actually perform on APS-C as 112-480mm.

The Cannon 70-300mm reviews poorly on a APS-C body according to Christopher Frost having soft images at 300mm.


He suggests the Tamron over the Canon though it's image stabilization isn't as good as the Canon.
Another option is the Canon EF-S 55-250mm STM which is highly rated by Frost, but will have much less zoom.

Thank you for sharing your review! I agree that the 55-250mm is a good option for my current camera. Unfortunately, I'm not considering it because I plan to switch to a full-frame body in 2025. It seems the Canon RP or a used Canon 6D Mark II could be a significant step for me towards better image quality. Also, if the telephoto lens becomes the most used for me, I'll consider upgrading to the L version.

 

[Thiophilos]

I had the EF-S 55-250mm lens. It got very little use because it was not long enough for most wildlife photography. For landscape and general photography I used the EFS 18-55mm instead.

For wildlife photography you generally need around 400mm or longer. You can take wildlife photography with any lens, but you will miss many opportunities if your lens is shorter than 400mm. This is on an APS-C body or a full frame body with a high megapixel count. The "reach" depends on pixel density too, besides lens focal length.

Full frame cameras are excellent for general photography and low light situations, but are less good for wildlife and macro. It's because of pixel density on the sensor. Crop-frame cameras will usually get more pixels on the subject if you are reach-limited.

Of course you can do wildlife photography with a full frame camera too, but you will need a longer, heavier and much more expensive lens to get the same reach - and probably a tripod.

Many photographers have both FF and crop cameras, because each has its advantages. It is the best way, but it can get very expensive.