Good Budget Telephoto lens ?

Guybrush · Sep 6, 2012

Hi.
I'm a beginner in photography and i recently got my first DSLR.
I'm using a Canon T3i (600D) and I have the 18-55 lens.

I am looking for a tele lens to shoot sports and wildlife (macro would be appreciated) and i'm on a budget of max $300.
I would prefer a 70-300 to a 70-200 because it has more range and since am not a pro, i don't mind sacrificing a little image quality.
What would you recommend ?

Canon EF-S 55-250 ($250)

Tamron A17 70-300 ($200)
Tamron -70-300mm F/4-5.6(Model A17)

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro ($220)
70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro ($290)
70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Or any other lens ?

MLeeK · Sep 6, 2012

The knock off's you are looking at aren't worth it. Stick to the Canon.

Derrel · Sep 6, 2012

I have read that the Sigma APO variant of their 70-300 is decent. I've seen photos from their 70-300 APO, but they were made mostly 6,7,8 years back, when MP counts were 8 to 10 megapixels; at that level of resolution, MANY lenses look "decent". I would say do some research at the various lens testing sites, and read up on a few possible choices. These days, a $300 lens is often not all that "good" in absolute terms of what is theoretically possible. Buuuuut, for making smaller images, the absolute best image quality is not essential. It's nice, but not "essential". Photozone.de has a lot of tests, as do a few other web sites.

nmoody · Sep 6, 2012

I agree with MLeek, if you want a third party 70-300 that's decent you will need to spend a bit more. I have the Nikon version of this one and find it pretty good Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Big Mike · Sep 6, 2012

MLeeK said:
The knock off's you are looking at aren't worth it. Stick to the Canon.

The Canon lenses in this price range aren't great either. Might be a bit better, but nothing to write home about.
I have heard good things about the Tamron 70-300 VC, which should be just a little over the budget...but the addition of stabilization will be very helpful for a lens like this.

But yea, there are many options is the 70(75)-300mm range, many of them will fit into the $300 budget. Take your pick, I don't think there is really much difference between them.

cgipson1 · Sep 6, 2012

You can't get MACRO on those kinds of lenses! You can get some close focusing capability with magnification in the 1:2 or 1:3 range... but not true macro 1:1. Sharpness is usually not typical macro quality either.

I agree with what Mlee said... usually OEM lenses have some advantages, and I would recommend the Canon (even though I shoot Nikon)!

Keep in mind you get what you pay for..... pay little, and you get little!

Dao · Sep 6, 2012

The Tamron 70-300mm VC lens has a manufacturer $100 rebate now til the end of this month.

$449 street price - $100 = $349.00

It is close to your budget.
i.e. Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Zoom Lens, Canon AFA005C-700 ($349 after rebate)

Reviews:
Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD (EOS) - APS-C Format Review / Lab Test

Personally, I do think the bokeh is not as good as the Canon's 70-300mm IS (and of course the 70-200mm Canon), but the front element of this lens will not rotate when focus (while the Canon 70-300mm IS will).

For telephoto zoom lens below $700
Canon 70-200mm f/4 > Tamron 70-300mm VC > Canon 70-300mm IS > Canon 55-250mm IS

Guybrush · Sep 8, 2012

Ok thanks, Ill look into the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD .
But because of the price, i'm tempted with the EF-S 55 - 250.

Btw 250mm to 300mm .. Is it a huge difference ? Is the 300mm much more practical and useful than the 250mm ?

JBrown · Sep 8, 2012

I know you said max $300, but to be honest I have the Canon 55-250 and I am looking to upgrade. The only reason I have the lens is I purchased it for $150 which was a steal. If I was looking to pay retail at $300 I would personally hold out and buy a 70-200 Non IS F4 L lens with a price around $600. Im personally saving up for the 70-200 2.8 Non IS, but thats a huge amount at $1300. If you are going to buy a zoom near that price point, I would at the minimum save up for the 70-200 F4 non is.

Dao · Sep 9, 2012

Guybrush said:
Ok thanks, Ill look into the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD .
But because of the price, i'm tempted with the EF-S 55 - 250.

Btw 250mm to 300mm .. Is it a huge difference ? Is the 300mm much more practical and useful than the 250mm ?

There is difference, but I doubt you see a huge difference between 300mm and 250mm.

SCraig · Sep 9, 2012

The words "Good" and "Budget" are seldom complimentary. You can get a "Good" lens or you can get a "Budget" lens but very, very seldom will you find a "Good Budget" lens.

TCampbell · Sep 9, 2012

KEEP IN MIND: At the 250-300mm range these are all really f/5.6 lenses (you only get f/4 when you're zoomed all the way in). If your "sports" usage includes sports played under lights (e.g. indoor sports or outdoor sports played at night) then you'll struggle with f/5.6.

A shutter speed of 1/500th will generally "freeze" any action for sports or wildlife photography. You may occasionally find that 1/250th is adequate but you can't always count on that.

You can buy zooms that offer f/2.8 all the way through the zoom range (e.g. an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L). f/2.8 is pulling in four times as much light as an f/5.6 lens.

If the best shutter speed you could get with an f/5.6 zoom was only 1/125th, then the f/2.8 zoom would get you 1/500th at the same ISO. If the best shutter speed the f/5.6 could get you was 1/60th then the f/2.8 will get you 1/250th.

When I scan most sports photos for EXIF data, I see a lot of shots taken at ISO 800, 1/250th, f/2.8. At f/5.6 they're down to 1/60th -- not fast enough to freeze action nor deal with camera shake. You could crank up to ISO 3200 to compensate but then you'll have a lot of image noise.

Image stabilization only helps eliminate blur caused by the movement of the camera (e.g. you are hand-holding the camera and the shutter speed is too slow.) It does nothing for a subject moving too fast for the shutter speed to freeze action.

There's a guideline regarding how fast the shutter speed should be in order to avoid any image blur due to camera movement in hand-held photography. That guideline says that the shutter speed needs to be 1/(focal-length) X (crop-factor). The crop factor for the APS-C size sensor on your camera is 1.6 (that never changes). So if you use a 300mm focal length, you need 1 / 300 X 1.6 or 1/480th sec. There is no 1/480th shutter speed on the dial so you'd just round up to 1/500th. This "guideline" is based on how still the average person is capable of holding the camera when they are using GOOD hand-holding & bracing techniques and are actually TRYING to hold the camera still. That means a tripod would be a worthwhile investment -- although often not practical for sports games, so you may want to invest in a monopod to aid with stability.

There's a reason sports photographers are willing to shell out the extra money for the faster lens.

Guybrush · Sep 10, 2012

Thanks guys, But i don't really need a perfect lens. A decent one is ok as I'm not a pro.

Btw what do you think of the Canon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III (Both USM and non-USM versions) ?
Comparing it to the EF-S 55-250 ?

Dao · Sep 10, 2012

Guybrush said:
Thanks guys, But i don't really need a perfect lens. A decent one is ok as I'm not a pro.

Btw what do you think of the Canon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III (Both USM and non-USM versions) ?
Comparing it to the EF-S 55-250 ?

I believe the only thing that the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III is better than the 55-250mm lens is the metal lens mount.