K, so say I'm a cheapskate but need a good zoom...

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

02/17/2009 11:38:14 PM · #1

....what should I buy?

I really don't want to spend more that $500 TOPS...I'm going to need a new body in the next few months too...

I desire the Canon 70-200 f/4L...but it's reallllly pushing the budget line...are there any good third party lenses?

(and yes, I know about the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6..I've used it and I am NOT A FAN.)

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

02/17/2009 11:46:55 PM · #2

I have a Tamron 28-300, but it's not stabilized. I got it for $225 used. You may be able to find the stablized version for under $500 on the used market.

Just looked. Amazon has the same one as I do for $369 and the stabilized model for $579.

Message edited by author 2009-02-17 23:47:16.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

02/17/2009 11:48:46 PM · #3

Originally posted by yospiff:

How's the IQ...?

ETA: o hey, that looks pretty nice. Goes on my list!

Message edited by author 2009-02-17 23:51:01.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

02/17/2009 11:57:11 PM · #4

I believe

NikonJeb also has one of them in a Nikon mount, and he was one of the folks who recommended it when I was looking at it. It was a great deal and even though it lacks stabilization, I'm pleased with it. Theonly thing it lacks it a little on the wide end, so I sometimes still use the kit lens for that. If I had $600 to burn right now, I think I would go for Tamron's 18-270 VR.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/17/2009 11:58:36 PM · #5

Originally posted by Jessi:

(and yes, I know about the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6..I've used it and I am NOT A FAN.)

Canon 70-300 IS. Completely different lens with borderline L quality.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/17/2009 11:59:28 PM · #6

See, I have Canon's kit for wide-angle, and then an 85mm for portraits...what would be PERFECT is Sigma's 135-300 f/2.8, but that thing costs a BILLION dollars.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

02/18/2009 12:02:45 AM · #7

A very good lens is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. It has been called one of canons "hidden L Lens" because of it's quality. You can pick one up at amazon.com (used) for $450, New around $560.

Ivo

02/18/2009 12:03:17 AM · #8

Tokina 80-200 f2.8 dinosaur club

I have the Nikon version and for the money, it IS a great lens which is really overlooked. I love mine and I can use it as a club to kill rogue velocaraptors. You can get one off eBay if you dig around a bit. Look at the reviews and the only complaints you'll get is maybe the weight and the slightly slower focus. Bah, I've never had focal speed concerns and the weight is due to the damn thing being built like a tank! Nuff said.

02/18/2009 12:04:47 AM · #9

Originally posted by Ivo:

I saw that one on some lens review website with FABULOUS reviews and was like "WANT!!" but couldn't find it on Amazon. I will definitely look around on eBay.

Ivo

02/18/2009 12:10:53 AM · #10

Ebay

They do come up now and then. This one is $450 but I'd say you might be able to get one around $400. Either way, many have compared it to the Canon and/or Nikon of the same focal lengths.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/18/2009 12:16:38 AM · #11

I do understand that you are with a tight budget. But if I were you, with $500, and a Canon body, I would add $80 more and get the 70-200 f/4. I have never heard anyone regretting that purchase. It gets raving ratings as you may already know.

Not sure where you are in Indiana.. or you may also want to scout Craigslist.

Message edited by author 2009-02-18 00:18:30.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

02/18/2009 02:44:06 AM · #12

Originally posted by Ivo:

velocaraptors

Bernard_Marx

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/18/2009 08:04:02 AM · #13

Jessie,

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Canon.
Only $180 New

I am always singing the praises of this lens. But never have I had someone sing in my choir. It is very sharp and VERY versatile. The focus is a bit slow. Great for insect macros (because you don't have to be close to them at all).

Some validating evidence:

Edit to add: My image stabilization system is built into my tripod ; )

Message edited by author 2009-02-18 08:07:03.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Voigtlander Ultron 21mm f1.8

02/18/2009 08:49:51 AM · #14

Another shout on the Sigma 70-300 APO, my wife has it and I have been very VERY impressed with it, and to be honest, I'm a REAL fussy bugger when it comes to glass.

If you cannot find a 70-200 f4L then get this APO version of the Sigma.

Bernard_Marx

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/18/2009 12:12:00 PM · #15

Finally, an amen!
... and that from someone with A LOT of lenses to compare

bauerfan71

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/18/2009 12:28:04 PM · #16

I have the Sigma being discussed... I really like it. I beat the crap out of it at the race track last year, and it stood up to it.. mostly, but that was my fault, not the lens'.

It's negatives - it's heavy as hell! The focusing isn't real fast, but it was servicable to shoot racing, as long as I was paying attention to where the action was going to occur.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/18/2009 02:23:49 PM · #17

I had the Sigma 70-300 - it was fine for the money ($130). But at that price, you'll get very slow focusing and moderate image quality. If you're so close, I would absolutely hit the 70-200 f/4L, or if you want more reach and IS, the Canon 70-300 IS scalvert and others mentioned. The 75-300 you dislike is a much cheaper lens, though probably still better than the Sigma 70-300.

Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/4's would probably also be decent, but you may have to buy them used, and it'd have to be much cheaper than the above lenses to entice me.

limerick

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/18/2009 02:29:10 PM · #18

I just bought this:

70-300 mm DI f/4-5.6 Digital Series AF Zoom Lens for Canon EF by Quantaray

but mine is for Nikon. I love this lens and it only cost $149.00 at Amazon with shipping included through RitzCamera. No VR but I find it really is ok without it. I have only had it a week or so and have been ill so havent done much but snapshots yet so I have nothing to show you. But for the money it is great!

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/18/2009 03:07:17 PM · #19

Originally posted by smurfguy:

I second the Canon 70-200 f/4advice. Sigma 70-300 DG APO is a good lens for the price.. but if you really like telezoom stuff (birds/action etc.), it wont be too long before you grow out of it and will desire the sharper images that you will see from a 70-200 f/4. I had teh Sigma before. It was a lot of fun because I was budget bound (<$200). But for you, since you are close to 500 limit anyways, I would recommend the 70-200 f/4 again so you wont have to start another thread here in a few months about where to find a good 70-200.. I know I did that... and had I not switched the boats, I would be with one copy myself. just IMHO;-)

Message edited by author 2009-02-18 15:07:52.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/18/2009 03:14:21 PM · #20

Originally posted by yospiff:

I believe NikonJeb also has one of them in a Nikon mount, and he was one of the folks who recommended it when I was looking at it. It was a great deal and even though it lacks stabilization, I'm pleased with it. Theonly thing it lacks it a little on the wide end, so I sometimes still use the kit lens for that. If I had $600 to burn right now, I think I would go for Tamron's 18-270 VR.

I'm pissed at them for a problem that I had that would have cost me as much to repair as I paid for it, but in all fairness, I fell with the camera & lens in my hand.

My camera survived, but the lens didn't.

Most of the good scores I got were with that lens, and it is a good value.

I like my 18-200 VR better, but that's because I'm old and feeble and can't hold my hands still.

It's entirely up to you, but let me just say that the last three lenses I bought were because I couldn't spend the money for the lens I wanted.

If you REALLY want a lens, then don't compromise.....save your money until you can get the one you want.

I have regretted spending the interim money 'til I got my 18-200 VR.

02/18/2009 03:18:20 PM · #21

OK, so some background...I currently have maaaaaaaaybe $150, working 1-3 hrs. a week...some possible income for a new photo "service" type thing?

I'm going to be taking a lot of candid and sports-type shots as a photography intern for a summer camp this summer...and while I know the lens isn't everything as far as quality goes, I know there really is a difference between a perfectly composed, exposed, focussed picture with, say, that 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and the same picture taken with the 70-200 f/4L...

I will look into Tamron and Sigma and their lenses for sure.

02/18/2009 03:29:09 PM · #22

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by yospiff:
I believe NikonJeb also has one of them in a Nikon mount, and he was one of the folks who recommended it when I was looking at it. It was a great deal and even though it lacks stabilization, I'm pleased with it. Theonly thing it lacks it a little on the wide end, so I sometimes still use the kit lens for that. If I had $600 to burn right now, I think I would go for Tamron's 18-270 VR.

I'm pissed at them for a problem that I had that would have cost me as much to repair as I paid for it, but in all fairness, I fell with the camera & lens in my hand.

My camera survived, but the lens didn't.

Sorry to hear that. I actually fell with the camera myself in Disneyland 2 days ago. I was looking through the OVF and started walking towards a display to get closer because I had a 50mm 1.8 mounted.. and this stupid raised sidewalk bumped into me (yea tell me about it:-).. I fell on my wrists.. and barely saved the Camera with the 50mm lens swinging like a pendulum around my neck about 5 cm above the concrete as I came to a halt.

Needless to say, I saved the cam, the lens, and the wrists. Had it been a zoom lens (longer), I would be on a new thread cribbing abt it right now.. or may be not.. cuz then I wont have had to walk to get closer:-)

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

02/18/2009 03:29:41 PM · #23

Tamron 70-300. Around $100 and I love mine.

Message edited by author 2009-02-18 15:31:16.

02/18/2009 03:33:05 PM · #24

Originally posted by Jason_Cross:

Tamron 70-300. Around $100 and I love mine.

Great shots.

Btw you meant the "Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD", right?

Message edited by author 2009-02-18 15:33:13.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50