[GlendaleViper]

The folks were speaking with me this weekend and told me to pick a lens for my new 30D. This is a birthday present and we are by no means wealthy, so I have restricted my options to a lens that will run between $200 and $300 CDN.

I'm currently running with the 50mm f/2.8 prime, which has been excellent so far, but I'm missing two things: Telephoto and Macro capability.

With that said, my options are limited, but I found two lenses that seem to fit my needs. I am unsure of how decent these lenses are however, and would appreciate any advice.

Current options:

- Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DI LD Macro

Alternatives:

- Canon EF 25 Extension tube (Not a lens, but adds closer focus capability and a slightly longer length to my 50mm. Would also be good to have for future lenses)
- Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 IF ASP (No macro capability, but good wide performance. Not very complimentary to my 50mm)
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM II/III AF (No macro capability but with USM motor and presumably better glass than the Tamron and Sigma above)



Any other suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance.

 

[Contrastique]

Tamron 70-300 is absolute good value for the money. I'd prefer it over the Sigma because of one reason: Sigma doesn't pay camera-companies to get the specs of new cameras, Tamron does, wich results in (older) Sigma- lenses often not working on newer cameras (error 99). The newer lenses of Sigma most likely work but when buying a new body in the future they are not guaranteed to work.
I am not sure on this one but I believe the Tamron one actually was slightly better than the standard original one from Canon.
Just my 2 cents on this one...

The macro on the 70-300 is not really a macrofunction, it allows you to get the subject to be closer-looking (hmm sounds a little odd maybe) but it's not 1:1. It only also works when the lens is being zoomed in between 180 and 300 mm.

The extension tubes are quite nice from Canon (Soligor and Tamron also makes them, only cheaper and of little less qual than Canon). You can get real close to the subject but the distortion will be more than when compared to a real macrolens (logically) but the real ones are a hell of a lot more expensive as well.

Good luck with your search. Kind of your folks wanting to give you something nice like that!

 

[Sh0eBoX]

I have the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro and it's a really good lens for the money. I would highly recommend this (i'm not too sure about the non-APO version, i'd go with the APO). here is a link to a comparison of a few 70-300 zooms (it does seem to hold its own, especially for the money

)

 

[GlendaleViper]

Contrastique, thanks for the confirm. The Tamron was the one I was most heavily leaning toward (prefer them to Sigma usually). I know it's not "true" macro, but 1:2 is about as good as I can expect for the measly $230 they're asking, and certainly more functional in that regard compared to my little 50mm.

Going to check the focusing distance on Canon's 70-300 (the USM is a huge benefit) and make my decision from there.

I'll step up to 1:1 once I can afford Canon's 105mm macro.

Shoe, thanks for your help too! Any last minute suggestions/alternatives?

 

[Samgotit]

An alternative? Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I don't use anything over 100mm very often, but, hey, if you want to peep on your neighbors, that's your thing. Mine had the fastest USM of all the lenses I have owned, and it's quite sharp.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=27

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-105mm.../dp/B00004YZQ8

Then get yourself some Kenko tubes (Set of 3) from ebay out of Hong Kong for ~100-120USD. The cool people don't use Canon tubes.

 

[Mrvile]

For cheapo tele zooms, the Tamron 75-300 and Sigma 70-300 APO are good places to start. If you go Sigma, make sure you get the APO version though - it's definitely worth the extra money. Other good alternatives are Canon's older 100-300 and Sigma's 55-200 if you don't want to go out that far.

However, I've purchased one cheapo zoom in my life and I don't think I'll ever go that route again - I was sorely disappointed, even though the lens was known to be great for the money. From there I went straight to the $750+ Sigma 100-300/4 EX, which sort of spoiled me into the habit of having quality glass, and I haven't turned back. Unless you know you won't be upgrading ever, I highly urge you to save the money until you have enough for a 70-200/4L or 70-300IS. It saves you money in the long run and also saves you the frustration of having to deal with subpar glass.

Just my $0.02.

 

[GlendaleViper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samgotit /img/forum/go_quote.gif An alternative? Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM.

Forgot to list that one, actually. Just barely out of budget, although at the same time, I could always chip in the difference. My only qualm with that zoom range is whether it would effectively make my 50mm a moot point. Granted the 50 is a few stops faster... but will I really switch out the 105 for it? It has the wide-angle going for it too...

 

[Sh0eBoX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Forgot to list that one, actually. Just barely out of budget, although at the same time, I could always chip in the difference. My only qualm with that zoom range is whether it would effectively make my 50mm a moot point. Granted the 50 is a few stops faster... but will I really switch out the 105 for it? It has the wide-angle going for it too...

no, it won't make your 50 a moot point and yes, you will really switch out the 105 for it when you need to

it will still come extremely handy in low light situations... or if you feel like being creative with the DOF or want the bokeh for portraits

i have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and i bet i will still find myself swapping that off for my 50 f/1.8 from time to time

 

[GlendaleViper]

Well, it's settled. Did a bunch of comparisons and tried a few different options out and I have decided to run with the good man Sam's recommendation. Extending the budget a little to do so, but I think it's the most versatile choice for the budget I was given, and offers several benefits that the longer zooms I was considering can't provide:

- Minumum focusing distance of 1.6'
- Better speed, and little f-stop variance between focal lengths, especially at the long end (to be expected, considering the others were up to 300mm)
- Significantly better wide performance, moreso than my little 50mm workhorse
- USM motor/full-time manual focus

I'm giddy like a little kid! Heading up to Huntsville, Ontario this weekend to see a friend of mine (we have the same birthday). Huntsville is in the magnificent Muskokas, so I think I'll have some time to get a few shots in before the beer starts to flow like water.

Thanks again for all the advice folks!

 

[jbloudg20]

The sigma, hands down. I LOVE IT

 

[jbloudg20]

I'm late to the party, as usual