Zoom Lens questions

[Geoff79]

Hi all,

I’ve asked similar questions in the past but always stuck with what I have at the end of it all. Just wanted to revisit this with a new line of questions.

I’ve been longing for a lens that will get me sharper pics with better IQ when photographing my children in mostly candid shots, some posed. But also, and importantly, when playing sport.

If the same lens could also offer good/better results for wildlife at a distance, such as birds, if I’m ever that way inclined, that would be a much desired bonus.

So what I have at the moment is a Canon 70D with;
Canon 18-200mm
Tamron 18-250mm

As per previous threads, I packed away the Tamron lens and only use the Canon lens for photos of my children, and wildlife etc. General photography.

As with all my queries about this kind of stuff, budget is the main deciding factor for me. I only really have a couple of hundred dollars to spend (coming into Christmas and thinking to have this as my offering from Santa).

The 18-200mm has been a good servant with it’s wide range, but the IQ generally leaves a little to be desired. Just not sure whether it’s worth getting a new lens in my price range, or will the results not really be any different? The other issue I see is that if I buy one of the zoom lenses I am looking at, will that then mean I need an 18-55mm or 20-70mm type lens to use for that range, or is the 18-200mm still okay in that range?

Anyway, the lenses I was looking at and wondering if they were worthwhile;

1. Canon 70-200mm ; this is only on my list as it’s extremely highly recommended, but well outside my price range. I may have an opportunity to pick up a secondhand one for around $400, but that’s still way more than I have to spend and I could get 2-3 of the other lenses I’m looking at for that price. But, it’s a lot cheaper than I’ve seen it for so far. But it’s apparently great for sport? If I can get it around this price, is it recommended?

The other options, closer to my price range (secondhand);

2. Canon 70-300mm ; the best option in this focal range?

3. Tamron 70-300mm ; has IS too and seems about equal with the canon option? If considerably cheaper, possibly worth going with this over the Canon equivalent?

4. Sigma 70-300mm ; delicious prices I’ve seen, but lacking IS puts it far at the bottom of my list.

So, the question is, with the info I’ve provided, is it worth purchasing one of these lenses for a good secondhand price, or do I just stick with the 18-200mm lens as the results won’t differ greatly?

Thanks for any feedback!

I’m also more interested in thoughts on options 2-4, as the 70-200mm option is probably a bit outside of what I can afford.

[I Like to Watch]

I have the Canon 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 and the Canon 70-200L (non IS).

You will lose a bit of sharpness at the long end of the 300...but I've always been happy with the lens.

The 300 does have variable aperture and is not as fast as the 200....so this may limit your ability to separate subject from background in sports shots.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Hawthy]

I bought the Sigma AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG for my Nikon D5100. It's fine in bright conditions. I don't really miss the lack of vibration reduction that the Nikon lenses have. I just don't find myself using it much because I don't shoot much at long focal lengths. Then again, I don't have kids to chase around.

[Geoff79]

I have the Canon 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 and the Canon 70-200L (non IS).

You will lose a bit of sharpness at the long end of the 300...but I've always been happy with the lens.

The 300 does have variable aperture and is not as fast as the 200....so this may limit your ability to separate subject from background in sports shots.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Thanks for the feedback, that’s good info. I am definitely looking for something a bit faster as I feel like my current lens is quite sluggish.

[Geoff79]

I bought the Sigma AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG for my Nikon D5100. It's fine in bright conditions. I don't really miss the lack of vibration reduction that the Nikon lenses have. I just don't find myself using it much because I don't shoot much at long focal lengths. Then again, I don't have kids to chase around.

Thanks for the input. Do I take from the comment about it being good in
Bright light, that it wasn’t so good in low light? My son has just started little athletics, which commences at 6pm, so I was hoping to look at something that performs well in low light too, if possible.

[I Like to Watch]

Thanks for the feedback, that’s good info. I am definitely looking for something a bit faster as I feel like my current lens is quite sluggish.

Don't get me wrong, the '70-300 IS' I referred to is still a capable lens...but you might need to 'Stop Down' a bit to maintain sharpness.
The example shot below was taken on a 50D with the 70-300 IS at 300mm focal length (Stadium Light conditions). Have also included a panorama to indicate where I was seated.

Stadium View.jpg

300mm Focal Length.jpg

...and under the right conditions, can also achieve nice 'Bokeh' (taken with a 400D at 300mm)

Santoro 300mm.jpg

[Geoff79]

Don't get me wrong, the '70-300 IS' I referred to is still a capable lens...but you might need to 'Stop Down' a bit to maintain sharpness.
The example shot below was taken on a 50D with the 70-300 IS at 300mm focal length (Stadium Light conditions). Have also included a panorama to indicate where I was seated.

Stadium View.jpg

300mm Focal Length.jpg

...and under the right conditions, can also achieve nice 'Bokeh' (taken with a 400D at 300mm)

Santoro 300mm.jpg

Cool, thanks for that. They're good shots. I'd be happy with that. They look far better than what I might get with my 18-200mm. But now, is that user error, or lens limitations? Have these had much PP work, or more or less straight from camera?

[Hawthy]

Thanks for the input. Do I take from the comment about it being good in
Bright light, that it wasn’t so good in low light? My son has just started little athletics, which commences at 6pm, so I was hoping to look at something that performs well in low light too, if possible.

Fully zoomed out to 300mm, you are using an aperture of f5.6. In low light, you are going to need to bump the ISO up a bit so I suppose the low light performance will depend on how well your camera handles high ISO. I generally don't use an ISO higher than 400 just because I have that set as the maximum in the settings for auto-ISO and I am too lazy to change that setting. And, I don't find myself using a zoom at dawn or dusk.

All of the 70-300mm lenses appear to have similar maximum apertures. The Canon 70-200mm appears to have a maximum aperture of f2.8 across the zoom range so I assume that it would be better in low light albeit with a shorter maximum focal length.

[Tannin]

There are more different Canon 70-300 lenses than you can poke a stick at. Take care that you are getting the one you think you are getting, and don't assume that a review of one applies to any of the others. The only Canon 70-300 I am familiar with is the L, which won't be near your price range. ($800 used, maybe?)

Then there are the various 75-300s, which vary. The latest and best of them is merely pretty bad; the earlier ones went all the way up to 11 on the Richter scale of dreadful.

There are, at any given time, four different Canon 70-200 models, all premium quality L Series ones. A non-IS f/4; and f/4 IS; a non-IS f/2.8, and the very expensive 2.8 IS. Then there are the model replacements, e.g., the 70-200/2.8 IS was replaced by the 70-200/2.8 IS II, which was replaced by the 70-200/2.8 IS III. On your budget, a 70-200/4 non-IS should be a possibility. There are differences between the marks, but for present purposes we can regard them all as very good indeed.

Finally, my recommendation: the remarkable little Canon 55-250 IS. It's a kit lens (ships with new cameras as a bundle) and built to a price, but it is very sharp indeed for an entry-level unit and I recommend it. There have been about four different versions, all quite similar but each one even better than the previous. As a guide, the latest model sells for about $400 brand new.

Good luck!

[I Like to Watch]

Cool, thanks for that. They're good shots. I'd be happy with that. They look far better than what I might get with my 18-200mm. But now, is that user error, or lens limitations? Have these had much PP work, or more or less straight from camera?

Just a little bit of sharpening (USM) and nothing else.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Geoff79]

There are more different Canon 70-300 lenses than you can poke a stick at. Take care that you are getting the one you think you are getting, and don't assume that a review of one applies to any of the others. The only Canon 70-300 I am familiar with is the L, which won't be near your price range. ($800 used, maybe?)

Then there are the various 75-300s, which vary. The latest and best of them is merely pretty bad; the earlier ones went all the way up to 11 on the Richter scale of dreadful.

There are, at any given time, four different Canon 70-200 models, all premium quality L Series ones. A non-IS f/4; and f/4 IS; a non-IS f/2.8, and the very expensive 2.8 IS. Then there are the model replacements, e.g., the 70-200/2.8 IS was replaced by the 70-200/2.8 IS II, which was replaced by the 70-200/2.8 IS III. On your budget, a 70-200/4 non-IS should be a possibility. There are differences between the marks, but for present purposes we can regard them all as very good indeed.

Finally, my recommendation: the remarkable little Canon 55-250 IS. It's a kit lens (ships with new cameras as a bundle) and built to a price, but it is very sharp indeed for an entry-level unit and I recommend it. There have been about four different versions, all quite similar but each one even better than the previous. As a guide, the latest model sells for about $400 brand new.

Good luck!

Thanks Tony, appreciate the rundown. I think you’ve recommended the 55-250 to me before and I’ve been on the cusp but yet to make the purchase. Maybe it wasn’t close d Pugh to Christmas before? I will now check my options and see if I can pick this one up for Christmas. Thanks for the tip, again.

[I Like to Watch]

... I generally don't use an ISO higher than 400 just because I have that set as the maximum in the settings for auto-ISO and I am too lazy to change that setting. And, I don't find myself using a zoom at dawn or dusk....

All subjective of course, but I will always push the ISO if it means getting a 'sharper' shot through faster shutter speed. I can eliminate some of the noise in PP....but movement in the photo from a slower shutter speed is hard to correct.