70/75/100-300mm for Sony.

[Sony_SoFar]

Looking for a long zoom lens, either 70-300mm, 75-300mm or 100-300mm (ideally 70mm or 75mm).

Really not sure what to go for. Due to a lack of funds (looking at £100 tops) Will be used, for sport, birds (wildlife in general) I have seen some that have macro setting which may be better incase I also decide to take some macro pictures. Although I do have my dads 28-200 with a raynox 250 if necessary, and also 28-70 kit lens!!

Sony_SoFar

 

[heidfirst]

for that budget probably a Tamron 70-300 LD Di but it'll depend on what is going s/h atm.

 

[Myrdhinn]

First of all you can't get true macro in a zoom lens. That said the Tamron 70-300 LD Di mentioned above is your best bet for cheap. It does macro 1:2 which means half life sized. You'll need a bit more cash unless you find one second hand, they seem to go for 120 pounds new.

 

[Faldrax]

The 'best' in the budget tele-zooms is probably the Sigma 70-300 APO (make sure it is an APO), with the Tamron 70-300 a (very) close second.

The Sony or Minolta 75-300 is reasonable, but not quite as good, but often a bit cheaper (say £70-90 s/h).

With all these the 'macro' option is really just 'fairly close up', either 1:2 or 1:4, which is good enough for nice shots of flowers and perhaps larger insects, but if it's anything smaller than 1" then it will look small in the final image.

There are also compromises made to keep the price down.

The Minolta is the one I have used (still have a copy lying around, in fact), and with that the AF is not really fast enough for faster birds in flight (once you lose focus it will hunt, and locking on again is tricky), and strong back-light leads to CA (noticeable with gulls, for example).

But, with 'slower' subjects, it gives nice results at a good price.

 

[heidfirst]

but the Sigma 70-300 is notorious for the AF gears breaking on Sonys & for that budget it would have to be s/h so no warranty & the repair costs as much as a s/h lens ...