Good telephoto lens for less than a bag of sand.

Byrhtnoth

Byrhtnoth

Messages
643
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking to purchase a decent telephoto lens for sports and wildlife.
Had been looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM which I think would be good for sports but not long enough range for wildlife.
The Sigma 150-500mm looks good for wildlife but not sure for sports at the closer range.
Therefore the lenses I've been looking at are the..

Sigma 80-400mm f4-5.6 EX APO DG OS
Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM

Can anyone vouch for these lenses or recommend any other lens I should be looking at :thinking:
Or Im I barking up the wrong tree, by looking for one lens to cover two subjects :shrug:

Forgot to mention that Im using a Canon 400D
 
What is your budget? Looking at these choices, my first suggestion would be to drop the 150-500 and put the 50-500 in that list. The latter is from the EX line of lenses from Sigma, ie. their L equivalent (if there is such a thing) while the first is a budget telephoto, even though I haven't read any reviews on it yet. The Bigma (50-500) gets great reviews from wildlife photographers but I don't think it would work for sports photography. And you will also lose the OS. If I would choose between the 4, I would get the Canon 100-400L IS, but if i were you, I would stretch my budget a bit further and i would go for a faster lens. The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 gets great reviews but the best option, in my opinion, you have to combine both wildlife and sport photography, is to go for a f/2.8 telephoto. These cost a lot of money but there are more options than just the £3k Canon 300mm f/2.8. You can consider the excellent canon 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS. Or the Tokina 300mm F/2.8, or the brilliant Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (which is better than the prime).

With lenses you get what you pay for, but there is the third-party option where you get a bit more.
 
I'd drop the Sigma 80-400 as it doesn't have high speed focusing which could be a problem. I haven't seen any tests of the 150-500 Sigma yet but it could be interesting as it had OS and HSM so will focus quickly and is stabilised. However, I'm not sure how good it is optically.

The Canon is a good allrounder and many owners swear by it. Also has stabilisation and high speed focussing, however, I've seen more fail in the field than almost any other lens.


stylgeo said:
or the brilliant Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (which is better than the prime).
Click to expand...

That depends how you define better. Yes the Sigma 120-300 is very good, but neither my own experience of using both or Sigma's own MTF charts back this up across the width of the frame.

120-300

120-300.jpg


300

300.jpg


At 300mm, the 120-300 isn't far behind the 300 prime at the edge of the frame, but the difference is there. If you are shooting on a cropped sensor, then the 120-300 will be sharper across the limited view but if you are using full frame, the zoom loses performance significantly.

Paul
 
What is your budget? And what kind of sports?

The advice from stylgeo above is pretty sound. When I was thinking of buying a lens to take on safari, I looked at the Sigma 50-500 and 170-500 and the Canon 100-400 in a shop, and I thought the Canon blew away the other two. It's a great lens. (But I couldn't justify buying it, and I couldn't find anywhere to hire one for a reasonable price, so to cut a long story short I now run a lens hire business.)

But for sports, a faster lens does make a lot of sense. Remember the 100-400 is only f/5.6 at 400mm, whereas the lens preferred by many sports 'togs is the incredibly expensive 400mm f/2.8 IS. The other f/2.8 lenses mentioned by stylgeo are all sound choices, and i guess which is right for you depends on what kind of reach you need.

If you want to try some of these, to see whetehr they're right for you before plonking down ££££, feel free. ;)
 
grumpybadger you seem to be right on the full frame aspect. I personally own the 120-300mm and even if i chose the zoom for just that, the versatility of being able to zoom back to 120mm, I was amazed to have seen the MDF charts from Sigma's webpage (mainly at the cetre) and have read an article that said that a Sigma's spokeperson actually said that the zoom is sharper than the prime. It does sound illogical doesn't it?

The zoom seems to lose IQ and contrast over the edge of the frame, but again, it's great for my crop camera. I am considering to buy a TC with that though, don't know if I should have opted for the prime instead. Primes do seem to work better with TCs than zooms.
 
I used to have a 120-300 and wasn't 100% happy with it on full frame so got rid. I now have the prime and love it. Each to their own I guess. Whatever, I don't want to be guilty of thread drift (any more than I already am!) but would just say that the 120-300 is still a stunning lens.

The other thing to say is that second hand lenses are usually great value. I paid £700 for my Sigma 300 f/2.8 prime from someone on here and it's a corker. I would always want to test the lens but only 2 of my current 5 were bought new...
 
If that article you are refering to is the one I think, then that refers to the old version of the sigma 300 prime. Regardless of whether that is true or not I feel having the zoom is more than worth it. Hence why, like you, I have the zoom!

I'm slightly confused why you are suggesting to forget about the new 150-500 OS HSM. Although the tests are out yet, it appears it could be one excellent lens. With newer optics and coatings, and a shorter zoom length than the 50-500. Initial prices seem that it will cost around the same as the 50-500, EX notwithstanding, which is odd.
 
It does seem odd doens't it? Well, the reason I am suggesting of going for the bigma is that I read somewhere (I think it was dpreview, now sure though) that the 150-500 was a replacement for the 170-500 not the 50-500. So considering this I assumed that the IQ would be better than the 170-500 but Sigma must have a reason for not putting it in their EX line.
 
I do not know much about the lenses mentioned however his budget is mentioned in the title...

A Bag Of Sand.....

Equals.... A Grand...

Rhyming Slang...

Nigel
 
Shutterman said:
I do not know much about the lenses mentioned however his budget is mentioned in the title...

A Bag Of Sand.....

Equals.... A Grand...

Rhyming Slang...

Nigel
Click to expand...

:) Sorry, I'm Greek :D

You can find all the above mentioned lenses for less than a grand, if SH!
 
Thanks everyone for the replies, its given me food for thought (y)

Looked through my sports photos (mainly cycling) and have noticed 95% are taken under 200mm.
Havnt got any wildlife shots as I've found I need more than a 300mm reach as its open land/coastal area.
I am now thinking about a long telephoto for wildlife and then at a later date purchase a seperate lens for sports.
I know you only get what you pay for, but at the end of the day I cant jusitfy spending over a thousand pounds on one lens for a hobby, although I shall consider a secondhand lens.

Noticed quite a few peeps selling their Canon 100-400mm L IS USM lenses :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top