# Cheap telephoto lens



## Alrik89 (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi guys,

i'm looking for a telezoom lens. Until i can afford the 70-200mm 2.8 II, i want to have solution to get past the waiting time. I'm doing sports photography, mainly outdoor soccer. Sometimes i wanna shoot some birds or wild stuff like... birds of prey or deers. In conclusion, there are 2 lenses in the race: the old Canon 70-300mm and the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD. 
Which one to choose? The cheaper Tamron or the Canon with the better optics?
Which one is your favorite, because i'm having a hard time with this question.

PS: The Canon 70-200mm f4 is not in the race due to expensiveness.

PPS: 1Ds II and EOS 40D (don't know the american term)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 17, 2013)

Presumably if you're outdoors you have some OK lighting, so why not the Canon 100-400? Gives you more reach for your birds/animals, and on the 40D you'll actually get even more reach due to the real field of view. Might end up being a bit too long if you're right at the sidelines and the action comes right up to you, but you'd probably still have that problem at 70mm. Use one body with the 100-400, and the other with a 24-70 or 24-105 or similar focal lengths for when they come up close.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jul 17, 2013)

Because i've got round about 300 bucks, not 1.000.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2013)

55-250.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jul 17, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 55-250.



I prefer EF-Lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 55-250.



Yep, that'll work well on the OP's 1DsII. :


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 55-250.
> ...



Might as well get that reach out of your 40D for cheap. :

http://compare.ebay.com/like/181133719388?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar


----------



## KyleSTL (Jul 17, 2013)

I would go with the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. Compared to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS, both have very similar IQ, considerably faster AF (because of the Ring USM), and a much lower price (typically $120-160 each in the US for either vs. $360 or $550 for the 70-300mm in used and new, respectively).


----------



## jthomson (Jul 17, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> Which one to choose? The cheaper Tamron or the Canon with the better optics?



Actually the Tamron is cheaper and has better optics than the Canon 70-300mm.
See the Photozone review. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc?start=1
Its a no brainer get the Tamron 70-300mm USD VC.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jul 17, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Alrik89 said:
> 
> 
> > Which one to choose? The cheaper Tamron or the Canon with the better optics?
> ...



i know this test. but the-digital-picture comes to another conclusion. That leaves me confused.


----------



## Ryan708 (Jul 17, 2013)

skip the tamron. F#$%ng photozone reveiw is BS. the tamron sucks. the AF is kinda nice and quiet and all, but does hunt sometimes, and the colors are very flat. My father-in-law can take a better shot of a distant subject(sharper) with his 70-200 2.8 ii on his 30D(cropped) than my 70-300 on my 60D. I sent it to tamron to be fixed, and they "adjusted" it and it is now a smidge better but nothing exciting. Go canon or save money and get the sigma 70-300, i tryed one in a local store and it was better than my tamron.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 17, 2013)

The EF 70-300 USM (non L) has a number of cards up it's sleeve. 

Firstly it is excellent in it's own right at 70 to about 115. It puts the 24-105 L to shame in the 70-105 range for example. The Tamron can't match this. 

Secondly it remains very sharp in the (very) centre at 200 - 300. Again the Tamron can't match this. 

However the Tamron is _much _better mid frame at this range. Infact the Canon is that bad mid frame at the longest lengths that it becomes a soft focus lens and does bizarre things with whites. 

So the Canon does at least offer excellence in the very centre at longer lengths, the Tamron does not, but it does offer a modest resolution across the frame. A stop or two in applies to all the above. Use either of them wide open at 300 and you might as well use a Coke bottle bottom.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 17, 2013)

Buy used.

A Canon 200mm f2.8L prime (only difference between v1 and current v2 is the hood type)

A used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG EX (non-OS)

I had the 70-300 IS. Good optically, terrible construction, complete with rotating focus ring, extending tube and wobbly tube when it extends, IS was very noisy too, although I did get some images I was quite happy with.


----------



## Fuzzy Caveman (Jul 20, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Buy used.
> 
> A Canon 200mm f2.8L prime (only difference between v1 and current v2 is the hood type)



I second this. The 200/2.8L will run you a tad bit more than either of your options, but it is an excellent performer. Fast AF, fast aperture, and you can crop to 300mm FOV and still be sharper than either of those zooms. In fact, mine (v2) is sitting on my 1DX right now. I took it out yesterday.


----------



## Hannes (Jul 22, 2013)

I found a used sigma 70-200 f2.8 for a smidge over $300 equivalent. It is pretty sharp, sharper than my 24-105 but obviously no IS. That would be my suggestion if you can find one. I think it is pretty good learning to use the very shallow depth of field offered at 200mm and f2.8 to lessen disappointment when you get the canon lens and half your shots are out of focus.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 55-250.
> ...



Just needs a little duct tape..


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 24, 2013)

Canon 70-300 is ism. Has been acceptable for me for sports and doesn't break the bank. It can be a bit soft at 300 though. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Alrik89 (Aug 7, 2013)

Okay, i bought the Tamron 70-300mm.
First impression, concerning the "minor" image quality at 300mm: it is okay. I took some photos of dragonflies and they are a little bit soft at 300mm 5.6. But dragonflies are small indeed and so the details in such small objects is okay for me. And pushing the slidecontrols in lightroom bears some potential for image improvements.

In conclusion: a fine lens for little money.


----------



## rambarra (Aug 7, 2013)

mfw tamron


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 7, 2013)

PS: oooops..... did not see the penultimate post by the OP....... 

It is always better to compare the like with the like. Comparing EF 70-200 f/2.8 II with Tamron 70-300 VC USD is like comparing the Rolls Royce Phantom with a Toyota Camry - and yes there is nothing too wrong as such with a Toyota Camry just as there is nothing too wrong as such with the Tamron. Yes as you can understand by now I have it and love it. I bought the EF 70-300 non-L along with the Tamron and compared them together and decided to return the Canon. The Tamron is optically better than the Canon non-L. I have some photos here on the image gallery
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15606.msg286408#msg286408

The rest is in my facebook and Flickr account. If you want to see go to my flickr page (in my signature)

In conclusion my suggestion is get the Tamron.


----------

