Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Which telephoto would you recommend?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    988

    Default Which telephoto would you recommend?

    Hi All,

    Would like to upgrade from a Canon 75-300mm III lens. Which one would you recommend?

  2. #2

    Default

    or walk abt or tour i feel that the sigma 18-125 is a good range.....but too bad i've gotten the 18-50mm which i feel is a bit short on the longer end

  3. #3
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    If you still need the telephoto reach (budget permitting too), I suggest the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 with a 1.4X TC or a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ...

  4. #4
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    Whats your $$$
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    988

    Default

    around 1k or under for a start? chances will be that I will upgrade again for a longer range in 1-2 yrs time...

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostyIntrepid
    around 1k or under for a start? chances will be that I will upgrade again for a longer range in 1-2 yrs time...
    If ard $1k or lower, try a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM (2nd hand).
    (pretty good reviews on this lens...ask ard)

    brand new ones are ard $1.1-1.2k i think....havent been following the prices lately.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    988

    Default

    umm...say 300mm?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frostyIntrepid
    umm...say 300mm?
    a 70-200mm f/2.8 will give 300mm if u get a Tele converter 1.4x or 2.0x




    For 300mm w/o TC...hmm its pretty expensive. not 1k for sure.
    Sigma's 80-400mm OS is $2k+ I think.
    120-300 f/2.8 is worse.

    Unless your idea of "upgrade" is from 75-300mm to 75-300mm IS USM.
    which only adds IS and USM to the existing lens but same aperature range

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    a 70-200mm f/2.8 will give 300mm if u get a Tele converter 1.4x or 2.0x




    For 300mm w/o TC...hmm its pretty expensive. not 1k for sure.
    Sigma's 80-400mm OS is $2k+ I think.
    120-300 f/2.8 is worse.

    Unless your idea of "upgrade" is from 75-300mm to 75-300mm IS USM.
    which only adds IS and USM to the existing lens but same aperature range

    How much will a tele converter cost?? (sry for asking a que in u'r thread dude)

  10. #10

    Default

    70-200 f4L

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Hi, I notice you are using the 300D? Actually I wonder why you would like to upgrade again in 1-2 years time for a longer range. The common zooms are:

    1. Canon 70-200/2.8
    2. Canon 70-200/2.8 IS
    3. Canon 70-200/4.0
    4. Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS
    5. Sigma 50-500mm
    6. Sigma 70-200/2.8
    7. Sigma 100-300/4.0

    Why dun you save enough for either the 100-400 Canon or Sigma 50-500 before you decide? At $1K you can probably get a 70-200/4.0 from Canon, 70-200/2.8 from Sigma or 100-300/4.0 from Sigma. With $2K you can actually get any one of the above lens, saving your time to upgrade again. Of course these lens are very different in terms of their usage.

  12. #12
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    Be very sure of what you want to save $$$ from b&s for upgrading.

    Is 300 really enough? Why the 300 mark? Will 70-200+1.4xtc do for your shooting style?

    IMO, it this length falls just abit short for shooting bird, also for shooting the white tiger in the zoo (i am doing the head & shoulder kind of shot).

    Canon 100-400IS, Sigma50-500 or Tamron 200-500 will be just nice for nature photography.

    But this 3 lens may be too bulky for normal day to day use.

    70-200 f2.8 or f4 is suitable for day to day use (may be f2.8 is abit on the heavy side). Stack it with 1.4x will get you 280, quite close to 300 mark.

    A used sigma 70-200 f2.8+1.4xtc (becomes f4, step down to f5.6 for better image quality) just able to meet you 1k budget.

    A used canon 70-200f4+1.4xtc may be slightly out of your budget. Max aperture will become f5.6, stop down to f8 for better image quality. Also it is quite difficult to find the tripod collar for this lens (about $190new, used are hard to come by). Though the aperture is smaller by 1 stop, remember it is much lighter than the f2.8.
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashwin
    How much will a tele converter cost?? (sry for asking a que in u'r thread dude)
    Not so sure abt Canon's TC, but Last I heard Nikon's TC and Sigma's TC was ard $600+ for 1.4x or 2.0x.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •