Is there a cheaper alternative to Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM

smokie2008

Hey Guys,
So I'm looking to get a nice zoom lens for my D450 and I've been searching boards all morning and most of the threads were from '08.

Anyways a lot of people really recommend this particular lens but its a little pricey for me and I'm thinking of getting a cheaper alternative... if there is one. I've tried looking at the sigma version but it seems the sigma 70-300 with OS (what they call IS) is also about $400.
The Sigma 70-300 without image stabilization is only about $100.

So my question is this, is the Sigma or even Canon 70-300mm any good without IS?? Seems in all the other threads, boardies are saying IS is a MUST with a zoom lens?

Or is there a cheaper alternative to the Canon 70-300 IS USM?

Just want it for normal everyday close up shots, birds, boats, wildlife, sons football games etc.
Thanks.

DaireQuinlan

smokie2008 wrote: »

Hey Guys,
So I'm looking to get a nice zoom lens for my D450 and I've been searching boards all morning and most of the threads were from '08.

Anyways a lot of people really recommend this particular lens but its a little pricey for me and I'm thinking of getting a cheaper alternative... if there is one. I've tried looking at the sigma version but it seems the sigma 70-300 with OS (what they call IS) is also about $400.
The Sigma 70-300 without image stabilization is only about $100.

So my question is this, is the Sigma or even Canon 70-300mm any good without IS?? Seems in all the other threads, boardies are saying IS is a MUST with a zoom lens?

Or is there a cheaper alternative to the Canon 70-300 IS USM?

Just want it for normal everyday close up shots, birds, boats, wildlife, sons football games etc.
Thanks.

I reckon people managed to take perfectly good photographs for about 100 years or so without any form of image stabilisation, so no, it's not a 'must' for a zoom lens. If it's not in your budget then disregard it as an option. Plus, while it'll doubtless help out in low light situations and slow shutter speeds, it won't do you any good taking pictures of fast moving things, you mention your sons' football games for example.

b318isp

Although this may not quite answer your question, I'd strongly recommend a secondhand 70-200f4 L lens. The quality is outstanding and it will long outlast the camera. You should be able to pick one up for a little over €400.

if you can't afford it, I'd recommend waiting until you can. Think of it as an investment.

I've never seen a cheap high zoom lens (e.g. >200mm) of any decent quality. I had a Canon 75-300mm lens that came with my first 350D. I took about 50 shots with it and then sold it, it was that bad. A friend had a Tamron lens, I think of up to 400mm focal length, which couldn't produced a decent picture unless there was a load of light and a tripod.

garden_snapper

As mentioned above if your are shooting sports or fast moving objects the IS is not of any major relevance as you will be using a shutter speed of c640/1.

That's what I have found shooting a lot of sports as a hobby.

There are others in here better placed to give a definitive answer than me :-)

smokie2008

Thanks for the Replies.

My sons football match's was just something I'd also be shooting but not the reason I'm buying a new lens.

I was at Dalkey harbour yesterday trying to shoot some birds sitting, a seal eating, some boats, just general stuff, I'm a complete novice, but I was shooting with the stock 18-55mm and I felt it was just useless and thought I really need to get a zoom lens. Only other lens is the nifty fifty.

I really will be using it for general stuff like the Zoo and normal everyday shots, just to take some nice close up shots.

City-Exile

To answer your question, yes, there are cheaper alternatives.
This Sigma lens is an example.

IS is only really useful if you'll be using relatively slow shutter speeds (you might get camera shake at 1/150th in a 300mm lens?). If you plan to capture football or any other sport where you must 'freeze' the action, then you'll be using a shutter speed that's too fast to allow camera shake to begin with.

The best thing you can do is work out what your most common subject will be, and what you estimate your average shutter speed will be. Keep in mind you'll be stuck at f/5.6 when at 300mm on the lens.

smokie2008

City-Exile wrote: »

To answer your question, yes, there are cheaper alternatives.
This Sigma lens is an example.

That looks pretty cool alright and looks very reasonably priced. Has anyone got any example shots from this lens?

I'd be very grateful, thanks in advance.

hbr

smokie2008 wrote: »

That looks pretty cool alright and looks very reasonably priced. Has anyone got any example shots from this lens?

I'd be very grateful, thanks in advance.

http://pix.ie/corkpix/1630411
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1645034
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1638189
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1638188

Canon 500D with Sigma 70-300mm APO. The Sigma is great
bang for your buck. I wouldn't pay full price for a new one, but
used ones go for around €100 or sometimes a little more.
They work well in good light. Not so well for fast action in
low light and almost useless indoors.

The other choice that comes to mind is the Canon 55-250mm IS. It has
similar optical and build quality to the 18-55mm IS kit lens.

smokie2008

Thanks for those examples, I've just ordered THIS from Amazon, got it for €160 brand new so pretty cheap.

Is this lens any good for portrait shots? I have the 50mm f1.8 for that but just wondering what its like for shooting portraits?

Thanks again

hbr

smokie2008 wrote: »

Thanks for those examples, I've just ordered THIS from Amazon, got it for €160 brand new so pretty cheap.

That's the one I have.

Is this lens any good for portrait shots? I have the 50mm f1.8 for that but just wondering what its like for shooting portraits?

Thanks again

It is a reasonably good portrait lens. The 50mm f/1.8 will be much better in
low light.

the_monkey

A friend of mine got a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 for about $250 on ebay.
Now I know nothing about the lens but for this price something has to be amiss with it ?

I think its a 400mm Tokina RMC ?? anyway not sure if it's decent , haven't seen any shots with it yet.

tommyh1977

Hi i have the 55-250mm IS and although it is a cheap build lens, you get a good bang for your buck!!

smokie2008

Is this a better lens than I just bought??
Seems a big Cheap for a Canon if its the same as the Sigma?