Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Value for money tele lens

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Value for money tele lens

    Hey.
    I know this has probably been covered a lot, but the conclusion is always to go for the 100-400L.
    I would love to, but funds don't really stretch that far yet.
    I was wondering if anyone can offer something else which is good value for money.
    I have a 350d, and currently use a 75-300 f/4-5.6 canon lens.

    I was thinking of the bigma, or 170-500 or 135-400 or maybe jus the canon 70-200 f/4L

    Can anyone please shed some light for me?
    Thanks
    Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes


  • #2
    what are your funds, that would help limit us.
    I'm a big fan of the Bigma, funds was the reason I went that route. You can't beat the 50-500 for $900.00 IMO.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Top_Gun
      what are your funds, that would help limit us.
      I'm a big fan of the Bigma, funds was the reason I went that route. You can't beat the 50-500 for $900.00 IMO.
      Take it from another Bigma user, that lens can't be beat.

      Except when a tiny screw in the zoom lock switch works itself loose and jams up the lens (which is being fixed under warranty) but other than that, it's one awesome value.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I'm guessing aroung 750, so roughly $1000 given ou equipment coss a lot more here.

        I'm gonna go to my local store today to see if I can try the bigma on for size
        Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes

        Comment


        • #5
          What about the Sigma 80-400? Not that I have any experiences, but I heard good feedback already.
          My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

          Comment


          • #6
            You really need/want 400 ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, I currently have 75-300, and find that I'm using the lens above 200 most of the time.
              This would seem to count out the canon 70-200, but L-glass !!!!!!

              80-400 sounds good, but i think it is still a bit too expensive.
              I mean, if I say, I'll spend another 80 on the 80-400, then I might as well spend another 100 ontop of that for the 100-400. . . .
              Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes

              Comment


              • #8
                I was thinking about the Sigma 100-300 4.0 HSM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have a Sigma 170 - 500 which I am pleased with but, and I believe this goes for the Bigma as well, they both need good light.

                  I paid 280 for a mint 170-500 on Ebay. Go here

                  http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?pho...sigmalens.html

                  where you'll find the Bigma for 750 and the 170-500 for 528.
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RE: sigma 100-300 f/4, it costs the same as the bigma - is it worth the smaller focal length?
                    7dayshop is also pretty cheap for lenses.
                    I wanna get it from jessops though so I can test it out, and they pricematch amazon -pretty good
                    Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Imho the 100-300 beats the 50-500 clealry in IQ, but obviously it has a much smaller zoom range.

                      The 100-300 Sigma is imho one of the best Sigma lenses available.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X