Which Tele-zoom for £1k (ish) for my 60D

[warrerj]

As the title says really.

I'm after a tele-zoom to go with my existing lens (Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4) on my 60D. I'll be using it for a range of things as i haven't really got a style as yet. I'll be doing sports, wildlife, portraits and anythgin else that I have a play with.

The 3 main lenses that have caught my eye are Canon 70-200mm F4 IS L, Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS L, Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM.

Are there any others I should look at and which would be your pick?

Thanks

[MattUK]

Unless you're planning on getting a teleconverter, you'll need a longer focal range for wildlife. Have you considered the sigma 50-500?

[warrerj]

Ã* was thinking that i may get a tele converter if I found I was needing the extra length. I'd rather go for a lens thats a bit more smaller to carry around. I think the 200mm will be enough for most of the stuff I'll be doing for now especially as I'm goign to be using it on a APS-C body so 200mm gives me 320mm in 35mm terms.

I think I'd also rather get quality in that range for now and save for mor ekit if I need it later if thats makes sense.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by warrerj

�* was thinking that i may get a tele converter if I found I was needing the extra length. I'd rather go for a lens thats a bit more smaller to carry around. I think the 200mm will be enough for most of the stuff I'll be doing for now especially as I'm goign to be using it on a APS-C body so 200mm gives me 320mm in 35mm terms.

I think I'd also rather get quality in that range for now and save for mor ekit if I need it later if thats makes sense.

Hi,
Tele-convertors are great on paper, but the harsh reality is that you lose a huge amount of light through them (2 stops for a 2X) and the resolution can be disappointing unless you spend a lot of money. For big game you'll need something around the 500 - 600mm (equiv) range. If you're doing smaller stuff like squirrels and birds, 300mm (equiv) should be ample.
I, more than most, appreciate the search for what you want to do and you will almost inevitably end up trying any number of subject types until you settle on one you prefer. Unfortunately, in that search you're going to need a pretty varied array of glass which an expensive business.
Consider the hiring market. If your close to a large town you should be able to find a place that will hire good quality glass at fairly reasonable prices. That will give you the flexibility of trying out good equipment without enormous cost.

[warrerj]

I have looked at hire I may do that in the future if a I NEED a big lens in the 500mm (ish) range but I can't really see me needing that at the moment.

I'm 20min from Cardiff os have hire options. The only thing that did P me off a little when i asked in Jacobs was the hire price was quite good, 70-200mm F2.8 IS L was £24 for the weekend, but because the lens is at their London store I have to pay an extra £20 for them to get it in for me to hire . I really do object to paying the postage for them to be able to hire me a lens. If it was posted to me at home I may go for it but not if I have to pay for fuel and parkign twice to collect and return it to the shop.

[dan123]

The 70-200 2.8 is a Great lens i have one and cannot fault it, Have a look at the canon 100-400 good lens, good price, you can pick one up for just over a Grand, also you can buy a canon 400mm 5.6 for around 900-1200 quid these days, wich isnt to bad,

[rbarry]

Hi Warrerj,

I was in a similar position to you last year and eventually opted for the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS L over the 2.8 non IS version. These lenses are more or less of similar value.

I know the low light capability of the 2.8 lens is better, but I really haven't been in many situations where the ambient light during day time hours has caused me a problem. The usefulness of IS for hand held shots coupled with the advantage of less weight to carry around, makes for a great combination. I have no regrets buying this lens after 18 months use. I also bought a Tamron 18-50 f2.8 about the same time, and these two lenses are the ones I always carry with me.

With saying that, Matt's suggestion of the Sigma 50-500mm is an incredible lens for the money, and one that when means allow I may invest in, as well as Matt's other favourite, a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.

Rick.

Rick.

[MattUK]

The force is strong with you Rick.

[OldBoy]

Agree with Matt about the Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3, but you do need bright light to get the best out of it. You can also use the Sigma 1.4 or 2x converter with it, but manual focus only. I have used it with the 1.4 converter giving me 700mm F8.