300mm lens suggestions

I need a 300mm (probably zoom) lens for my Canon 20D. I will use it for wild life photography as well as landscapes. My budget is $500 or less. I am not afraid to spend less!

An ideal would be a wide to tele zoom with excellent image quailty but I fear these lenses have too much IQ compromise associated with them.

I've been reading about the Sigma and Tamron 28 - 300mm lenses -- anyone have experience with these?

Thanks for any advice or information you can give.

Frank
P.S. I recently sold my Canon 100-400mm L lens. It was too big and bulky and was taking up too much of my camera budget given that I did not get a great deal of use out of it. Also did not like the push pull mechanisim -- it pulled in lots of dust and was not the easiest to use.

You will not be happy with the results from a compact 10X zoom compared to your previous lens - it will be optically and mechanically slower, optically and mechanically inferior, and if you were unhappy with the build quaility of the 100-400 L, you will never find happiness with any of the offerings in the price range and zoom range you are looking at. While you can do some wildlife photography with a lens whose max aperture at max zoom is 5.6, these lenses tend to be sharper stopped down to F8 and at shorter focal lengths. The 100-400 even outperforms the $2100+ Canon 28-300 lens when both are used at 300mm. You may want to consider expanding your budget a bit and scale back your focal length expectations and consider a Sigma 100-300 F4 lens, which comes pretty close to priime lens performance, has reasonable build quality, handles nicely, works with Canon 1.4X extenders and comes in under $1000. This would actually deliver slightly better imaqe quality than your 100-400, can be used with excellent results even wide open, and is no bigger than the Canon 300 F4 prime while almost matching it in optical peformance. If you go that route, make sure you make allowances for Sigma to receive the lens for calibration. Sigma's factories have a reputation for poor QC, while Sigma's repair facility in Ronkonkoma NY has an excellent reputation for making things right in a timely fashion. Many have resorted to beating up vendors by repeatedly returning product until they get a good copy. It is far less frustrating, cheaper and faster to deal with Sigma directly. I purchased a lens, took some pictures, was unhappy with the results, sent it to Sigma and had it back - all within 10 days of purchase. The pics taken with the lens upon return were substantially better than what I took before I sent it in.

Thanks Gene.

I didn't dislike the build quality of the 100-400 Canon. Its a good lens but not worth the $$ to me.

The lens you recommend seems good as well but is 2x my budget! $1099 at B&H.

I'm also considering the new Tamron 18-250mm lens -- but I guess you would say the same thing about it.

I may end up saving so that I can afford a decent 300mm -- but the utility of these 'super zooms' is attractive. So...maybe I'll try one and see.

Is there a Canon zoom (> $500) that you can recommend?

Frank

I've been very pleased with the SIGMA 100-300 f/4 so far - I don't think you'd be disappointed.

Frank, you mention the Tamron 18-250 DiII. This thing seems to be suprisingly decent optically considering its zoom range, according to reviews. If you end up getting it, be sure to let us know what you think. Might make for a nice travel zoom.

Basil

Hi Basil,

I just read the Bob Atkins review and I agree it seems to have passed at least Mr. Atkins test.

In fact it appears to be at least as good as my main lens a Canon EPS 17-85 at those focal lengths. I could sell the 17-85 and use this 18-250 as my main lens giving me lots of flexibility. I might then save for a much better prime lens if I feel the need for it.

I'll let you know what happens.

And Jay -- thanks for that. I'll consider that lens as well (tho I think its prety heavy)

Frank

It's not THAT heavy . . .

~ 3 lbs -- the same as my dearly departed 100-400mm L Canon....

But can be had for less $$ and is an F4... so -- Its a maybe.

Thx,
Frank

I've seen the Canon 300mm f4 non-IS sell for $600 on Ebay.

Frank,

The Tamron 18-250 in a Nikon mount is actually pretty decent, with reservations. Image quality is very good to excellent even wide open, with the excellent being at the shorter focal lengths (<135mm). Over 135 there are edge/corner sharpness issues that improve considerably by stopping down to F8. CA is visible in high contrast subjects, with more CA at longer focal lengths. There is a bit of darkening in the corners, but not so much that PS cannot handle. It is a lens, like your 100-400 that extends and contracts when zooming, and there is no dust sealing, so the lens will suck in the dirt as you zoom. No getting around that unless you get an L lens, which at least has some dust sealing. It is an all-plastic lens so its durability is questionable, and since there is no focusing motor in the lens you are dependent on the AF motor in the camera body. If you are ok with all of this, then it could constitute a decent compromise. At least the IQ will be on a par with what you are accustomed to.

Thanks Gene -- you have great insight into and knowledge of these matters.

In fact I now realize that I am going about this all wrong! Much of my 'serious' photography is landscape oriented. I publish a calendar of conservation land that is mostly landscapes with some wildlife. But the landscapes are the most important feature. So instead of obsessing over the tele lens I should be think about upgrading my wide angle!

So that will be my next step -- do you have a recommendation for use with a 20D? How about a 17-40 Canon? Or what else would you recommend? I have set my budget at $600 with some flexibility.

Thx,
Frank