Budget Zooms

[bluesinlondon]

Think I'm about to start trying to photograph birds. Have done some web research and have come up with a shortlist that work with my (small!) budget:

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro DG
Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF-S 55-250 mm IS

Would appreciate some opinions on their relative merits for general birding photography.

Will be using them with a 20D and am a fairly competent photographer.

I know none of these have particularly good glass, but which of them is least bad?

Will be mostly shooting hand held, so are the shorter, image stabilised options better?

Should there be anything else on this list?

Thanks in advance.

[goodwin912]

The 75-300mm canon is my regular lens on my 20D and get alot of very usable results. It is quite soft wide open so I usualy stop it down. I also use it with a 2x converter although I do have to focus manualy.

The attached picture was with the converter on.

Cheers,

Rich

[AC/DC]

You'll want as much reach as possible, so one of the 300mm options will probably be best. I used to use a Sigma 135-400mm, which was a great lens for the money (you can get them for ~£200 secondhand) - it gives that bit more reach and is pretty darn sharp stopped down. Mikefromebbw also used to use one and got fab results. It is a fair bit bigger than some of the lenses you mention though.

[Nikon Kid]

The problem is when you have a 300 you want a 400 then a 500 and so on the more reach the better.

[Richard G]

Can I throw another one into the mix, because it's the one I use. Have you looked at the Tokina 80-400mm zoom?

I'm still very much learning with my set up, but I'm getting some reasonably acceptable shots with it. Have a look at my Flickr site & see what you think.

Richard

[tjsimonsen]

What about a 2nd hand Tammy 200-500? I don't know what the price would be in the UK with the current exchange rate, but recently I saw one on eBay for approximately 600 Can$, and optically it will stand out from the crowd listed above.

Thomas

[lmans66]

Don't go for the budget zooms...I did and regretted it the minute I started really enjoying the photo end of things and realized that my budget birding zoom was consistently giving me poor quality. I could have saved myself a lot of hassle by waiting up and purchasing an L series lens and getting super shots from the start....

I learned my lesson.....purchase L, purchase prime....for birding

[andrew_s]

Is recommending something that's 4 or 5 times the man's budget very helpful? Surely he's better off getting something than nothing. At least he'll be learning.

[HokkaidoStu]

I started off with a Sigma 70-300 (and that was the cheaper non APO version too).

It clearly had its limitations but was fun to use. At the long end it's soft, the AF isn't so good but that probably applies to most of the lenses on the OP's list. The 'macro' function on it is useful if you like taking shots of bugs and stuff.

I then got a Canon 70-300 IS which is a much better lens (and much more expensive too) but in hindsight this was a bit of a mistake. In many situations 300 isn't really long enough for birding (though 300 is sometimes enough for big and /or tamer birds and the lens is great for other non birding applications) and about 4 or 5 weeks after I got it I had the chance to borrow a 100-400L for a while and I eventually persuaded the lendee to sell it at a pretty good price. I gave the 70-300 IS to my wife and never use it anymore........I don't reckon it's worth investing much money in a 300mm lens for birding (unless of course it's one of the F4/F2.8 ones that take T/Cs).

My point is it's OK to start off with a Sigma 70-300, it isn't so expensive so you can start saving for the longer lens you will definitely start hankering for......

[bluesinlondon]

Thanks everyone.

I understand that an 'L' is gonna give me better shots, but the issue is one of price. I've seen Sigma 70-300mm or Canon EF 75-300mm go for less than £100 on ebay. Can I get s a straight answer, from people who've actually tried 'em, as to which is the better?

Cheers!

[CornishExile]

bluesinlondon, you have my every sympathy... it's easy to recommend not going for a budget lens, and the image quality of the L series lenses speaks for itself. But so does the price!

My entree into digital photography was with a 400D and one of the lenses you listed in your initial post, the 90-300/4.5-5.6. And once you accept that it's not a L series, it's a perfectly serviceable lens. You will get some nice photos. Not pin-sharp ones, but okay.

For a hundred quid or so, you'll have a lot of fun. And yes, you may soon lust after something with more reach or sharpness, but that's just a natural progression, and you've hardly set yourself back financially in the meantime.

Jon

[tjsimonsen]

bluesinlondon, I used a Sigma 70-300 APO in the film days and got quite decent results. Nothing like what I currently get with my 100-400L IS, but definitely useful. I got some of the best scanned in a pro lab:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/88439696
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/86782634
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/87452350

It will teach you the basics, and make you hungry for better (and longer) glass.

Thomas

[JohnZ]

I would suggest you try and contact Macswede. His wife uses the 55-250mm IS and has got some more than reasonable pics from it.
I think you may find him in the BF gallery but if not pm me and I will contact him for you.

[Macswede]

Yes, I got a Canon 55-250 mm IS for my wife when I upgraded to a 40D and gave her the 400D I'd been using previously. I thought it would be a good all-round lens but have been surprised at the quality of the bird and wildlife pictures she's been getting with this lens.

[cab1024]

Based on what I've read on the topic in these here forums, the Canon EF-S 55-250 mm IS is the sharpest, at the long end, of what you've listed. Though it's a likely unnoticeable 50mm shorter than the others, not going for the 300 may be why it's a better lens at this price point.

[JohnZ]

Thank you very much Graham.

[redeyedvideo]

I've taken some half decent flight shots through the Sigma 70-300 APO, let me know if you would like me to post some shots to see if they come up to the standards you're looking for.

[bluesinlondon]

Would be great to have a look at your shots to give me an idea of what can be done. Thanks.

[redeyedvideo]

Here you go. These were taken with a Nikon D40 though I'm sure the results would be the same with a Canon fit.

I've just bought a Canon 40D and I'm looking to upgrade when I have the money but the Sigma has served me well for the money, let me know what you think, cheers.

[redeyedvideo]

And a couple of shots on macro setting.

[Macswede]

Very impressive!

[redeyedvideo]

Very impressive!

Thanks very much, your (wife's?) Red Squirrel & Wagtail are pretty impressive too!

[bluesinlondon]

Thanks for these shots - they're great! Seems it is possible to get decent shots with less than 'L' glass then!

[Jamie D]

Might be of interest but you will have to be quick:-

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro (Canon AF) Now only £89 @ Jessops

see

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/454530/sigma-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-dg-macro-can/

[redeyedvideo]

Might be of interest but you will have to be quick:-

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro (Canon AF) Now only £89 @ Jessops



That's a great price but the APO version is the one to get IMO.

[Bob Philpott]

That's a great price but the APO version is the one to get IMO.

I am glad I read this this evening. I bought the Sigma 70-300 apo last week and used it over the weekend at a game fair near me and was very impressed. I havent used it in macro yet. Bought it because I can't afford the 120-400 at the moment but am gald to see results such as those above

[redeyedvideo]

I havent used it in macro yet.

Bob,

You may know this already but this lens has an inherent sticking macro problem when you try to switch it back to normal.

My lens isn't as bad as some I've read about but when it does stick I switch it to manual focus and zoom in and out until it frees itself. Hope this helps.

[andrew_s]

Think I'm about to start trying to photograph birds. Have done some web research and have come up with a shortlist that work with my (small!) budget:

Should there be anything else on this list?

Thanks in advance.

try this Sigma 170-500 £220 (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=148766)