Budget Zoom Lens?

[Willie Xia]

So I recently refunded my Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens because I felt like I could have gotten a better buy, and the zoom wasn't enough for me. Is there another zoom lens I can try that gives more zoom and hits under the 300-400 dollar price tag? I prefer it to have Image Stabilization aswell.

[YedZed]

I have a Tamron 18-270, but TBH it has slow/inconsistent focus. 

P.S. I'm selling it...

[TurtleTrain]

Hey,

I have got a Cannon lens which has image stabilization and goes 35-250 which I got for £350, it is great, it is large however works very well.

 

Hope this helps,

TT

[cc143]

Glass that covers a very large zoom range, especially from as wide as 18 to as tight as 270 or 200 or 300mm, which is mostly what ultrazoom lenses come in tend to offer very bad image quality, build quality, focus and much more. 

 

The 18-135mm is actually quite good for a hyperzoom lens, but I wouldn't go for such a lens again, ever (I briefly owned a sigma 18-200,,). My advise is get a 17-50mm f/2.8 from tamron or sigma and then something like a 70-300mm rather than a single lens covering that range. 

[Willie Xia]

13 hours ago, cc143 said:

Glass that covers a very large zoom range, especially from as wide as 18 to as tight as 270 or 200 or 300mm, which is mostly what ultrazoom lenses come in tend to offer very bad image quality, build quality, focus and much more. 

 

The 18-135mm is actually quite good for a hyperzoom lens, but I wouldn't go for such a lens again, ever (I briefly owned a sigma 18-200,,). My advise is get a 17-50mm f/2.8 from tamron or sigma and then something like a 70-300mm rather than a single lens covering that range. 

Are you sure I should get the 70-300mm? If so which kind? An amazon link would help. 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, Willie Xia said:

Are you sure I should get the 70-300mm? If so which kind? An amazon link would help. 

The 70-300mm isn't that good a lens when it comes to image quality etc. (although its much better than any superzoom) That is reflected in its price. If you want a truly good telephoto lens, I guess your best bet is something like a 70-200mm f/2.8. 

 

Since you said you used an 18-135mm, I assume you are on a crop sensor, What zoom range do you need? What sort of application do you need it for? 300mm might be too short, or you may be better off with something shorter, that depends upon what you use your camera for.

[Willie Xia]

7 hours ago, cc143 said:

The 70-300mm isn't that good a lens when it comes to image quality etc. (although its much better than any superzoom) That is reflected in its price. If you want a truly good telephoto lens, I guess your best bet is something like a 70-200mm f/2.8. 

 

Since you said you used an 18-135mm, I assume you are on a crop sensor, What zoom range do you need? What sort of application do you need it for? 300mm might be too short, or you may be better off with something shorter, that depends upon what you use your camera for.

Yes, I use a crop sensor. Well I don't need a huge amount of zoom but the 135 was definitely not enough. One time the sky was super red and I wanted to take a picture of the moon but the 135 couldn't handle the distance. But that's just one scenario. I really just want a good zoom range where I can relatively far objects (Maybe if I were on a rooftop), and maybe do nice videography with. 

[cc143]

11 minutes ago, Willie Xia said:

Yes, I use a crop sensor. Well I don't need a huge amount of zoom but the 135 was definitely not enough. One time the sky was super red and I wanted to take a picture of the moon but the 135 couldn't handle the distance. But that's just one scenario. I really just want a good zoom range where I can relatively far objects (Maybe if I were on a rooftop), and maybe do nice videography with. 

To get a good picture of the moon, according to google you need around 300mm at minimum, taking your cameras crop factor into account, that means about 200mm. But, if 135mm felt too wide then you are probably going to need something longer. 

 

the standard kit tele lens for crop cameras is the 55-250mm IS STM https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-is-stm

 

The STM motor will also be quiet enough for video use.

 

The newer version of the 70-300mm IS that just come out is this and its supposed to have quite the AF motor on it: 

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm

 

To be honest however, what I would do if I wanted a cheap telephoto lens would be go for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. 

 

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm

 

it can be found used for well under #+https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usmhttps://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm

 

It can be found used for well under $700, it is better built than the others, unlike the 55-250 can be used of FF cameras as well and the image quality is much better than the others. However, it does have a smaller zoom range which might be an issue and should be bulkier than the others as well. 

 

Keep in mind that for several uses and applications, which I'm sure you are imagining you want to use a camera for, 200mm is not tight enough, hell, I would bet you could find applications 400mm arent tight enough for. But there is really very few lenses that offer those focal lengths on a budget, none I know of that are worth recommending. 

[Willie Xia]

10 minutes ago, cc143 said:

The newer version of the 70-300mm IS that just come out is this and its supposed to have quite the AF motor on it: 

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm

 

To be honest however, what I would do if I wanted a cheap telephoto lens would be go for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. 

Thanks for your recommendations! I don't feel it's worth getting the L lens especially since it's capped at 200mm, but the 70-300mm seems alright. However I can get the Mark 1 70-300mm for $210 instead of $420 on the Mark 2. Is it really worth spending double for the Mark 2?