canon 1000d

[freiston]

Shortly after buying my DSLR (Canon 350D), I bought the Tamron 70-300mm. It's not the best lens in the world, but without it, due to funds, I would have been stuck with only the 18-55mm kit lens for two or three years.

I got much pleasure from it in that time. I never took many bird photos with it - struggled to get close enough, but I did get quite a few aircraft (bigger and easier to capture ). The chaffinch in my avatar was taken with the Tamron. At the other end, I found it gave reasonable results at macro.

It's a little bit soft - but I didn't really notice how much until I got my Sigma 150-500.

Look at my flickr page for examples - all aircraft were taken with the Tamron. Here's a small sample:



Edit: The auto-focus can sometimes be annoying - loud and 'hunting' backwards and forwards for a focus.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by Firefox

for now about £200

Lots of good advice above, but in your current budget you are going to be disappointed with results ............... lots of us on WAB have been along this road and fallen at the same fence.

Sorry to be a cold flannel.

Watching eBay may get you a good bargain though.

Have a look through the Gallery and check the Exifs - there won't be many birds with less than 400mm zoom.

[squishy]

I agree with Hobjob. You're either going to have to accept less zoom and ok-ish IQ, or save for longer.


Depends what you want.

If you want to take shots to record the birds you see, then image quality isn't particularly important past a point. But if you want to take shots with more 'pretty picture' value, it's going to cost more.

For within or not much over your budget, you could get a macro lens with very high image quality, or a zoom with less quality.

But doing both without expanding the budget might be hard.

Have a look for an old canon EF 70-210mm f/4 on a well known auction site. It's an old superzoom model, but the IQ is on par with today's models, plus it's got a constant aperture. Plus it's a lot cheaper. But you do lose 90mm off a 70-300.

[Firefox]

Originally Posted by squishy

I agree with Hobjob. You're either going to have to accept less zoom and ok-ish IQ, or save for longer.


Depends what you want.

If you want to take shots to record the birds you see, then image quality isn't particularly important past a point. But if you want to take shots with more 'pretty picture' value, it's going to cost more.

For within or not much over your budget, you could get a macro lens with very high image quality, or a zoom with less quality.

But doing both without expanding the budget might be hard.

Have a look for an old canon EF 70-210mm f/4 on a well known auction site. It's an old superzoom model, but the IQ is on par with today's models, plus it's got a constant aperture. Plus it's a lot cheaper. But you do lose 90mm off a 70-300.

i will have a look for the second hand canon canon EF 70-210mm f/4, but if not i will prob get a macro so i dont get bored while saving money. lol

btw what macro do you recomend for in my budget, you said ''For within or not much over your budget, you could get a macro lens with very high image quality, or a zoom with less quality.''

anyway thanks everyone for your advice

[squishy]

I was thinking something like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8

[Geoff F]

A macro lens around the 90/100 mm range will a bit of a push if you want to photograph 10 mm bugs and print at 10 x 8 ins. but it will be sufficient for flowers and larger insects like butterflies or dragonflies.

Plus, it will make a useful general purpose lens albeit at a fixed length. But in many cases you could still use the old fashioned zoom - 2 feet! Just keep walking around until the scene fits the lens.

That size is also often used by portrait photographers who like to leave a bit of space between them and their subjects.