Best Cheap Telephoto

F

filterxg

Senior Member
I'm getting a new D5200, my first DSLR, in the next few weeks and Sigma 17-70 'C' lens with it. (I'm skipping the true kit lens phase because its not too much more $ and that the extra range and speed make me a little more excited about the potential photo opportunities). Given that I'm new to photography I don't want to spend much more right now. But I do feel like I need a cheap telephoto so that I don't feel like I'm missing too many pictures. Assuming everything goes well, in a year or so I'll get a 70-200 f2.8 which is the lens I really want.

Right now leaning toward a used Tamron 70-300 nonVC, as I can get one for $150 or less and it's range nicely complements the 17-70. It also focuses close enough so that I can mess around with Macro. The other lens I'm considering is a used Nikon 55-200. For about the same price I lose some range, and the close focusing of the 70-300. But I gain VR, which seems like it would be important. From everything I can tell they are roughly the same picture quality. Build quality is about the same, with a slight edge to the Nikon (which is why I haven't strongly considered the Sigma 70-300).

Anyway I just want to get your thoughts on the lenses in this approx $150 price range . Is there another lens I should consider? Have I missed something on those two lenses that I should take into account?
 
B

bechdan

Senior Member
the 55-300 is out of the price bracket hes suggested though Mike
I tried the sigma 70-300 a short while ago, the main issue I had with it is that there is no image stabilisation / vr equivalent, and at the longer focal lengths say 150-300mm, it was very hard to get any non blurry shots without a tripod.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
bechdan said:
the 55-300 is out of the price bracket hes suggested though Mike
I tried the sigma 70-300 a short while ago, the main issue I had with it is that there is no image stabilisation / vr equivalent, and at the longer focal lengths say 150-300mm, it was very hard to get any non blurry shots without a tripod.
Click to expand...

I paid under £200 new so would have thought secondhand would be close to his budget,must admit i haven't looked.

mike
 
V

Vincent

Senior Member
Maybe a strange suggestion, but I would consider a Nikon 135mm f2,8: yes old, not a zoom, manual focus, no VR, but it was the telephoto in the past and made some great shots, it actually still does.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
filterxg said:
Anyway I just want to get your thoughts on the lenses in this approx $150 price range . Is there another lens I should consider? Have I missed something on those two lenses that I should take into account?
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think the "Best" and Cheap when it comes to telephoto or lenses in general can be combined. In most cases, you can get one or the other.

Continue to save you $$ and do it once, do it right the first time. That's just my suggestion.
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Yes, it is better to wait and get the glass that you really,really need. Compromising now is just going to leave you dissatisfied all the way around.
 
C

clarnibass

Senior Member
For a budget telephoto zoom IMO the absolute best right now is the Tamron 70-300mm VC. It's not just the same lens but with VC, it's a much better lens which is excellent. It's sharp at all focal lengths at maximum aperture and stopping down a bit it's very sharp (even at 300mm).

If this lens new is over the budget then a used Tamron 70-300mm VC.

If this is still over the budget then for APSC cameras I'd get the 18-300mm VR or the 18-200mm VR (preferably used) for the least expensive option.

Personally I wouldn't like a Sigma 70-300mm or the Tamron 70-300mm non-VC model.
 
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
I was in the same situation as you about a year ago, I got myself a Nikon 70-300D (no VR), I was disappointed with that lens.
It needed about 1/1000th second shutter speed to get half sharp photos.

I ended up saving a bit longer and got a Nikon 70-300 VR, much much better.
​All was not lost with the old lens, I put it back on ebay, and got more than I paid for it.
 
F

filterxg

Senior Member
Thanks. I may go for the 55-200VR then as it sounds like a non VR/OS telephoto is problematic. The 70-300 is tempting but if I need to increase the shutter speed to 1/1000 well under 200mm, then its probably not worth it.

Ultimately I'd rather get the shot than not, which is my rational for a cheap telephoto now rather than just waiting. Getting it used also means I'm not delaying my purchase of the 70-200 as I should be able to sell it for approximately what I bought it for.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I currently have the 70-300VR in my bag. It replaced the 70-300D ED, which I used for about 8 years. Other than VR, I found no difference in the quality of the lenses. You can pick this lens up for under $150. Both lenses work best in well-lit environments and the non-VR lens liked shutter speeds above 1/400 on DX (hand held).
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
"Best" and "cheap" can not be used in the same sentence. There's no such thing. While I'm sure the suggestions posted here were in good faith, they're not going to serve you very well. A $150 budget is not going to buy you a decent telephoto lens, unless you happen to get very lucky on eBay. The best advice is:

Save your money.

Or else what you'll end up with is a lens that you will outgrow within a week. If you aspire to a 70-200mm f/2.8, then wait for it. You're new. Don't think that you have to throw money at your new hobby to get the most out of it, because you'll be very disappointed with a cheap lens.

If that $150 is really burning a hole in your pocket, invest in a decent tripod or get Adobe Lightroom. You'll get much more use out of either of those.
 
Top