Wanting to buy a nice telephoto lens

[JonZenor]

I love photographing animals in nature, but my 200mm lens is kind of limited in range. I am going to save up to buy a nice zoom lens but don't know what's the best deal I can get for the money? I'm not planning on going to look for anything dangerous like bears that would require more distance. I mostly have taken pictures of deer, birds, and other small animals, but next year I will be going to some more remote places to try and capture a greater variety of animals.

I would love to get a 600mm lens, but that price tag is way too much. Although I do not have a set budget for a lens, I will not be buying it until I save up the money to get it, so the more expensive it is the longer it will be before I get it. Ideally I would love to get the lens before summer (meaning ~$600 ±).

Specific questions I have:

• What's the smallest I should consider, a 300mm or 400mm?
• Should I focus on getting a Prime or zoom? (Primes seem much more expensive, at least on Amazon)
• I will be using a tripod more than not with the lens so should I not worry about getting an IS, or get an IS just in case I don't have the tripod setup when I see a picture I want?

Some lenses that I have looked at:

• Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 - $366
  
• Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 - $275
  
• Canon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - $536
  
• Canon AF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 $154
  
• --
  
• Tokina AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - $500
  
• --
  
• Sigma AF 150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS - $999
  
• Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 - $800
  
• Opteka (no AF) 500mm f/8 (not adjustable) - $80

[OsmosisStudios]

I wouldnt bother with half that list: the difference over your current 200 wont be great enough to warrant any kind of expenditure.

The 500mm offerings may be more appropriate. I've heard good things about both lenses

The Opteka you list is a mirror lens and not advisable. They're generally not worth the money.

[RichardTaylor]

I would go for 400mm minimum.
Here is why;



and



Zooms will give you flexibility.

I have used the Canon 75-300. One of the poorer canon lenses (slow focussing and IQ isn't great, however it is cheap)

I replaced it with the Canon 70-300 F5.5- F5.6 IS L lens. It is a good lens and it is my main long tele if I have to travel light.

I have used a Tokina 80-400 It is is good lens. However it failed after about 15000 pics and I had a lot of problems getting it repaired here in Australia (it was a grey import) . Just make sure it can be repaired in the country where you live.

I replaced it with a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L. It is a great lens and It is my most used lens as I use it for motor sport and wildlife.
It is a very versatile lens. The only downside is that it is a bit heavy to carry around all the time.

I believe in IS as I don't usually have a tripod (I use a monopod a lot)

[JonZenor]

I would love to get an L lens, for the speed and they usually have the IS built in, but that's double or triple the amount I'm looking at. It will take a long time before I will be able to afford one of those.

[jdepould]

I think Canon has a 400/5.6 on the high end of your price range, might look into that.

[Quo Fan]

My wife just bought the Sigma 150-500 lens in a Pentax mount and loves it. She hasn't had a lot of time to play with it, but from what she has done, she really likes the lens.

[Bluenoser]

I have the Canon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS USM with DO.

I've heard some people say this lens is avg, however I've been pleased with the results I've gotten.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by JonZenor

I would love to get an L lens, for the speed and they usually have the IS built in, but that's double or triple the amount I'm looking at. It will take a long time before I will be able to afford one of those.

It's best to wait and spend once than to buy now and pay several times over

[JonZenor]

Looking into some L lenses, the problem is at the $1,100 price mark I can get either a 300mm or 400mm, but neither of those have zoom. There is a 100-400mm f/4-5.6 for $1,600, but that is 3 times what I'm looking to spend... meaning no new lens for at least 1.5 years.

Is it realy worth it to get the faster L when I can get a 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens for $500. It is only slightly slower (f/4.5 vs f/4) and that is only at the wide end, which I'm not planning on using much... I see no reason to save for an L lens at this point in time. Maybe in 6 months when I go to purchase the lens there will be something to make me change my mind.

[Quo Fan]

I own the 100-400mm from Canon, and it is well worth the money I spent on it. Nearly got me single, but that is a different story. I got mine used from ebay for $1250 delivered. My initial test shots were spectacular, and when I shot surfing in California, I was convinced I made a good purchase.