[Durbs]

More of waffle than a rant, but something I've noticed...

I've got the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG blah blah blah lens which is nice, but admittedly noticeably soft at the long end, and not a great aperture at 300mm.

I can't seem to find a middle ground for lenses, it seems you either go for a sub-£200 lens; Canon, Sigma, Nikkon, Tamron etc or the next step up takes you into the £2000 upwards region of L-series or equivalent.
Is there a reason for this? Is it just a matter of that to make any noticable improvement over the budget lenses they have to bring in the ULD glass which costs a bomb?
I can't believe it's a market reason as there must be several budding photographers who can't afford/justify £2k on a lens but want more than a £150 lens can offer.

Also, why can't I afford the Sigma 500mm F2.8 DG lens? Who can I blame?

[lagerstarfish]

Also, why can't I afford the Sigma 500mm F2.8 DG lens? Who can I blame?

Democracy.

If we lived in a nice, world wide socialist republic (with me as The Main Man) the World Space Program would be mass producing such things for distribution to everyone who could demonstrate the ability to make good use of it.

[Durbs]

...everyone who could demonstrate the ability to make good use of it.

This would ruin my chances of fulfilling my "All the gear, no idea" photography goal.

[cofe]

are you specifically after 300mm or longer, cos there's loads at 150-300mm in the price range you're on about?

[dave]

there's always primes, for example the nikon 180mm is an uberclassic, reputably megasharp but is (was?) a bit of a sleeper in the digital age, can be had for £2-400.

[SA Chris]

For the middle ground you need a mid length lens. Telephotos are for long distance.

(did I miss the point?)

[Johnny Brown]

There are actually a few choices:

For primes, you're looking at either a 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6. Depending on brand/ age, you might get IS/VR plus HSM thrown in. Either will up the price. 400 would usually be a little smaller, and although shorter the 300mm f/4 will handle converters better (being a stop faster).

For zooms, you're looking at either an 80-400mm or one of Sigma's various xx-4/500mm options. Good step up from a 70-300mm but won't handle convertors. The other option is a 70-200mm f/2.8 plus matched 1.4 and 2X converters - a flexible outfit but bigger and likely softer than the 400mm f/5.6 you end up with. The Canon 100-400mm has VR and seems particularly popular with pros.

The other option is a big gun but manual focus - 300mm f/2.8 plus converters. You can even get a pretty modern 500mm f/4 for £1500.

All of the other options can be had for under a grand, assuming you don't object to second hand for some. My Nikon 300mm f/4 was £500 new from Honkers. No VR but very good close-focus.


Be useful to know what you want it for, what budget you've got, and what brand you're on. A compact plus a telescope could be cheaper option if you're after birds but not wanting publishable quality.

[Durbs]

Ah cool,

Well I wasn't after anything in particular as my current 70-300mm does me fine for now, especially as I've only got a 1000D.

It was more a general question as to why there don't seem to be telephotos in the 300mm area that are better then a budget options, but cheaper than the top-end prices. The only options seem to be old/second-hand models.

[Johnny Brown]

Read my post again - most of those are not old models. I was suggesting second-hand to bring the cost down.

Lenses get more expensive as they get more specialist - they sell in the thousands rather than the millions of kit zooms. Plastic mouldings can be done cheaply, but glass will always be expensive. The longer and faster the lens, the bigger the bits of glass need to be.

A 300mm f/4 might not sound like much more than a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom, but compare the two and you'll see where the money goes. Getting a new one for £500 is a bargain anyway you look at it.

[DubDom]

For value - you'd be better off with second hand primes. zooms are a compromise (unless you spend up to £250k on zeiss/angenieux/leica/cooke s4!!!!!) and your post indicates that you are frustrated by the compromise. Ebay? there are some great old manual focus lenses around and manual focus isn't all that bad!! Brassai, Cartier Bresson, Capa amongst others managed quite well!

[cofe]

This thread is ridiculous. There are lenses in that focal length between the £200 and £2k mark. Go browse camera price buster.

[Johnny Brown]

I think he just wants to complain about not being able to get the moon on a fucking stick for £100 inc p & p.

[Jim]

cheapest I found it was £132.74 not inc p&p.
collection in person from starbase alpha tho if your passing that way