I'm in the market for a new lens for my Canon 350D. I currently pack a 17-40L and the little 50. I'm obviously looking for something longer to complete a small set. I had a Sigma 70-300 for a couple years, but I never really liked it. I just sold it to my friend, and now I want a better replacement. I want something with a similar range, but variation on either end is no big deal (70-200 would be OK, so would a 50-500). My main concerns are that it takes good quality shots (not too much vignetting, purple fringing or CA), and doesn't break the bank. I don't want to spend much more than $500. It doesn't matter if it's used - in fact, used is probably better, since I'm more concerned with getting a quality piece of glass.

Anyone got any suggestions?

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofocus-17-...8618&sr=8-8
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-...8618&sr=8-6

Wrong end of the range there, champ. I'm looking for something longer than 50mm, not wider. Think short to mid telephoto. I already have my beloved 17-40L for the wider stuff.

i own the 70-200 f/4L and with good light is pretty impressive. The bokeh is a bit harsh (compared to the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and my minoltas) but still decent. Since you're already used to f/4 I don't think that will be a problem and you can buy it used for over $450.

Though I haven't used it, I've heard nothing but good things about the 85mm f/1.8, if you don't require zoom you might wanna look into that, goes for about $380 new.

If you like the price and results from
Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens


You should enjoy the price and results from
Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens


I own both and even use the 75-300 more than my 70-200.

Pick up a Sigma 70-200 2.8 on the used market. Checkout Fredmiranda.com for some really great deals!

On top of that if you really want some range get a 1.4 or 2.0 tele-converter. I loved my Sigma but my Canon 70-200 2.8IS is MUCH better...


For a mid-range lens you won't find anything better than a Tamron 28-75 2.8. Mine almost never leaves my camera body, its definitely my favorite lens. If you get a good copy they are tack sharp and the 2.8 gives you a lot more low light versatility.

I really really like my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO Macro HSM II (what an awefull name)
I almost bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 but instead opted to save some money, get the cheaper but only slightly worse Sigma and for the price difference + some $ get the 24-105 f/4 L IS too.
Some advice though, if you want the Sigma try it first. There are some with misaligned auto focus but most are dead on and awesome quite good for the money you spend.

Anything that says "Nikkor" on it.

you dummy.


stfu.



if you don't have wimpy arms like pitchit, get the 70-200L.

f/2.8 for $500? not going to happen

again, if a prime is not out of the question, there's the canon 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8 SF and both can be had new for well bellow $500 or maybe a used 200mm f/2.8L. There's also the EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-4.5 IS and it doesn't look so bad (check dpreview).