Budget Zoom Lens Upgrade

[Mrtambourineman]

I have a Canon Rebel T3 body.  I'm currently using a 75-300 zoom (first generation without IS or USM).  I am frustrated at the poor quality of shots and the number of shots I miss because of the slow focusing.  I was initially thinking about upgrading to a Canon 70-300 but then I read about Tamron's SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD.  The reviews sound pretty good.  I mean I'd love to go with something better, but I think I could swing this and it sounds like a significant upgrade from what I'm using.

Anyone have experience with this lens?  Are there others I should consider? 

[The Turtle Whisperer]

Does dropping back and going 18-300 blow the budget?

I had a couple of the cheaper nikkor 70-300's that were OK. 

I've had great luck with third party lenses.  I bought a sigma 18-250 for a trip where i wanted to basically travel with one lens.  I ended up with an incredible copy of the lens and I got some great shots with it. 

Still, I don't use much of the longer end of that lens and it's the real weak spot in my lens line-up.  Every time I buy a 70-300, I sell it with in a year.  OTH, I have a few zooms under 20mm and am currently thinking about buying a sigma 8-16mm.  I mostly shoot wide angle.   

I do like trying to get a fun moon shot every now and then and the 300's on a crop frame can do pretty well with that.   

[Mrtambourineman]

I've thought about going with a travel style lens, but I do a lot of sports shots of my kids and I do some wildlife as well so I'm shooting in that 200-300 range a lot and would hate to lose that extra reach.  For me the only compensation would be if I was able to get a much faster lens - like an f2.8 through the range.  My long range thoughts are to upgrade the 18-55 lens as well or maybe to buy a Canon 24mm pancake lens for fast general shooting using the manual zoom technique.  I also have a nifty fifty in my bag which is great for portraits on my crop sensor, but not much else. 

[The Turtle Whisperer]

You can actually get more range with the 18-300's...  http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-300mm-F3-5-6-3-Macro-Cameras/dp/B00NJ9K52W/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1455977265&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+18-300mm+cannon

But, they are probably several hundred more. 

[Mrtambourineman]

You can actually get more range with the 18-300's...  http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-300mm-F3-5-6-3-Macro-Cameras/dp/B00NJ9K52W/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1455977265&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+18-300mm+cannon

But, they are probably several hundred more. 

Well, my 18-55 appears to be crapping out so I test drove (so to speak) the sigma 18-250 today.  It gets pretty good reviews, feels so much nicer than my 75-300 too.  I'm going to download the shots I took today and take a look at it.  I'm also thinking about buying the Canon 24mm f2.8 pancake lens to replace my 18-55 as local camera guy says its not worth getting the 18-55 repaired, $ are scarce at the moment and the 24mm pancake is highly regarded (and really cheap!).  Any thoughts on that idea?  I test drove the 24mm pancake today as well. 

[The Turtle Whisperer]

Well, my 18-55 appears to be crapping out so I test drove (so to speak) the sigma 18-250 today.  It gets pretty good reviews, feels so much nicer than my 75-300 too.  I'm going to download the shots I took today and take a look at it.  I'm also thinking about buying the Canon 24mm f2.8 pancake lens to replace my 18-55 as local camera guy says its not worth getting the 18-55 repaired, $ are scarce at the moment and the 24mm pancake is highly regarded (and really cheap!).  Any thoughts on that idea?  I test drove the 24mm pancake today as well. 

If you get a good copy of the Sigma 18-250, you'll be very pleased.  Cheap right now, too. 

I think the whole prime thing is really about what you like to shoot.  You can't go wrong with the 24, 35, or 50.  They are typically incredibly sharp. 

[Mrtambourineman]

If you get a good copy of the Sigma 18-250, you'll be very pleased.  Cheap right now, too. 

I think the whole prime thing is really about what you like to shoot.  You can't go wrong with the 24, 35, or 50.  They are typically incredibly sharp. 

Ya, I have the 50, but its of pretty limited use to exterior portraits, etc.  The 24 f 2.8 would allow me to use it indoors and more generally around outside where the extra speed would come in handy.  I do like my superzooms.

I downloaded the images from both lenses yesterday and they all looked pretty good, although I did have problems focusing the 18-250. Although that may have been because I was shooting wet subjects during a rainstorm.  I also was unable to test it on moving subjects.  Interestingly I did download the soccer photos I took this weekend in good light conditions with my 75-300 and was very disappointed in the number of out of focus shots and blown out images I got. 

I wish I had another $500 kicking around. 

[Mrtambourineman]

Well I drank the superzoom coolaid last weekend and picked up the Sigma 18-250.  I tested it out on Tuesday night at DD2's soccer try outs.  Haven't uploaded yet, but based on a quick LCD review the photos look sharper and the colours look better.  Now I need to save up for a big ass circular polarizer. 

[Sir Real]

I just sold (yesterday) my Sigma 18-250.  I just wasn't using it enough to justify it taking up room in my camera bag anymore.  I'm pretty sure all the pictures I posted in the "Post a picture" thread were with that lens.

[Mrtambourineman]

I just sold (yesterday) my Sigma 18-250.  I just wasn't using it enough to justify it taking up room in my camera bag anymore.  I'm pretty sure all the pictures I posted in the "Post a picture" thread were with that lens.

I thought I recalled someone mentioning using that focal range in their photography.  Mine is going to live on my camera for the most part I think.  I'm going to sell the 75-300 and I may pick up the 24mm f2.8 later because its so darn cheap for a fast sharp prime lens.  Those two and the 50mm will round out my lens collection.   

[The Turtle Whisperer]

it's a great travel lens.  If I thought I'd get as good a copy of the 18-300 as I have the 18-250, I'd buy one.   

[Sir Real]

Well I drank the superzoom coolaid last weekend and picked up the Sigma 18-250.  I tested it out on Tuesday night at DD2's soccer try outs.  Haven't uploaded yet, but based on a quick LCD review the photos look sharper and the colours look better.  Now I need to save up for a big ass circular polarizer. 

if that needs a 62mm filter,  like the Nikon one I just sold,  I have a Hoya CPL you're welcome to. It's not a top of the line filter but it worked very well. I have no other 62mm lenses so I have no use for it. It's yours if you want it, no charge.

[Mrtambourineman]

if that needs a 62mm filter,  like the Nikon one I just sold,  I have a Hoya CPL you're welcome to. It's not a top of the line filter but it worked very well. I have no other 62mm lenses so I have no use for it. It's yours if you want it, no charge.

Ya, it does.  That would be cool.  I (think) I sent you a PM with my address. 

[The Turtle Whisperer]

Well done, Sir!

[The Turtle Whisperer]

it's a great travel lens.  If I thought I'd get as good a copy of the 18-300 as I have the 18-250, I'd buy one.   

There I go thinking again... I just bought the Tamron 16-300.

I'll most likely hold on to the 18-250, though... so inexpensive for something so sharp.  If the Tamron is even close, I'll be happy. 

[Mrtambourineman]

There I go thinking again... I just bought the Tamron 16-300.

I'll most likely hold on to the 18-250, though... so inexpensive for something so sharp.  If the Tamron is even close, I'll be happy. 

That is a great range.  I hope you're happy with it.  I wanted something as sharp as possible within my budget and the Sigma seemed to be the one so I compromised on focal range.  I haven't had much opportunity to use it since I bought it.