Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There have been a few different versions of the Tamron 200-400 lens. Some of the versions are apparently not that good. It also weighs a fair bit and rprobably requires a monopod or tripod.

it weighs 1.23kg, and there are two versions, the 75d and the 175d the only difference being the way the grip looks.
and even with a monopod price included its still cheaper then the other alternatives, and gives greater reach.
I'm not saying this is what OP should get, just thats it's an alternative.

the newer one looks like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-AF20...mera_Lenses&hash=item3375168220#ht_500wt_1408

the older one like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Tamron...78173521?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c24e68d51

edit: oh and never even consider buying this lens as a buy it now off ebay, they charge 3-4x what it sells for in a normal auction
 
The difference in price and size/weight between Canon 70-300 and 55-250 is huge!

Depending how often you use it the reviews for the 55-250 is really good and its much lighter and easier to carry. (Especially if its not your main lens)

I just bought the 15-85 and so far is excellent! Check out reviews online.
I heard good things about 17-55 but the range is not long enough for me and not wide angle enough. Plus its heavier and more expensive.

If you are just doing walk around and travel lenses and not birds or other things that are specific to telephoto then...
Best would be:
Canon 15-85
Canon 55-250
Canon 50 f1.8 prime

This way you have an excellent lens (15-85) with a great range and even wide angle. A pretty good zoom that is light and wont break the bank. And a prime lens for low light.

If you want birds then I don't think 300 is good enough anyhow so you would need at least 400 or so.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.