Disappointed with zoom telephoto lens choices

It was easy to replace the small kit lens. I ended up with the 14-54mm and dollar for dollar would have been just as happy with the 12-60mm. But the longer lens... There are many choices, however each one I know could leave my wanting more I feel:

70-300mm Olympus. This is a rebadged Sigma, which is fine, but don't charge $380 when other systems can get it for $140. In addition the f/4 is no better than the kit lens.

50-500mm Sigma. Again only f/4 and reviews say AF isn't good without ideal lighting. But I realize at $1000 you can't expect much more.

50-200mm Olympus. f/2.8 and $1150 is OK. But this is not much more reach than the 150mm kit lens.

70-200mm Sigma. Probably the best bet for me...f/2.8 and $750 is a little better than above, but again, not much more reach than what I'll be replacing.

If I had my way I would like something like that 70-300mm with f/2.8 aperture at less than $1000. Am I alone here thinking the telephoto zoom lens choices are kind of disappointing?

you missed the 90-2500 2.8 but thats over $5000

also you're looking at Fstops of the lowest focal length, you're going to be disappointed to find out that zoomed all the way in, the lenses have higher Fstops such as 5.6 for the 70-300mm

not to mention that you're going to be hard pressed to find alot of better options in other camera systems. 5.6 is the lowest Fstop there is for zoom lenses that are over 250mm and wont cost you an arm and a leg.
yes it kinda sucks that we have to pay so much for 70-300mm but dont expect a better Fstop.

and stop complaining about the F number on a telezoom. you're not going to be using the lens inside so you will have plenty of light.

yup I have to agree with you on that in some respect. The choices are limited. But you also missed the Sigma 50 - 500 F5.6 - 6.3.

And Atomic2 is right in one respect for sure, you should never be shooting indoors with anything over 100 mm anyway. I have shot with a 300mm f2.8 on a Canon once and after about 10 minutes I felt like I needed a crane to hold it up. Until the digital lenses catch up in this area we're just going to have to wait.

I should add that as an amateur, $1000 is near the max I feel like spending. Apologies for going shorthand omitting the zoomed-in f stops as well. Generally though, the 1st number is a good enough indication of the lens' overall speed in the lens category I'm talking about.

I think the oly line of long zooms is fairly complete, and they are certainly among the cheapest of any camera system. It is difficult to shoot long telephoto at less than about f/5 anyway, due to the limited DoF. Sigma also offers a 100-400, to complete your list, although I have heard mixed reviews of it.


The only focal length I'd like to see is a mid to long telephoto in the mid-grade line, like a 250-400 to take over where the 50-200 leaves off. However, at that focal length I'd be seriously considering the 300 f/2,8 and a teleconverter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metallicblack

If I had my way I would like something like that 70-300mm with f/2.8 aperture at less than $1000.

---

Wow I would buy that in a second, but honestly I think you have unrealistic expectations there. It's like saying I'm disappointed with the Olympus E-system because there is no E-3 equivalent for $300.

Lenses, especially telephotos, get exponentially more expensive as the max aperture increases. The kind of optical heavy lifting required for a 70-300 f2.8 requires big, heavy, expensive glass if you want to do it right.

The budget 70-300mm f4-5.6 is tiny in telephoto terms, gives you 600mm EFL, and for $400, that's really impressive. You go up to 90-250mm, drop the aperture to 2.8, and suddenly you have an 8 lb lens that's $6,000. This is pretty much how it works if you want a good lens. I know you can find cheaper telephotos with equivalent numbers, but I also know the performance will be poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albot976

The budget 70-300mm f4-5.6 is tiny in telephoto terms, gives you 600mm EFL, and for $400, that's really impressive.

---

I see your point, but it's not that impressive to me when considering the Sigma-badged one is $140 for other systems like Canon. I was just wishing Sigma could come up with one with better aperture and charge 7 or 8X that price and I'd be happy. I know I'm an amateur and I was spoiled by the upgrade I got from the small kit lens to the 14-54mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metallicblack

... There are many choices, however each one I know could leave my wanting more I feel:

70-300mm Olympus. This is a rebadged Sigma, which is fine, but don't charge $380 when other systems can get it for $140. In addition the f/4 is no better than the kit lens.

...

If I had my way I would like something like that 70-300mm with f/2.8 aperture at less than $1000. Am I alone here thinking the telephoto zoom lens choices are kind of disappointing?

---

If the 70-300mm is indeed a Sigma in Olympus clothing (I don't know either systems), the reasons for the higher price is: 1) Olympus is making a profit as is Sigma, and 2) there are no other "true Olympus" 70-300mm alternatives for you to turn to

As for a 70-300mm at f/2.8, I don't think anyone makes such an animal. Considering that a 300mm f/2.8 prime goes for over $4k, a zoom like that, if they made it, wouldn't be that far off price-wise.

I think what you're voicing is what everyone goes through in the begining - the wish to find that One Lens that does EVERYTHING well. It doesn't exist :)

Olympus makes the glass elements for the 70-300 and Sigma assembles it.

im also going though the same at the moment, i want a good zoom lens for my e-510, thinking the quality of the 50-200 would be good, but doesnt give me much more reach over the kit lens so im thinking the 70-300 might be a better choice but not sure if the quality will be there and then there is the bulky sigma 50-500mm to consider but again not sure about the quality, but the reviews ive read have been good. im thinking for now i might get the 70-300 and see how i go, but i know when i get it i will be thinking i should have held out to save for the sigma for the further reach, or the qualty of the 50-200 oly.

I've talked to a lot of happy people with the 50-200 and the 1.4x tc...