The Best Cheaper Alternatives for Expensive Camera Lenses

[@RobSambles]

Obviously I've focused on Canon lenses here but there are equivalent lenses Nikon and some for Sony etc too.

[@PhotoSportiv]

that looks to me like the non OS version of the Sigma 120-300, i presume youve used it? just seen one for 600€. maybe itll be a good investment untill I can afford the Sport version :)

[@RobSambles]

@@PhotoSportiv Yeah I've used it - the sport one is better no doubt but this works well as a stop gap

[@PhotoSportiv]

@@RobSambles cheers Rob for the answer. the results on it okay? Im presuming as itll be on a monopod the non OS with decent s/s wont be a problem.

[@warpspeed9877]

Good luck finding the 2nd (first OS) version of the 120-300mm for 500 pounds! It's hard finding one of the 1st version that works for that kind of money. Usually the 2nd version is around 1000 pounds. And the third (we are talking used ok?) will easily be more than 1600 pounds.

[@colinbradbury2334]

, Rob, just watched this. Really excellent perspective. Secondhand older versions are definitely the way to go. I am a Nikon guy and shoot sport for local and regional papers. I have a 2004-ish 300 f2.8 that cost me about £1,350 and an older version 70-200 f2.8 that was about £1,200. My ‘wide’ zoom is a 24-120 f4 that came with my D750. Together with a 1.4x converter and a 20mm f2.8 (both of which I have had for about 25 years) that covers everything I need for football, cycling, cricket and rugby which are my main sports. At the moment it’s mainly cricket and the 300 plus 1.4 converter gives me a 420 f4 which is more than enough given that cricket is only played in good weather. Similar story with camera bodies. You can pick up a D700 and battery pack (giving 8fps) for less than £500. I’m contemplating adding a used D500 which are now dipping below £1,000 used and that will give me very good quality 450mm f2.8 with the crop. I have full back page pics and double page spreads in the papers most weeks and the quality of the images is more than good enough. Given the pressure on costs in the sports photography market, the cost of gear is a critical factor for the working photographer. I’m not sponsored or being given gear to go and shoot the Olympics so I can’t drop 20 grand on gear. In the REAL world of local/regional media, the older gear is more than adequate for the job. Keep up the good work!

[@Jimmer93]

I know this video is 3 years old now, but I've been using a Canon 70-200 Mk.1 for the last 3 years. It's a good lens, even with my crappy 100D! Only problem is, it took a knock and now won't focus at all at wide apature and doesn't seem I can get it repaired. Downside to older lenses. I am looking at getting the OG Sigma 120-300 as a replacement.

[@rjpadbatan669]

May I also add the Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

[@Feniche17]

Good stuff, glad I stumbled upon this channel

[@RobSambles]

Thank you

[@felixifloresrodriquez3306]

Lovr the way to make your video straight to the point

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Thank you for the video. Little correction. EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is the last iteration of this super telephoto. There was no Mark III. I'm a hobbyist wildlife photographer and bought this lens four years ago brand new. Most of the time use it with EF 2x III on 1DIV. Also own EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. Damages were $ 6,200/- and $ 1,300/- respectively. Must admit the cheaper one is not a poorer performer by any means. Do not use third party glass but, that's me. Thanks again.

[@konstantinospappas6023]

OOO thank you. I just mentioned that, because I have the LII version and I was wondering whether is possible to use it with very good results on my coming Z8 camera. Until now I was shooting with my 5DIV.

[@quazisanjeed6395]

@@konstantinospappas6023 perhaps no. The lens is Canon brand but, Z8 is a Nikon MILC. U should have bought a Canon mirrorless camera to pair with that lens seamlessly via an adapter.

[@konstantinospappas6023]

Thank you for prompt reply

[@makatron]

Agreed, had the first version of the 120-300 and was great bang for buck. Yeah it wasn't for handheld with low shutter due to lack of OS but throw a monopod and you're golden.

[@stronginhim2008]

Thanks very much for your advice. I’m still using Sony A-mount camera.

[@dbenedict357]

13:52 EF-S works on mirrorless with the adapter too!

[@alexhagen5105]

How is the original canon 24-70mm 2.8 mark I in 2022?

[@gregstone1306]

Thank you for your perspectives. I'm a hobbyist motorsports photographer and your presentation was pointed at me. Maybe i can have a 300mm lens. Helpful content.

[@RobSambles]

Thanks Greg

[@paultrunfull3324]

Hi Rob, how about the Canon ' Magic Drainpipe ' 80-200 F2.8 I've used it for years Motor Sport/Football/Skateboarding/Biking and much more. For me it gives better color rendition than the newer lens. Have seen them from £250.00.

[@PhotoTrekr]

When I got back into photography after being away for many years, I had to build my system from scratch. The magic drainpipe was my choice for a medium telephoto. While not as good as the best zooms today, I was very pleased with the photos. I occasionally used it with a Kenko teleconverter with good results. But, I would imagine that they are hard to find these days.

[@alexblaze8878]

I have the Nikon version of the 80-200 2.8 and it’s one of Nikon’s best lenses!

[@konstantinospappas6023]

Thank you for the nice video. But, I think there is NOT an L III of this lens. I have the L II version which I think You are talking about......... I Pair this lens with my 5DIV and I am wondering whether I can also pair it with good results with my coming Nikon Z8. Thank you again

[@riotrob]

Cheap(er) options for Sony shooters: the Canon-mount Sigma 120-300 2.8 (sports, with and without the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter), the Canon 200 2.8 (i & ii), and the Canon 400 2.8 (i, ii, and iii) all work well with the Sigma adapter. The Canon 300 2.8 (i & ii) has shown to be slower to focus.

[@RobSambles]

I really rate those sigma lenses. Not tried the Sony version though

[@steunited1969]

Is there a 300mm 2.8 MK 3 lens out yet because i can't find it listed anywhere.

[@RobSambles]

No not yet

[@steunited1969]

@@RobSambles I wish they would soon as hopefully the 2nd hand price on the MK 2 will come down by 3 or 4 hundred quid.

[@RobSambles]

@@steunited1969 Yeah it should reduce it I reckon

[@prestonmoore9070]

Do these lens work with the R5

[@RobSambles]

I don't know for sure I'm afraid. Most work with the R6 though

[@njrivetelite]

For long lenses, considering that ISO performance has improved on bodies. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS III.. if I want longer I'd buy a teleconverter (I know it will change my actual fstop level no longer making it a 2.8) Or a Sigma/Tamron 150-600 which also Is not 2.8.. but they are sharp & perform well.. I have 3 Tamron lenses.. I have the 15-30 2.8 G2 & 24-70mm 2.8 G2 and 90mm 2.8 Macro G2.. all 3 perform suburbly.. I had the first Tamron 24-70 2.8 vc and it was awesome till I broke it and replaced it with the G2 model which is also phenomenal. For wide EFS Tokina makes an 11-16 2.8 & 11-20 2.8 lens for crop sensor cameras that are pretty awesome

[@gameandbros5462]

Any recommendations for sony A mount?

[@ceesnabuursfauna2115]

I wonder how the Sigma 120-300 performs on a R6?

[@RobSambles]

I've not tested it but I'm sure it will work fine

[@mhsvz6735]

My travel setup: (1) Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L and (2) Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM. Gives me 11-300mm focal length coverage, but not good for sports. And relatively expensive.

[@RobSambles]

Lovely setup though

[@marklauri9731]

Informative video thanks and love the Chelsea photos behind you Carefree

[@Adrian-ww2jj]

Tokina 24-70mm f2.8. Has no IS, but great optic review from Dxo. I bought it new for 570€. It is build like a tank, but also heavy like it 😉.

[@batupaintball]

From my experience using my gear (not a lot like you offcourse), I think the best for value is Canon lens 55-250mm IS STM. Check the price, then rent or borrow from your friend to try it. But I dont know how though this lens, because I just use it

[@betohs]

What do you think about the Tokina 11-16 2.8?? , Aim going ti Buy a Lens AND after looking ...ihave to decide canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 ...

[@RobSambles]

I've heard its good but I've not used it. I believe it's 2.8 which is a benefit too.

[@betohs]

@@RobSambles thanks for your Time...i like both...But the 2.8 Is a plus...

[@RobSambles]

@@betohs 💯

[@Arhpeco]

Canon is really good (using mine in difficult conditions many years ) but the main advantage is best barrel distortion in class, and the good zoom range. It is by no means weather sealed but it does not extend, so it does not suck in dust. The millimeters at the wide angle mean a lot. Ive tested the tokina, it has 2.8 constant., is a bit heavier sturdier and probaby sharper. Af is better in Canon but that does not mater in wide angle. If possible test them in store. There is also tokina 11-20 f2.8 that woud probably be my choice.

[@cstartworks]

Great stuff rob, all really great ideas.

[@Corman911]

I am one of those who loves a lens conversation. Currently rebuilding my lens set due to switching to the Nikon Z6. Not much out there yet for the new lens mount type. Great video.

[@RobSambles]

Thanks Cory. I've heard great things about that Z6. I'm sure the lenses available for it will grow quickly.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

There are lots of good f-mount lenses for cheap, and with IBIS you don't even have to worry about vr.

[@Corman911]

@@WOLFTICKVIDEOS thank you for the info

[@MultiScannerman]

Hi Rob I have been watching your videos for a few years and have only just subscribed to it. What I would like to know is which lenses should I use for photographing amateur rugby games, I can photograph from the dead ball line and sometimes from the try line. I have 2 bodies, a Canon 1dx and a 7d mk 2. Enjoy your videos!

[@RobSambles]

Can't believe you didn't subscribe earlier John! 🤣 For Rugby I personally use one longer lens like a 300mm or 400mm and then something a little wider like 70-200mm or even a 24-70.

[@MultiScannerman]

@@RobSambles Thanks Rob appreciated.

[@victormeldroo]

i use the sigma 120-300 f2.8 ex dg os hsm with the sigma 1.4 & 2x converters, awsome sharp lense when calibrated to my 1dmk3 and 7d, the converters are also stackable unlike the canon converters, canon ef 70-200 f4, tokina 11-16 f2.8, canon ef 17-85 efs is.

[@ald4989]

Where exactly do you get the Sigma for under 500?

[@RobSambles]

Ebay is best normally

[@joecool684]

The only lens on this list that could be a bit more recommended would be the Canon 70-200 F/4 L IS. These lenses are a full stop down from the f/2.8's, but the image quality and the in body IS is just something to consider, especially for the price of an original f/2.8 from the late 90's.

[@paddyray6156]

Another great video Rob.

[@RobSambles]

Thanks mate

[@jrd33]

Excellent advice, however I think you have to consider whether you are using a crop body when choosing a set of lenses. For example a 24-70 is fine on full frame but not a great choice on a crop body as it just doesn't go wide enough (38mm equivalent on Canon), meaning you need an additional lens for wide angle shots. So for a crop camera setup a better choice would be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 or equivalent (I use the Canon EF-S 15-85mm). You certainly can cover the same range with a 10-22 and a 24-70 but that's quite awkward to use in practice as you will often want to go wider than the 24 or longer than the 22, forcing you to switch lenses at an inconvenient moment.

[@RobSambles]

Yes definitely agree

[@briansmith5843]

Nice work Rob. Great advice. Wish I had found you earlier.

[@RobSambles]

Thanks Brian - I'm glad you found me now!

[@Mathieu_Matheow_Benoit]

Id say the efs 10-18mm stm is superior...a bit darker than the 10-22mm but it is sharper

[@carspottin_kj]

Thanks to the RF and EF adapters, the lenses have gone back up just a bit

[@pascalkesselmark7529]

Hi Rob, thanks for the video. For the 24-70mm range, why not stay with Canon? I got a 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark1 for about 550 £ 18 month ago. Today you can get the lens for 500 £. It‘s a great lens and I think at least as good as a Tamron or even better. The only thing I don’t like about the Mark1 is the big lens hood... but I think this is a first world problem. I figured out that if you are on a budget, you need to be creative and maybe not have everything in f/2.8. For example when getting a fisheye lens, go completely mad and get an older, full manual f/2.8 lens for 40£. I used it many times to shot sports action in the mountains. But as you said before, you will never use the f/2.8 on such a lens. I normally use this one on f/8! The infinity range of a lens like that starts at about 1.5 meters...

[@RobSambles]

I might consider that for a fisheye you know. I'd like one for some stadium shots etc

[@Arhpeco]

24-70 category, I woud swap cheaper tamron for a bit more expensive G version that is software ubgradable and offer f4 Canon alternative that does the same thing. There are also a lot of more options on the wide angle but understandaby you speak out of personal experience... Coud you do something similar for prime lenses?

[@RobSambles]

Yeah I definitely could

[@farhanaslam1489]

Tokina 300 2.8 ATX AF Pro is also a very good lens

[@Redgolf2]

My favourite is my 50 mm f1.2 Mamiya for my Mamiya NC1000s

[@GiovanniProximus]

Dear Rob, I think your videos are informative but I have a question for you. What kind of camera (with optional lens) is suitable for holidays where I find the following things important: - Portable - Be able to make panaromas - Night photography - Photo showing an object but also a person (no idea how to describe it better) Thank you

[@RobSambles]

There's so many options for you Johan. Really depends on budget but perhaps something simple like an M50 might be good?

[@villageblunder4787]

Panasonic LX100. Fits in a jacket pocket. Has its own sharp zoom lens. Only £200 used.

[@ForrestWest]

Instead of purchasing the larger heavier and more expensive Canon ef500mm F4 or the EF 600mm F4 I am getting the EF 300mm 2.8 L lens. On my Canon R7 crop sensor I'll be getting 480mm 2.8 and with the 1.4 X lll teleconverter I'll have 670mm at f4. All of this for $1,500 used and $1,500 for the camera.

[@sprayhawk808]

Compelling vid - perfect timing. On the 300 - I had been considering the Sigma Sport, now looking at the older, non-OS version. Why shouldn't I also look hard at the original Canon 300 2.8 L (non-IS)? Aside from the zoom capabilities of the Sigma, is the Sigma @ 300mm better than the original Canon? Thanks!

[@RobSambles]

That original Canon is a great lens too - I used one for a full season before moving to my IS version. I would say the Canon was probably sharper than the Sigma @300 but then again the price is normally a bit more

[@sprayhawk808]

@@RobSambles Got it - appreciate the feedback. I'll keep that in mind while comparing options.

[@dbenedict357]

11:27 F/4 vs f/2.8 is only one stop. Just bump one step up in ISO.

[@PhotoTrekr]

When I started, all zoom lenses were crap. So, you were pretty much stuck with primes. Then the zooms became a lot better. Today the zooms are almost as good as the primes. Not only are the lenses from the major manufacturers great, some third party lenses are also great. You might have to sacrifice a bit of range or speed but third party lenses are great when starting out or are budget minded.

[@DelvesPhotos]

Another great video Rob. Loving the content! I have the 70-200mm f2.8 G2 Tamron lens and love it. Great quality and image stabilised. I got mine used for £700. I also have the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens. Great crop sensor lens and had for under £250 as I remember.

[@RobSambles]

I've heard good things about that one yeah!

[@rjpadbatan669]

Tokina 16-28 f2.8 Opera

[@canon-muestrasdefotosyvide7924]

Excellent video! Consider Yongnuo products like a budget alternative.....

[@umeshwaghmare6912]

Glad to have you.. subscribed

[@sportsshooter2574]

One lens worth mentioning is the Sigma 300/2.8. Light weight, cheap, excellent IQ / AF ( almost as good as the Canon 300/2.8). Downside is no-IS, not very good in direct sunlight ( flare), poor IQ / AF with the Sigma TC 1.4x. When I need a lightweight tele shooting sports and leave my 400/2.8 L IS MKI ( weighs 5.6Kg) I take the Sigma. Lens is discontinued

[@RobSambles]

Yeah I know someone who loves that lens actually

[@rappel6770]

Great Video, thank you so much!

[@MultiScannerman]

Hi Rob, is there any chance you could show us subsribers a tutorial video on Photoshop cs6 please?

[@RobSambles]

Hi John. I actually have one about lightroom going live tomorrow but yeah I'll do photoshop at some point

[@johndouglass6707]

At present Nikon lenses dirt cheap. The are the s lens that need adaptor to connect to zoom camera. Still some d500 around. 300 2.8, 300 f4 70 to 200 2.8. All these less than £500 pounds each.

[@orsoncart9441]

You don't really cover 70-200 f2.8. There are people that don't use Canon and there are alternative lenses. Tamron, Sigma?

[@RobSambles]

Both make decent versions of the 70-200 but not one's that I've used. Generally the opinion of the third party lenses is that the Sigma is the stronger.

[@hbcimages]

Canon RF L lenses cost higher due to company investment into research and development for the new system. In coming years more third party manufacturers would able to reverse the technology and produce competitive products drive the price down.

[@rjpadbatan669]

One could get the Canon 200mm F2.8L for under $500 (US)

[@RobSambles]

I've heard that it's a great lens

[@rjpadbatan669]

@@RobSambles thats what I use for my indoor sports events

[@ekevanderzee9538]

And... the Tamron 24-70 has stabilisation. In the real world, that will give sharper pictures more than the small compromise in sharpness will cost you.

[@PHEONIX1592]

3:08 Start on lenses :)

[@ekevanderzee9538]

Bodies..... yes, 2.8 is 2.8. BUT iso 1600 now is not the iso 1600 that it used to be. And a 45 MP full frame gives you a 2x cropfactor compares to a 23 MP sensor from even three years back. So, with an albeit expensive modern body, you can get results that the lenses quadruple the price would get youb years ago.

[@dbenedict357]

Oh geez. 70-300!?!?.. let’s not get crazy here.

[@UraFlight]

Are you the Chelsea supporter ? Or did you make those Chelsea photos ?

[@1964karlos]

There’s no such lens as a Mark III version of the 300 F2.8! Not yet anyway. There’s a Mark III 400 F2.8 but the 300 is still only on Mark II.

[@RobSambles]

Yeah you're right there

[@btecww]

Sold subscribe you saved me $$$$

[@jamesseward9263]

Another 70-200mm f2.8 to consider is the Tamron. Very sharp and half the price of a new Canon. www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317272-REG/tamron_afa025n_700_sp_70_200mm_f_2_8_di.html

[@vladimirivanov6353]

Respect to Canon ! I am Sony :D