Advice needed on an SLR camera lens purchase (film, not digi)

I have a Canon EOS 300 (maybe called a Canon Rebel in the US?) with a 28 - 90mm autofocus Canon lens.

I'm hoping to go on safari in Africa at the end of the year and figure that a bigger zoom lens would be a big help for getting pics of animals from a distance.

I haven't got a lot of money, so will probably get something off eBay - this probably rules out a new lens or a genuine Canon lens.

So my questions are:

- what size zoom lens should I be looking to buy?...I reckon maybe upto 300mm, as any bigger won't be useable without a tripod. Am I right on this?
- any recommendations for autofocus lenses that are compatible with the Canon EOS 300 camera body? I know that other companies make them a lot cheaper than Canon, but I don't know if any are worth having. I generally focus manually, but am still at the stage when I sometimes like the camera to help with all the other settings, so the lens needs to work with all the camera body functions.

I've been using this camera for a few years with good results, but have never really had any instruction about using it, so treat me as a complete novice!

Thanks.

P.

ebay does have them cheap if you have the time

if you get a 300 consider getting a teleconverter which would extend it to 450 which is quite a difference.

Tamron makes a decent 300, so do several others.

Keep an eye on the Fstop... an F8 will be cheaper, but of limited use except in good conditions. For your safari, light should not be a problem, but again, the faster the lens, the better the glass too.

Of course it would be nice to have a 600 2.8 or somesuch... but...

as for a tripod, you can use big big lenses with a walking stick as a support. most of them have a mounting point out on the lens for such a thing

how about renting one? to me it would be worth it. even better if you could rent it there so you don't have to lug it on the plane.

I'll have a think about it......to be honest, the Canon lenses I've seen on eBay have been a bit too pricey for me, but maybe I'll spot a bargain.

Thanks again.

P.

I'm really a total dunce when it comes to all of this....Sorry!

magnifiy the image in such a way to mimic a longer lens.

I have one which is a 1.5 which helped me cut down on the weight of my bag for fast work like breaking news

so instead of a 450 I carried a 300 et cetera

they are not perfect, but they do have uses

you generally lose a stop or so with them, so if your 300 is a 4.5 it becomes at best a 5.6

a bit lower than Canon's comparable glass.

It depends on how much you want to spend. You can go over 300mm and still handhold in many cases, especially if you get a lens with image stabilisation.

Sigma makes a fantastic lens that is 80-400 with optical stabilisation, but it runs about $1,000. I may be picking one of these up myself in the future.

I thought that "macro" lenses were only for close-ups, but some of the supposed telephoto lenses I've seen claim to be "macro" lenses, even when the blurb says that they're ideal for "long ranges when you can't approach the subject".

What's going on? Do some new long-range lenses now also have a macro mode, or am I going mad?

Or c) none of the above?

I'm so very puzzled....

I've seen some brand new 80 - 300mm zoom lenses on US eBay for around $150 with this feature.......are they going to be so poor quality that they're not worth buying?

I'd put a link, but my internet access is playing up today....I'll try to put a link to one of the lenses later tonight.

but it gets used more loosely to describe lenses that have two ways to position the various elements within the lens, one setting that allows the lens to focus from infinity to a few feet or so, and another that allows the lens to focus from a few feet or so down to inches. Lenses described as having macro capability will have these two focusing modes, but might go only to 1/4 lifesize or so.

A "true macro" will allow the camera to focus close enough to achieve 1:1 sizes, but a telephoto will achieve this at a much greater distance from the subject than a normal or wide angle lens. This is helpful with small insects and such, since they are less likely to be spooked, and the narrow angle of coverage also has advantages in composition.

As for quality, it depends on the lens design and glass, regardless of whether it offers macro capability or not.

I would suggest you look into the Canon 100mm f/2.8 telephoto/macro lens. I just bought it two months ago and it's an awesome lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA

I appreciate the suggestion though.

My current lenses is almost as powerful as that one - I think I need to go quite a lot bigger.

Thanks anyway.

P.

It seems to work well with my camera, but I'm a bit pissed off because I bought it arrived with no rear lens cap and some marks on the front lens which may be smears or may be scratches.

I got it through eBay and the listing said it was in excellent condition with no marks, so I'm waiting for the seller to get back to me.

Paid about £55 for it, which I reckon isn't too bad for this lens, but only if it's in good condition.

If the marks clean off OK then it will be a great all-round lens for landscapes and safari closeups.

P.

most marks on glass are only rarely noticible if at all.

They are tough (well built) and take some very sharp pictures. I got a 100-300mmZ with my body purchase package. As long as I stablise my elbow, it's a good length.

I hear Tokina and Vivitar make excellent lenses as well. A Canon used lense wouldn't be too much though, but I haven't priced anything lately.