Right only got a 350d and not by any stretch anything but a total amateur. I just fancy a 2nd lens with a big zoom range and a flash to extend the camera.

So:

Sigma AF 70-300mm £120
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Macro-Canon/dp/B000AM7CJ0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Half decent reviews

or

Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 £120
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-70-300mm-4-5-6-Macro/dp/B000HDZAUA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Again half decent reviews

Also looking at a flash but these seem like a fortune for a Canon one, are there any decent alternatives for ~£100

Also need a better bag, any good ones?

What are you taking pics of?

With lens reviews, it helps if the review has experience of different lenses. Try Lens Tip, easily the best lens review site I’m aware of.

Flashes are generally a safe bet used, have you looked into that?

Taking pictures of the Kids(mine) & Dog(mine also).

Ask yourself if you’ll really use the 300mm end of the range. I think that a lens with that range and that price point is going to lose too much of something. Would a 70-200mm not offer a higher quality? Otherwise both that you’ve selected are fine for the money.
I also had a Sigma EF-500 flash for about 100 quid, which was fine until the plastic foot broke… 🙁

300mm is quite a lot for general use tbh. I’ve got one on my Olympus so it’s equivalent to 600mm whereas it’d be more like what, 500mm for you. It’s approaching ok for wildlife if it’s big, or quite tame, but of limited use for creatures that aren’t afraid to be close to you.

Of much more use in those situations is my 40-150mm. It’s much much smaller and easier to handle, and whilst the apertures are the same it’s also faster in operation. This could be a feature of my particular lenses of course. It was also about half the price, and it’s sharper.

My 40-150 produces lovely background blurred shots of kids etc when running around in the garden or at a park or something – I’m typically far enough away so that they don’t notice I’m taking pictures of them, but not so far that they’ll be stolen by kidnappers.

I have got a 350D and the Tamron lense, for the price i cant fault it.

Used it at Duxford Airshow http://www.flickr.com/photos/83246699@N00/sets/72157630368209530/

for bags i would say look at Lowe Pro, they do all sorts of different types. Personaly i have got one of the Slingshot bags, which hold camera with stock lense + the Tamrom + Canon 50mm lense. Ususally carry it on the chest if already carying a rucksack, which makes it dead easy to get into.

You get what you pay for in terms of image quality with lenses, so if you want quality, pay more for less zoom range. If you don’t really care about sharpness or bokeh, then just get a big range. Over 200mm you could really use some form of Vibration Reduction otherwise you’ll get a lot of blur from handshake (unless you use a tripod).

I’d agree with most of the above. I have a cheapo 70-300 canon lens … it rarely got used at the 300 end … just too far away and shaky unless in very good light. Beyond 200mm the amount of use goes way down personally.

What lens do you have a the moment?

Canon 55-250 is a bargain with the IS. I have a 70-200 f/4 L now but still rate a lot of the photos I got with the 55-250 before.

I’d agree with most of the above. I have a cheapo 70-300 canon lens … it rarely got used at the 300 end … just too far away and shaky unless in very good light. Beyond 200mm the amount of use goes way down personally.

This is a point. As a general rule, your shutter speed will be around or above the focal length to avoid camera shake. So at 300mm you will shoot at 300/s or above, for which you need pretty good light…or a tripod. …or a monopod.

A tighter focal range would maybe be more suited for a general walkabout lens. But as above, depends what you want to photograph. It’s like asking I want a bike, which one do I want?

Both decent lenses but physically big enough imo to be cumbersome for everyday use. I have a 55-200 Nikkor and the lens is as big as the camera when retracted and it doesn’t really zoom as much as you might think. It will take a picture of a garden bird on a telegraph pole and you’ll be able to identify the bird but pictures taken from the shore of people surfing in the sea are still just black shapes.

The 200 has VR and it helps but when zoomed it is difficult to keep it still enough to do the camera justice – you think you’re holding it still but the same picture on a tripod with VR off is much better. A 300 is going to be worse in this respect.

For pictures of the kids and pets a 300 is too much imo unless the kids and pets are going to be 100’s of m away. And 70 at the other end makes it difficult to take snaps you will be too close to the subject to focus.

Canon 55-250 is a bargain with the IS.

This.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-4-5-6-Lens/dp/B0056E49MK

Head and shoulders better than the 300mm version, and sub-£200. It’s a no-brainer (which is why I bought one).

I don’t think either of the two lenses linked in the OP have image stabilisation, hence the low price. Unless you’re going to use a tripod, you might struggle. I can shoot at the 250 end of the Canon lens hand-held without much of an issue.

Canon 55-250 is streets ahead of any other lens in that price bracket and as a rule don’t touch any canon that starts with 75mm

just too far away and shaky unless in very good light

Good point, I have managed reasonably well in moderate light with my 300mm but I do have in-body IS. Which incidentally robs ultimate sharpness, and seems to do so more with a longer zoom.. coupled with the fact that you need max aperture in such situations with such a lens.

Cheers all,

Bought the Canon

& a Sigma Flash?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00472OBC0/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00

It’s a while since I looked at flashguns, but I seem to remember concluding that the Nissin’s are amongst the best of the third party units.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nissin-Speedlite-Wireless-Original-Personal/dp/B0044779EA

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nissin-Di-866-Mark-Canon/dp/B004S0OJA0/

Please don’t purchase based solely on my half-remembered suggestions though (-:

http://dpanswers.com/content/canon_flash_models.php

Has pros and cons listed for different flashes.

The Primer is worth a read too. http://dpanswers.com/content/canon_flash.php

To throw a spanner in the works of flashes, I’d have a look for the best Canon you can afford with the high speed sync, which I think is covered by the Speedlite range. For example the 270EX isn’t too expensive and can be demoted to slave if you buy a better flash in the future.
I almost always used a flash for filling in in good old sunny Spain, so quite useful in sunny conditions IMVHO.

To throw a spanner in the works of flashes, I’d have a look for the best Canon you can afford with the high speed sync, which I think is covered by the Speedlite range. For example the 270EX isn’t too expensive and can be demoted to slave if you buy a better flash in the future.
I almost always used a flash for filling in in good old sunny Spain, so quite useful in sunny conditions IMVHO.

^^^^ This, unless you are an advanced camera user

For taking pictures of your kids and dog you might be better off with a 35mm prime lens.

Ken Rockwell – prime lens

Got one for my last holiday and found it more enjoyable to take pics than using a zoom