[Sandy Hancock]

The older Sigma 70-200/2.8 is not too expensive and works pretty damn well.

[Rusky40]

Cheers for your help guys O DOn how much u asking for your misses
Q would any of the lenses have a better faster focus speed than my other lenses i.e tamron 18/200 and qua 75/300 also what about distance

[zapp]

I need as fast as I can get it mainly to shoot track days but will use for other stuff

Did you ever think about stealing a lens?
You can place any question here, but don't fear the answers.

[Rusky40]

stealing a lens

[RioRico]

What makes you think the lens WANTS to be stolen?

If photography doesn't steal souls but only copies them, why can't it copy lenses too?

If property is theft, shouldn't you give everything away?

Is stealing lenses like stealing kisses, but drier?

[VladM]

If you don't need auto focus, the SMC A 70-210 F4 is excellent optically, and solid build (but a little on the heavy side).
I find mine to be slightly better than DA 55-300, and prefer using it when I have time to compose and focus manually.

[D0n]

missus is free.

[Rusky40]

details DOn :O)

[zapp]

Is stealing lenses like stealing kisses, but drier?

Not sure, but if you want to pay basically nothing for a lens that has everything, sometign is wrong. Why buy a $1000 camera if the lens should not cost more than $100.

[RioRico]

Why buy a $1000 camera if the lens should not cost more than $100.

I can think of a few answers to that. Whether you accept these is up to you.

* Some modern lenses are indeed much better (and worth more) than older kin. Zooms especially have advanced greatly since M42 days. But primes haven't really seen a revolution AFAIK.
* A set of the finest new lenses may be beyond the budgets of many users, and the images they produce may not be hugely 'better' than those from lenses at a fraction of their cost.

* A modern dSLR is rather a complicated beast. A high price is not surprising.
* Sometimes older glass is the only way to get certain lens specifications.
* Older cheaper lenses may give a 'look' that modern glass just doesn't.
* Some older lenses of superb quality are vastly underpriced bargains.
* It's no crime to mix some fine (costly) glass with cheap glass for fun.
* Sometimes we're in situations where we don't want to risk fine lenses.

Others can probably add other reasons. I'll admit to being a cheap bastard who looks for bargain glass. Even so, I have a few lenses that cost in the US$400-1000 range -- and others that *should* have cost that much, but I was lucky. (I lately mistakenly *thought* I was lucky on a pricey lens, but that's another tale.)

Why put cheap lenses on costly cameras? Because we can. Because we want to. Because sometimes it makes the most sense. Because we ain't all rich. Because the voices in our heads tell us to. Whatever. The used lens market isn't going away. My cheap sharp lenses aren't getting duller.

[gilsouthwood]

take my wife. PLEASE!

That's a bad joke

I think you'd be fine with that, just a little ISO. otherwise go for what the other posters have said.

[Rusky40]

thanks for all your ideas iv got a 18/200 tamron which i love also a quantaray 70/300 which i beleave is a tamron copy want something wider and pos longer