I need a cheap 70-200mm lens?
I'm buying a canon 40D or Nikon D300 and once I have got them I want to get a 70-200mm.
Which make is cheaper?
Will be a big deciding factor, which has the cheapest lenses.
Canon has a 70-200 f4 which is affordable, nikon does not. Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 was recently renewed and is more expensive at the moment. For both brands you can get a decent sigma 70-200 f2.8
So you will buy a great camera and save money on the lens? That's not the best way to do things IMHO, but let's try to help you out.
If a 70-300mm would be fine, too: Tamron makes a rather good one. Prices hoover around the $150 mark. The lens isn't very fast, nor is it razor sharp when wide open, but the lens is certainly capable of producing great results.
Yeah. As previously stated, you should be investing in some good glass, not the camera body. Sure a good body will benefit you, but it's the lens that makes All the difference.
The canon 70-200 f4 is a good lens, you'd NEED the IS version though, it's about €1, 000.
Sigma to a good 70-200 f2.8 too, Canon or Nikon mount. About the same price.
Neither are super sharp, but they're good lenses.
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 is the one you should be investing in though, about €2, 500.It's an absolutely amazing lens. If you do any paid photography work then that lens will end up paying for itself, it's brilliant, extremely sharp!
But good luck anyway!
Define your version of "cheap". Why do you think you must have a 70-200, and that maybe a decent 70-300 won' work for you? There are good lenses in most price ranges, if we knew what that range might be.
As for the Canon and Nikon 70-200… Canon ranges from $600 to $2200, depending on the specific model. Nikon is just $2, 200.
Sigma is $800-900. Tamron is $700. Not sure if Tokina is still in that segment or not.
Canon has their older 70-210mm f4 (sometimes called the Trombone), which is a surprising performer except for the slow AF, you can probably pick one up second hand for £100-150. If you're willing to spend a bit more you'll get the much better 70-200mm f4L USM, they start at around £300 used (if you're lucky). If you're looking for a 2.8 zoom, there's the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 "magic drainpipe", it's an old lens, but optically it's a great one, prices start from £300 and go up. If you want a modern USM 2.8, then the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM is available on both Nikon and Canon mounts, there's an OS version of the Sigma, but it's still quite expensive.
For Nikon you don't really have a high quality cheap f/4 zoom, so you'll be looking at a second hand AF-S 80-200mm f2.8, prices are slightly higher than Canon's Magic Drainpipe, but the lens is a slightly more advanced one, (there are AF type 80-200mm lenses, but that's a slower AF driven by the camera). Otherwise you're looking at close to a grand for the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Once more the Sigma is an option, but next to the 80-200mm which is around the same price, the Nikkor wins.
So if you settle for an f/4 lens then Canon is easily your best option. However if you're looking at 2.8's you're probably better off with the AF-S Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8.
Jessops are selling the Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 (canon fit) for £99 at the moment. I bought one and its a good buy
If by "cheap" you mean "value for money" then I would recommend the Canon 55-250 Image stabilised F/4-5.6.
It gives you a litle bit either side of your 70-200 range and is one of the best of Canon's budget lenses.
You can consider Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM Lens
L-type telephoto zoom lens with image stabiliser
Four UD lenses provide compensation for chromatic aberration
Highly dust and moisture resistant
Inner focusing design plus ring USM for silent
High-speed AF