new lens - need an all rounder! (Canon)

[jackvdbuk]

looking to buy my first lens for my 450D, looking for something in the region of a max of about £300 and would like some zoom (the 18-55 just isnt long enough)

so was looking at something like this:
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod59.html

seems to suit my needs with both telephoto and wide angle (bit of both worlds so to speak)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page4.asp

decent review, though it does say poor sharpness at the wide angle end - is this usual for this type of lens?

thanks off to work i go to pay for such a thing ha!

[kalniel]

Which are you looking at? The 28-200 in your first link, or the 18-200 from the second?

I'd say no to either of them to be honest, instead go for the 55-250IS. Far cheaper, but pretty good quality (better than both of these I think), better long distance range than both (and has IS over the 28-200), and you've got your exising 18-55 which if it's the IS version is plenty good enough for the wider end of things.

Yes, softness at at least one end of the range is common for superzooms - a pair of smaller range lenses will usually out perform them as well as being cheaper. But if you're regularly in a situation where you absolutely can't change lenses, or don't have space/capacity for a second camera with lens attached, then they can be considered I'd guess.

[merdat]

Seconded - that 55-250 IS produces good results.

[brammers]

Firstly make a decision as to whether or not you want to have to swap lenses to go long. If you just want the one lens then Canon 18-200 or Tamron 17-270 would be options. You also have to decide how much longer you want - maybe a Sigma 18-125 would go long enough? Careful of anything that starts at 28mm - it's not very wide. Zoom your 18-55 to 28 and see if you'd be happy only being able to zoom out that much. Single lenses with massive zoom ranges give you lots of convenience, but they suffer in many ways compared to more specialised tools. I started off with a Sigma 18-125 and the autofocus was nowhere near as sure as other lenses I've tried since. The sharpness also dropped off very quickly - for really quality results you'll have to learn of a number of settings where it's good and look to use them. Bear in mind that the web doesn't need 'really quality results' - you can hide so much with the tiny file sizes we use here. Basically, the longer the zoom, the closer the end result is to using a P&S with a superzoom - convenient but speed, accuracy and quality suffer to some extent.

The other option is a telephoto zoom or prime in addition to your kit lens and here your options are almost endless. Before buying, tell us what you want to shoot, how much focal length (zoom) you think you need and why and what aperture you think you'll need at that focal length. What is it for? Kids in the house? My choice would be an 85 1.8. General walkaround-ness? Canon 70-250 or 70-300? Amateur sports? Tokina/Sigma 50-150 2.8. Amateur wildlife? etc etc etc

For example, Canon 50-250 seems a great lens, but I would't consider it even for one second - too slow. Does that stop it being a great lens for many people? No - but it might for you :E

[Bobster]

i had a tamron 28-200 as a walk about lens for over a year when i got my 300D, it was good for starting off grabing shots of the kids etc

[brammers]

i had a tamron 28-200 as a walk about lens for over a year when i got my 300D, it was good for starting off grabing shots of the kids etc

Talking about focal lenghts like this isn't very helpful imo. Bobster says that 28-200 is great for shots of the kids - I agree with him, but what does he actually mean?

First thing to do is convert all of these focal lengths to 35mm equivalents just so that we're all singing from the same page. Google 'crop factor' if you want to know why we have to do this. The crop factor on Canon APS-C DSLRs is 1.6x, so Bobster's 28-200 ends up as a 45 - 320mm zoom. The Canon 18-200 would end up as a 29-320mm zoom.

So what do these numbers mean? Very roughly, and with a lot of room for manouevre, they mean this:

<10 - 19mm - Ultrawide - crazy 'perspectives'.
20-24mm - very wide
25-35ishmm - wide
40ish - 55 ish - normal. Roughly what your human eye sees.
70-100mm - short telephoto. Magnifies while letting you stay fairly close to your subject for a flattering but 'intimate perspective'.
135-200mm - medium telephoto - fair bit of magnification, still 'flattering perspective' but you have to back up a bit to get say head/shoulders in frame.
200-400mm - serious telephoto. Very useful for shooting things you can't get close to, seriously 'flattens perspective'.
400mm + ultra telephoto. Unusable in social situations as it's simply too zoomed in on a subject. Only really useful for shooting things a long way off.

So rather than worrying about something being 1mm or 10mm wider, think about what 'range' of focal lengths you're entering with each lens. Bobster's 28-300 could be called a 'normal - serious telephoto' lens. The Canon 18-200 by contrast would be a 'wide - serious telephoto lens'. The Sigma 18-125 that I started out on is a 'wide - medium telephoto lens'.

What do you do with each of those 'focal ranges'? Well, that's up to you, but they'll give different 'looks' to pictures. For example, without looking at any info of Bob's photo above, just from the 'look' - the perspective of the child, I can make a guess that it's shot at 80mm (I guessed 50 and applied the 1.6x crop - I was spot on, go me ). That's the look that you get when that combination of subject size, focal distance, position from the lens etc come together.

What Bobster's lens wouldn't be able to do is offer a 'wide' look to a picture - for example:



See how the relative sizes are distorted? That's what 'wide angle' allows you to do (I know the distortion is nothing to do with the focal length of the lens, but that's for another day! And I know that's even wider than the lenses under discussion can go, but it shows what I'm talking about)

Personally, if I was going for an all in one lens, I'd miss not being able to take wide shots. On the other hand, it I was going for a 2 lens bag and bought something like say a 55-200 (short telephoto - serious telephoto) I wouldn't worry about not being able to shoot wide or normal - I'd know I had my 18-55 in the bag to deal with that.

Hope that helps!

[j.o.s.h.1408]

what about Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM or a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS??

[MadduckUK]

See how the relative sizes are distorted?

yeah, the guy on the left looks massive

[j.o.s.h.1408]

[brammers]

what about Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM or a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS??

One of them offers no wideangle, the other is pretty much on a par with the Sigma 90% of the time. OP still hasn't said why he wants a new lens - just that he wants some more zoom. Probably best to wait and see what he wants to do with it before we start handing out any more suggestions - a Canon 18-200 or a Canon 100-400 could both do the job, but we don't know yet!

[j.o.s.h.1408]

yea but surely there are lens ideal for walkaround. im interested in this thread as im thinking of getting a new walkaround lens because my stock 18-55 without IS just doesn't cut it.

i personally would want one with more zoom range and offer better image quality over the stock lens that came with my 400d

[kalniel]

Ideal walkabout lens? Doesn't seem to be one for Canon yet, not sure they exist for other systems either. Read Brammers post earlier (#4) about the sigma 18-125, which is supposedly one of the better reviewed lenses of that type out there.

They're interchangeable lenses for a reason

[Bobster]

http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/ < grab this and work out what your most used focal lengths are..

if you find you hardly shoot past 30, then you know you don't need a lens past 28 so a 28-200 will be ideal

if you find that a lot of your shots are around 18-30 then you know you''ll need 18-200 so you don't need to change lenses to go wide..

image quality of a 18-200 will be softer than 28-200 (not by much, but enough)

depending on where i go, ill put my 17-50, 28, 28-75 or 50 on as a walk about

[brammers]

yea but surely there are lens ideal for walkaround.

No - not for everybody. You have to define walkaround for yourself. Bobster's definition of walkaround seems to be a normal-telephoto zoom. In his second post he said that his walkaround depends on his situation - either a wide-short telephoto zoom, a wide fixed lens, a normal - medium telephoto zoom or a short telephoto fixed lens. My walkaround lens is either a wide - short telephoto zoom or a medium telephoto prime.

To return to the lenses in question, if you asked Bobster if he'd be happy with the 28-135 IS as a walkaround I think he'd say yes. I'd say no, as there'd be no wide-angle to take shots like http://www.flickr.com/photos/3539833...7620427706039/ or http://www.flickr.com/photos/3539833...7615788471378/.

To find out if a lens is going to be useful to you as a 'walkaround', you've got to be decisive about what type of range you want. You can't compare a normal lens with a wide one, other than to say that they cover different focal lengths.

[Bobster]

Bobster's definition of walkaround seems to be a normal-telephoto zoom.

my first walk about lens used to be an average telephoto zoom. i was very happy with it.. and would be able to pull that 2nd shot off with the 28-135.

the difference now is i have a better idea of what is needed for situations.. and prefer shooting wide open (2.8/1.8)

im a people photographer, so not really interested in taking shots of landscapes, buildings etc unless there's a person involved. i shoot tight in most situations as well, but i do want a 10mm prime