DSLRUsers.com

Greetings!

I just got my 550D with kit lens (18-55), and recently I bought the 50mm f1.8 'nifty fifty' and really really liked it. the only problem i have now is rather the focal length coverage - more than once I was in need of a longer one but alas, I only got 55mm max - I could have captured the cute girl's face in the football match but I ended up having the whole team of cheerleaders captured...

jokes aside, I've been researching a bit and found with limited budget (I have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay off), I could only choose amongst the following ones:
> tamron 18-270
> sigma 18-250
> canon 18-200 EFS
> canon 28-135 EF USM
> canon 17-85 EFS

Considering mine's a crop sensor with 1.6x factor, I am leaning towards 28-135mm, also after reading the reviews I've found it's got the best IQ out of all these (Dxo data), and the price is good too (I haven't got access to the bargain area yet but DWI has it for 350). The only thing is, I am not sure whether I need longer focal than 135 (or 216mm if we consider the 1.6x on the crop). I know 250.270 will be like 400mm or some, super long!

I will be mainly shooting portraits, sceneries and not much sports - maybe a bit of wild life. So do I need anything longer than 135mm? Does shooting a swan taking off from the lake in centennial park takes anything longer than 216mm? I really really appreciate if someone who has experienced any of these focal lengths could help answer the question.

Oh, and once my skills overtake the camera, I may consider upgrading to full frame, so maybe 28-135 EF is a better choice? But maybe that'll never happen (I suck a lot at photography ...). Should I bet on that?

Thanks a bunch!

Hello and welcome.
I am a Nikonian, but can;'t really comment or your specifics, but I would point out that the super zooms fall into the "Jack of All Trades... Master of None" category. While they have their place in the toolkit. I have one & wouldn't be without it for travel. But you will probably do much better with a lens of shorter zoom capability. Especially if the price is similar.

Keep in mind that whatever range of focal lengths you have, you will always be coming up against situations where you want a longer (or shorter!) lens than you possess. That swan in the middle of a lake will probably need a 200mm or more lens, even with a crop factor camera.

Also remember, you get what you pay for.

Toughgamer wrote:(I suck a lot at photography ...)

All that means is that you are inexperienced. Be prepared to learn. Post lots of pics here. Try out the advice, even if you don't agree with it. If you still don't agree, fine. That just means you style is different to theirs. You WILL learn heaps along the way, and somewhere on the journey, you will realise that you no longer suck at it. You may not be another Ansel Adams. But hell! Who is?

Thanks for the help!

I do understand the zoom lens is a special category that doesn't really give u good IQ - but occasionally it would come in handy comparing to prime lens - imagine a UFO is up in the sky and u have a 200mm prime zoom L glass, but ur camera has the 18mm ultra wide on it, how fast can u change lenses?

I basically want to use a zoom as a walk-around lens that I can comfortably leave on my camera all the time during, say, travels.

And yeah, I'll definitely post loads of photos once I get some good ones out.

Toughgamer wrote:> canon 17-85 EFS

This is not a bad lens for a walkaround but, the newer 16-85 seems to attract better reviews but is much more expensive. I have had the 17-85 for a while now [might even be selling it soon!] and majority of my shots are with this lens. Very versatile, fast and quiet focusing (on good light) and quite compact. There is some CA/distortion at the wide end but nothing to be too concerned at your stage. IS is acceptable. The build quality is good.

I would steer away from comparing lenses based on their MTF on a DXO review.

I would generally steer away from the 3rd party super zooms that you mentioned. [Does anyone have any opinions on these crazy super zooms?] In saying that, the Tamron 17 50 2.8 is quite nice but doesn't give you too much reach.

The other gem is 24 - 105 L which will not give you a nice wide angle like a 17mm. Canon also had a 18-135 I think. I have used one very briefly and it seemed 'ok'.

28 - 135 wouldn't be practical on your camera as it will be too long.

Very lastly, your camera has a high pixel density which will bring out lens imperfections prominently. I wouldn't skimp on lenses.

Toughgamer wrote:swan taking off from the lake in centennial park takes anything longer than 216mm

How long is a piece of string? I have taken shots of friendly birds with my 85mm lens. For serious birding in general you are talking 400mm onwards.

Lastly, buy the best lens (best brand) you can afford, as hopefully this will serve you for several years. I am not going to mention full frame as you've just bought your first camera. If you go fullframe, you'd want at least the 24 105

surenj wrote:

Toughgamer wrote:> canon 17-85 EFS

28 - 135 wouldn't be practical on your camera as it will be too long.

Very lastly, your camera has a high pixel density which will bring out lens imperfections prominently. I wouldn't skimp on lenses.

Lastly, buy the best lens (best brand) you can afford, as hopefully this will serve you for several years. I am not going to mention full frame as you've just bought your first camera. If you go fullframe, you'd want at least the 24 105

Thanks a lot for the help! I think I better off researching a bit more, maybe increase my budget a bit...

+1 for the 24-105L.
Pencil in the 10-22mm for later and you'll be set.

Hi!

Local Canon guy here haha welcome to the mystical world of DSLRusers.

You're in the right track with the 28-135, it has the best stabilizer amongst the lenses you have mentioned, with the exception of the Tamron 18-270, but bear in mind the Tamron won't operate if you ever decide to go to full frame.

The 28-135 is a great lens for the 550D in terms of resolution, The stabilizer also is the best out of all, which under video operation works like a charm.

The only problem with the 28-135 is it will get a bit clunky, ie. the zoom will feel VERY loose.

Don't go for the 17-85. It's quite a soft lens. Best bet is sticking with the 28-135 or if you can afford to the 24-105 f4L which has a wider end, and holds it's value better in terms of resale. It's also got a stabilizer that's got more kick in it that the 28-135, and similar to the Tamron 18-270.

Best bet, go for the 24-105.. you won't regret it.

I just re read your original post.
You already cover the range 18-55, so why duplicate this range with a new lens? Surely you would do better with something like the 55-250 Canon lens. Or if you want to move into pro quality, the 70-200

Mind you, as I stated earlier I am a Nikonian, so don't know how these lenses behave in the real world.

Toughgamer wrote:imagine a UFO is up in the sky and u have a 200mm prime zoom L glass, but ur camera has the 18mm ultra wide on it, how fast can u change lenses?

When was the last time you saw a photo of a UFO? All the ones I have seen are REAL blurry because they are extreme enlargements. (or maybe because the tog doesn't want you to work out it's faked ) The paper will buy it even if you take it with the 18mm.
The point of having a DSLR is that you can change lenses so you have one suitable for your subject, no matter what your subject is. If you only want a single lens, get a PHD.

Toughgamer wrote:And yeah, I'll definitely post loads of photos once I get some good ones out.

Don't wait that long. the idea is to get us to tell you what is wrong with the photo, and how to improve it, not to bask in the glow of all those "wow that's wonderful" comments They're nice sometimes, but you don't learn from them.

As a resident sales person, and someone who has actually had the pleasure of playing with most of what you have suggested....

-Tamron 18-270 -king of the superzooms, and it does a pretty good job
-Sigma 18-250 -I cant offer an unbiased opinion....I dont like sigma
-Canon 18-200 -for the price and quality, get the Tamron instead, optically this is not stronger and build wise it is poorer
-Canon 28-135 -a very nice lens for the price, but it doesnt solve your range problem
-Canon 17-85 - good enough as a kit lens, but dont buy it seperately, it simply doesnt perform well enough compared to what else is aroung

As for lenses mentioned by others?
-Canon 24-105L - Very nice lens, but 105mm is not long enough for what you want
-Canon 18-135 - a good budget lens, but is the range enough?
-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - not really what your looking for

My recommendation?
Go for something that is a dedicated long lens, it will mean you get better quality for your money, and give you expanded capability. Look at:
-Tamron 70-300 - cheap and sharp, doubles as a macro as well
-Canon 70-300 IS - sharp, image stabilised
-Canon 55-250 IS - cheap and decent
-Canon 70-200 f4L - cheap (for the quality), very sharp and an overall great lens
-Tamron 70-300VC - new kid on the block, cheap and should be very good if you take into consideration what Tamron's other 70-300 is capable of...and with an expected rrp of 699...it may be a nice contender provided that the IQ betters the non image stabilised version.

Why not a superzoom? They simply are too expensive for what they deliver.

thanks a lot guys! i think i'm sold on the 70-300mm usm is. u guys are right, a super zoom is never the right choice, I shall equip myself with a good wide angle, a normal zoom and a telephoto. I'll post some pictures taken in the past soon.

aim54x wrote:-Canon 18-135 - a good budget lens, but is the range enough?

 LOL I would reccomend this lens highly, but Cameron.. he goes to 200 after that which we all know is bad across the range LOL

aim54x wrote:-Canon 70-200 f4L - cheap (for the quality), very sharp and an overall great lens

I can vouch for this lens but in accordance to budget, Tamron 70-300 is the way to go, it's sharper than the Canon 70-300 IS, and is optically better in terms of bokeh. Plus 1:2 Macro happiness

Marcus,

What do you think about the 16-85 vs 18-135....

I am hearing that the 16-85 is quite a sweet walk about lens... I realise there is no USM on the 135. I am not even sure where to buy a 16-85 even if I wanted to!

surenj wrote:What do you think about the 16-85 vs 18-135....

I am hearing that the 16-85 is quite a sweet walk about lens... I realise there is no USM on the 135. I am not even sure where to buy a 16-85 even if I wanted to!

Dont you mean the EF-S 15-85 USM IS?? This is a nice lens, but like the EF-S 17-85 USM IS (and the Nikon AF-S 16-85VR) before it, seriously too expensive for what it is! There is a large price gap between the 15-85 and the 18-135, and the 15-85 demonstrates a larger difference in the angle of view between the extremities (more than the 18-200!!).

15-85 wins
-build
-range
-features (USM like AF-S is great to have)

I would take the 15-85 over the 18-135, but then again I would just buy a 17-40 f4L or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for less!!

surenj wrote:Marcus,

What do you think about the 16-85 vs 18-135....

I am hearing that the 16-85 is quite a sweet walk about lens... I realise there is no USM on the 135. I am not even sure where to buy a 16-85 even if I wanted to!

The 15-85mm lens is by far the sharpest EF-S I've come across. It's sooooo sharp, rediculously sharp for a zoom, that said, also bears a rediculous price tag for a crop lens..

Like Cameron, I'd take the 17-40 over it purely because the 17-40 will do me justice when I up to FX/Full Frame, so there's my thoughts on it. It's definately better than the 18-135, but hte 18-135 has better value for money as a walkaround lens.

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a great lens. In terms of sharpness, color and contrast. Very minimal CA, as a matter of fact, I rate it very similar to the canon 24-70 f2.8 in terms of color and CA, the only downfall that I will say is with this lens, is the distortion at 50mm, but for a lens this price.. friggin epic, it takes out the non essentials such as VC/VR/IS/OS, and the USM/SWM/HSM/USD. AAAND it comes with a hood

Hrm... it seems as if what I said.. is pretty much what Cameron said.. no need to quote you now Cam LOL

photomarcs wrote: it takes out the non essentials such as VC/VR/IS/OS, and the USM/SWM/HSM/USD. AAAND it comes with a hood

You can get the Model B005 which adds the VC tech...but it is a bit more expensive and appears to have a tad more CA...i am yet to directly compare the pair though.

i heard tamron/sigma lenses have QC issues - getting a good lens is like winning a lottery

but yeah, the price is just sweeeeeeeet!!! $200 in DCW (the legit aussie shop with no gray imports) vs $800 + for a canon 70-300mm...

I might go check it out this weekend in DCW and see if it's good. Anyone's got tips for testing tamron/sigma lenses? Thanks!

Toughgamer wrote:i heard tamron/sigma lenses have QC issues - getting a good lens is like winning a lottery

With Sigma, that is very much the case, although some models of their lenses are more reliable than others.

I've not heard of any real quality issues with Tamron, ever.

i finally bought 55-250 for its IS function... and cheap price - I got it for 249 at ted's (asked for a price match to camera warehouse in parramatta). JB has it for 450, apparently a ripoff.

some test shots here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49675974@N ... 787756116/

Enjoy!. I think you got a great price for this lens as well!

Toughgamer wrote:bought 55-250 for its IS function

That's the way. This lens wasn't even in your first list!!

thanks a lot surenj! yeah I didnt think of buying that - but I have a mortgage to pay

besides, I have a long way to go in photography - I'll get the nice L lenses when my skills exceeds the limit of my equipments