Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2008, 4:23 PM   #1
Member
 
daniell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 70
Default

After reading reviews and posts of all kinds of zoom and superzoom lenses I´m ready to kick my 1000D out and go back to my old Pana FZ18! At least it could produce sharp pictures at long focal lengths (all over the pictures, not just in the middle).

I am not willing (or able)to pay a 1200+ $ for a L class lens, and I need some kind of OS/IS/VC.... And I want it to be sharp, or at least as sharp as it possible can be for a zoom. No small demands :-)

And I know, there is limitations to a lens with a wide focal length..

I have looked into to the following:

Canon 18-200 IS.

Sigma 18-200 OS. (This one seems the best from what I´ve read (although not very good))

Tamron 18-270 VC.

Tamron 28-300 VC.

Canon 55-250 IS.

Is there any pro out there who can tell me which one of these, or other lens I´ve missed,is the best lens regarding overall sharpness, some kind of wide angle and a long focal length?

Please help me or it´s back to the Pana which takes great pictures apart from low light and bokeh.

//Daniel.





daniell is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 30, 2008, 5:46 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

All big superzooms are a compromise in quality, distortion etc etc,so personally I would (and do) use a P&S camera for easy compact shooting in a small package and then use better glass on a dSLR for the quality shots.

If you are looking at this route then the 18-270 and Sigma 18-200 seem to look OK from reviews but sorry to say I've not had any hands on experience with any of them.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2008, 6:29 PM   #3
Member
 
daniell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 70
Default

Hi Mark.

I know superzooms are a compromise. I just want to know which is the best :-)

//Daniel.
daniell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2008, 9:44 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Normally I stay with Canon lenses but the 18-270mm Tamron seems to be the winner from all the reviews and pictures posted I have seen so far. Plus the Tamron (if I read it correctly) comes with a six year warranty as Canon is only one year.

Let me post the disclaimer before I get blasted (again:lol, no supper zoom (DSLR or P&S) will give you theIQ of a single prime lens.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 7:21 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Calicajun wrote:
Quote:
Let me post the disclaimer before I get blasted (again:lol, no supper zoom (DSLR or P&S) will give you theIQ of a single prime lens.
To that I will add that no dSLR superzoom lens will give you theIQ of an average quality zoom lens.

If image quality is a priority for you, get the lenses (plural) that will give it to you. If you bought a dSLR to get better image quality, why tie one arm behind your back? ... and spend more doing it?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 9:46 AM   #6
Member
 
daniell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 70
Default

So TCav, do you think I´ll be better off with, for example, the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS? Is that a good tele lens? Or is it about the same as the superzooms?

Is there any other good telelens with IS that doesn´t cost me house and wife?


daniell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 9:59 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

The 55-250 doesn't do a bad job as it has higher quality glass in with the UD element but if you want a really noticeable performance increase then the Canon 70-300mm IS will give you that and for less then the 18-270 Tamron. Obviously both of these lenses will mean you are carrying 2 lenses however you will notice the quality gain over trying a single lens solution.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 10:24 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

daniell wrote:
Quote:
So TCav, do you think I´ll be better off with, for example, the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS? Is that a good tele lens? Or is it about the same as the superzooms?

Is there any other good telelens with IS that doesn´t cost me house and wife?
To my knowledge, there are no thorough, objective tests of the 18-270 yet, but where their ranges overlap,the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS significantly outperforms the 18-270's little brother, the Tamron 18-250 in every way,and the 18-250 was a significant advance in quality over previous superzoom lenses. So even if the 18-270 is better than the 18-250, it probably still isn't as good as the Canon, and it costs twice as much. The Canon also outperforms the Sigma 18-200 OS by a wide margin.

The Canon 70-300mm IS that Mark1616 mentioned is also a much better lens, but it's also more expensive.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2009, 12:22 PM   #9
Member
 
daniell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 70
Default

Mark and TCav, thanks for your input! I will probably try the Canon 55-250 IS since I´ve read alot of happy user comments about it´s sharpness. But i am a bit dissapointed that there doesn´t seem to be any good superzooms. I would really like to have the flexibility that such a lensprovide.

//Daniel.
daniell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2009, 12:29 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

You're welcome. It's one of those things in photography were most things are a trade off. For ultimate sharpness, minimal distortion, low chromic aberration you go with a prime lens, then something up to about 3x zoom will still generally give lovely results, once you start pushing over this then things can rapidly start going down hill. We are not saying that you won't get usable results with a superzoom but the are compromising quality. But obviously the gain with them is the ability to just use a single lens.

I from time to time think about getting the Canon 28-300 for use with my 5D but I know that it won't do as well as my 24-105 f4 L and 70-200mm f2.8L and a 1.4x TC if needed (or I can use the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8), yes this is more kit but the quality is really there and makes use of the camera.

With the resolution that the 1000D can capture if you put a superzoom on it it's like using low octane fuel in a high performance car; you are limiting the potential.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:45 PM.