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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 13, 2010, 6:01 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks for the input. You have all helped me a great deal.
conradcjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2010, 6:06 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
18-55IS and 55-250 IS pair really well and is cheap compared to the L lenses. Performance wise they are a bit slow, but the image quality is definitely good.
I really have to agree with nymphetamine - this is a great combo... very good IQ for that price, very lightweight (not heavy)... and I think the combination of these two outperforms any super-zoom lens!

Of course, if money and weight doesn't matter, you can get better glasses

EDIT: The next step could be the 15-85 and the 70-300... and then maybe 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8... but these are dreams that maybe someday come true
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L

Last edited by maggo85; Apr 13, 2010 at 6:09 AM.
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2010, 7:01 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Let's go back to basics a moment. Will 24mm be wide enough for you for normal shooting.... if not then 28mm won't be either. With my 7D I use the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 which gives me the right range for a walk around..... I have the 24-105 but use this on my 5D mkII as it is full frame so I get the wider angle. If I know I'm not going to shoot anything wide then I will put the 24-105 on the 7D for extra reach.

Next, what level of baseball are you looking at shooting? I would look at this info if you are wanting to take kit to an MLB game http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...0&changemode=1

For birding the 100-400 is the best choice if you can afford it, if not then the 70-300mm IS USM is OK but loses range.

I agree with the others that no superzoom lens produces good enough quality for putting on something like the 7D when you've spent so much buying it. A 2 lens solution will be far better. I would however not go down to the 55-250 as it is too short for your desires... good lens for the price though.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2010, 10:14 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks for the input Mark. What you are saying really makes sense.
conradcjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 10:00 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
Default

The Sigma 18-250 vs Tamron 18-270 is a question I also have. And I, too, have a 7D. I understand the well made points in this thread....but I'd still like an opinion between these two lenses. At this particular point in time, I believe one of these would best suit my needs.
FlashHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 10:08 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I would go with the 18-270mm, it seems to be a better all in one solution. I have read some of the German reviews between the 2 superzoom. And the tamron seems to deal with the short coming of an all in one solution better then the sigma
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 11:43 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I've read opinions that go in either direction, and seen test reports that don't indicate a clear winner.

Flip a coin.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 11:49 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The difference between a focal length of 250mm and 270mm is about 9%.

The Sigma is currently $529, while the Tamron is $549.

For 4% more money, you get 9% more zoom with the Tamron.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2010, 10:22 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Recently, I have sold my tamron 18-270 because this lens has a horrible focus system. Now I have the sigma 18-250 and the focus system is faster and smoother. Optically these two lens are similar, but with the sigma 18-250 I have a faster lens. On the other hand, the sigma 18-250 does not creep (at the moment).
nemo10 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 11:04 PM.