Superzoom lenses for DSLR vs superzoom cameras
Discussion
I recently upgraded from a Panasonic FZ18 'superzoom' bridge type camera with 18x zoom to a Canon 500D with the 18-55mm kit lens.
I think I will miss the zoom range, so I am looking at something like the 18-200 or 55-250 as most use is for travelling. However, these cheaper 'do it all' zoom lenses get relatively poor reviews online and seem to have comprimises (distortion, slow, fringing etc). What I want to know is are these reviewers quite biased towards professional gear and they actually aren't that bad? Would the quality be noticably above that of say the Panasonic above, or on a similar par? I was impressed with the Panasonic in most areas apart from image noise and depth of field control which were mainly due to the sensor than the lens.
My other dilemma is how much of a bore is it changing lenses, or how often do you end up doing it in practice? I'm used to the all-in-one convenience!
I think I will miss the zoom range, so I am looking at something like the 18-200 or 55-250 as most use is for travelling. However, these cheaper 'do it all' zoom lenses get relatively poor reviews online and seem to have comprimises (distortion, slow, fringing etc). What I want to know is are these reviewers quite biased towards professional gear and they actually aren't that bad? Would the quality be noticably above that of say the Panasonic above, or on a similar par? I was impressed with the Panasonic in most areas apart from image noise and depth of field control which were mainly due to the sensor than the lens.
My other dilemma is how much of a bore is it changing lenses, or how often do you end up doing it in practice? I'm used to the all-in-one convenience!
I have the 55-250 (on a Canon 450D) and it is a very good lens for the money, sharp enough and with image stabilisation - which helped make my decision. One of its biggest downfalls is the narrower aperture than the pro lenses and a slower focussing mechanism (which isn't the end of the world).
Here is an in-depth review if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
It is not the most glowing review but it is being compared a lot of the time to Canon's L (pro) lenses.
I have had a lot of shots that I am very happy with (e.g. portraits and motorsport) and have not felt lacking.
I have not heard the best things about the 18-200mm type lenses as it is a kind of jack of all trades, master on none approach which means it is more compromised than the 55-250mm for the telephoto end (and you already have the 18-55mm). It does however get quite a good review below...
Here is the in-depth review of it from the same site as above:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Changing lens is not an issue - often if you know what kind of event you are going to, you can judge which lens you will need and can prepare in advance so no need to change. If not it is not hard and I don't find myself regularly switching.
As you mentioned though it is mainly for travelling, in which case an all-in-one could well be more suited to you.
Here is an in-depth review if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
It is not the most glowing review but it is being compared a lot of the time to Canon's L (pro) lenses.
I have had a lot of shots that I am very happy with (e.g. portraits and motorsport) and have not felt lacking.
I have not heard the best things about the 18-200mm type lenses as it is a kind of jack of all trades, master on none approach which means it is more compromised than the 55-250mm for the telephoto end (and you already have the 18-55mm). It does however get quite a good review below...
Here is the in-depth review of it from the same site as above:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Changing lens is not an issue - often if you know what kind of event you are going to, you can judge which lens you will need and can prepare in advance so no need to change. If not it is not hard and I don't find myself regularly switching.
As you mentioned though it is mainly for travelling, in which case an all-in-one could well be more suited to you.
I have tried a couple of cheaper zooms in the past; the tamron 55-200 then canon's 55-200, wasn't impressed with either to be honest. The quality was very poor, soft & really slow focus on both. Ended up selling them and getting Canon's 100-400 and 70-200f2.8IS, the difference is unbelievable (mind you, so is the price 
). Can't comment on the two you mention though, but you get what you pay for!
As for changing lenses, as arej mentioned, just take the ones you need with you. Normally take 4/5 with me to motorsport/knockhill events and changing isn't a problem at all. Having two bodies helps mind you.
This hobby gets pretty expensive...
). Can't comment on the two you mention though, but you get what you pay for!As for changing lenses, as arej mentioned, just take the ones you need with you. Normally take 4/5 with me to motorsport/knockhill events and changing isn't a problem at all. Having two bodies helps mind you.
This hobby gets pretty expensive...
Its a given that more Zoom = poorer lens.
i.e. it costs more and adds more complecity to make a good one.
And people who want a good lens dont tend to want a super zoom, so theres very few good quality super zooms, they all tend to be consumer grade (except the average and expensive 28-300L...)
Theres cases for using a superzoom tho, canons 178-200 is OK, camtons 18-270 isnt too bad either. But if you split that to 2 or 3 lenses it'll be a lot better.
i.e. it costs more and adds more complecity to make a good one.
And people who want a good lens dont tend to want a super zoom, so theres very few good quality super zooms, they all tend to be consumer grade (except the average and expensive 28-300L...)
Theres cases for using a superzoom tho, canons 178-200 is OK, camtons 18-270 isnt too bad either. But if you split that to 2 or 3 lenses it'll be a lot better.
Hub said:
My other dilemma is how much of a bore is it changing lenses, or how often do you end up doing it in practice? I'm used to the all-in-one convenience!
The whole point of an SLR camera is the flexibility to use different lenses. Anyone who finds swapping lenses a bore, should, in my opinion stick with a point-and-shoot camera.
It'd be good to see a comparison of a "low end" superzoom lens against a superzoom compact - regardless of the relatively cheap optics in the SLRs lens, surely they'd still have a huge advantage over the compact - sensor size, purely pulling in more light, etc.
I've been wondering about getting a wider range zoom, but its really no probs to swap between the 18-70 and the 70-300. On a few occasions I've been caught out only having the 70-300 with me (stupid), so I've had to work from a slightly greater distance, and have then got some fantastic shots of the kids with some wonderful depth of field.
I've been wondering about getting a wider range zoom, but its really no probs to swap between the 18-70 and the 70-300. On a few occasions I've been caught out only having the 70-300 with me (stupid), so I've had to work from a slightly greater distance, and have then got some fantastic shots of the kids with some wonderful depth of field.
OK, I did some further reading and was just about set on the Canon EF-S 55-250mm, but the one thing that upsets me is that it says the end rotates when focusing, which makes it tricky to use a circular polarising filter. Anyone used one with this lens? I do like using one for landscapes (darkening sky, cutting haze etc) so would it be better to find an alternative that the end doesn't rotate on, or would it be not too bad to focus first and then try and adjust the filter without moving the focus on this lens?
Hub said:
That's me told, haha!
Thanks for your responses. OK, I think I'll be looking at something along the lines of the 55-250 as it does seem good value. I guess the 18-200 is a fairly weighty thing anyway!
I hired an 18-200 recently for a holiday, and if you are willing to trade a little sharpness for versatility then it does the job well. I'm not however, so I'm buying a Nikon 24-70 and get to use my feet more! Thanks for your responses. OK, I think I'll be looking at something along the lines of the 55-250 as it does seem good value. I guess the 18-200 is a fairly weighty thing anyway!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff