One lens suits all Canon DSLR
Discussion
Hi, i currently have a Canon 1000d with the standard 24-56 lens it can with. Just come back from Sri Lanka where i went on an elephant safari. As we were stopped and taking photos the guide lent me his Tamron 150-600 lens which i really liked.
I am now wanting to buy a lens with a far bigger zoom than i currently have but am wanting a one lens solution so wouldnt really want to go less than 24 for minimum zoom and would prefer to end up with a reasonable zoom and have seen quite a few up to 300 zooms.
Budget is ideally no more than £150 but will have to go higher if no options for this price point, and more than happy with good condition secondhand equipment.
I have seen the Tamron 16-300 which seems ideal apart from price and the Sigma 18-300 which appears a little cheaper.
Any im missing and recommendations much appreciated.
I am now wanting to buy a lens with a far bigger zoom than i currently have but am wanting a one lens solution so wouldnt really want to go less than 24 for minimum zoom and would prefer to end up with a reasonable zoom and have seen quite a few up to 300 zooms.
Budget is ideally no more than £150 but will have to go higher if no options for this price point, and more than happy with good condition secondhand equipment.
I have seen the Tamron 16-300 which seems ideal apart from price and the Sigma 18-300 which appears a little cheaper.
Any im missing and recommendations much appreciated.
At that price, the Sigma is a bit of a no-brainer, so long as you realise that it's not a fast lens. It's f6.3 at the long end, so you'll need something to steady it for long shots. My Canon 100-400 is f5.6 at the long end (with stabilisation, like the Sigma) and getting a moving subject n focus at the long end needs a tripod or monopod.
Hmm that doesnt sound good then as would like the camera to remain working without the need for a tripod. Essentially the camera will get used for sightseeing trips, wildlife (which i would presume would be when i want the greatest magnification) and motorsports all very amateur and camera likely kept on auto mode.
I would like the 24-55 range at least to he better for poor light conditions than the current lens as i do find my iphone better in low light than the Canon, this is likely my limitations though and not the camera.
I guess i need to look out for f ratings then.
I would like the 24-55 range at least to he better for poor light conditions than the current lens as i do find my iphone better in low light than the Canon, this is likely my limitations though and not the camera.
I guess i need to look out for f ratings then.
I have a Canon 100D which I use as my every day camera.
I was using a Tamron 18/280 which I never liked. The image quality is poor.
Recently I replaced the lens for a Canon 18/200 bought off Ebay for £150.
I'm thrilled with the difference. The camera and lens are on their way back from the Singapore GP & I shall see the results of it's first big test tonight.
I'll pop up some pix tomorrow from Singapore for you to see the results.
A comparison :-
I was using a Tamron 18/280 which I never liked. The image quality is poor.
Recently I replaced the lens for a Canon 18/200 bought off Ebay for £150.
I'm thrilled with the difference. The camera and lens are on their way back from the Singapore GP & I shall see the results of it's first big test tonight.
I'll pop up some pix tomorrow from Singapore for you to see the results.
A comparison :-
Sounds like the Canon 18-200 might be worth a look, hopefully im going to nip into town at the weekend and have a look at what a 200 zoom compared to a 300 zoom means!
In most normal circumstances i guess im more interested in low light capability and quality of image and not be to drawn into the level of zoom but i guess whilst it is all a compromise i meed to work out what i am prepared to compromise on.
In most normal circumstances i guess im more interested in low light capability and quality of image and not be to drawn into the level of zoom but i guess whilst it is all a compromise i meed to work out what i am prepared to compromise on.
To throw a curveball, if it has to be a one lens solution that's normally on full auto, I'd be tempted to sell the 1000D and get a compact or bridge camera.
Canon SX60?
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camco...
Picture quality might not be quite up to the 1000D but it would be a lot more versatile. DSLRs are great but they do require investment in additional lenses to get the best from them.
Canon SX60?
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camco...
Picture quality might not be quite up to the 1000D but it would be a lot more versatile. DSLRs are great but they do require investment in additional lenses to get the best from them.
toasty said:
To throw a curveball, if it has to be a one lens solution that's normally on full auto, I'd be tempted to sell the 1000D and get a compact or bridge camera.
Canon SX60?
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camco...
Picture quality might not be quite up to the 1000D but it would be a lot more versatile. DSLRs are great but they do require investment in additional lenses to get the best from them.
Im going to be honest here and eat my humble pie, i dismissed this idea very quickly. I have know taken a look at these and you may be onto something. I never knew these existed i figured it was compact digital or SLR but they look like a solution for the likes of me. Canon SX60?
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camco...
Picture quality might not be quite up to the 1000D but it would be a lot more versatile. DSLRs are great but they do require investment in additional lenses to get the best from them.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Sheetmaself said:
Yes please especially if you have roughly the same image zoomed out and zoomed in.
As above I had no issues with the image quality from the Tamron 16-300 - there's no doubt a prime or Canon L lens would be sharper but to my eye these are sharp enough.
Wild Rose by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Juvenile Kestrel by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Pelican II by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Heron by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Beinn Eighe from Loch Coulin by Mike Smith, on Flickr
It's all about compromises, and understanding the relationship between focal length/range, speed (maximum aperture/min f-no), size, weight, & cost.
You can get a cheap long reach zoom, but it will be slow (high f-no) and you won't be able to get good motorsports photos/wildlife pics at high focal lengths with moving subjects (because you will need a slow shutter speed to get enough light in).
if you want a faster lens then you will be looking at a much bigger, much heavier, much more expensive prospect.
My personal view is it's worthwhile having a couple of lenses that cover everything between them. I have quite a few including some primes (fixed focal length), but I basically use 2 now - Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 (nice pro 1990s lens, fast, useful mid range telephoto), and a Nikon 55-200VR f/4-5.6 (not fast but a nice light small lens with a good range and good VR). My brother had a Nikon 18-200 f/2.8 which I always thought would make the perfect catch all but he didn't get on with it and sold it. I seem to remember him saying it was big and heavy and compromised at either end of its range.
The other idea could be a fast zoom with a smaller range at the long end (if such a thing exists), and a decent point and shoot for closer stuff...
You can get a cheap long reach zoom, but it will be slow (high f-no) and you won't be able to get good motorsports photos/wildlife pics at high focal lengths with moving subjects (because you will need a slow shutter speed to get enough light in).
if you want a faster lens then you will be looking at a much bigger, much heavier, much more expensive prospect.
My personal view is it's worthwhile having a couple of lenses that cover everything between them. I have quite a few including some primes (fixed focal length), but I basically use 2 now - Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 (nice pro 1990s lens, fast, useful mid range telephoto), and a Nikon 55-200VR f/4-5.6 (not fast but a nice light small lens with a good range and good VR). My brother had a Nikon 18-200 f/2.8 which I always thought would make the perfect catch all but he didn't get on with it and sold it. I seem to remember him saying it was big and heavy and compromised at either end of its range.
The other idea could be a fast zoom with a smaller range at the long end (if such a thing exists), and a decent point and shoot for closer stuff...
Thanks for the input, my decision has been made i am going to sell the 1000d and buy myself either a Panasonic fz200 or 330.
More interested in a one box solution as often travel with minimal luggage and it looks as though whilst not as zoomy as some other bridge cameras it is what i was using in Sri Lanka which would be more than enough and the low light level seems very good too.
More interested in a one box solution as often travel with minimal luggage and it looks as though whilst not as zoomy as some other bridge cameras it is what i was using in Sri Lanka which would be more than enough and the low light level seems very good too.
Life is full of compromises but when i sit back and think of what i want in a camera i came up with the following list.
Must be reasonably portable.
Must be easy to use but still give me oppurtunity to learn better techniques.
Must be better than the canon at low level light.
Must have a reasonable zoom.
Must be capable of taking good quality photos, i understand at this price point they wont be exceptional.
When all of this was weighed up for my needs a bridge camera was the answer and with being more interest in low light capability than a massive zoom, although 600mm equivelant seems quite high, the Panasonic seems to fit the bill.
Just now need to work out whether to get the 200 or 330 or indeed wait for January sales as next holiday is Feb time.
Must be reasonably portable.
Must be easy to use but still give me oppurtunity to learn better techniques.
Must be better than the canon at low level light.
Must have a reasonable zoom.
Must be capable of taking good quality photos, i understand at this price point they wont be exceptional.
When all of this was weighed up for my needs a bridge camera was the answer and with being more interest in low light capability than a massive zoom, although 600mm equivelant seems quite high, the Panasonic seems to fit the bill.
Just now need to work out whether to get the 200 or 330 or indeed wait for January sales as next holiday is Feb time.
If you're in the market for a Bridge camera, then in addition to Panasonic I suggest you also include Sony in your list of possibles.
A few years ago a friend of mine bought a Panasonic and I bought a Sony at roughly the same time ... mine's an HX100V.
Sony was a little more expensive, but had a lot more features - most of which were really worth having.
In Sony bridge range the "HX" versions are higher spec than the "H" versions.
A few years ago a friend of mine bought a Panasonic and I bought a Sony at roughly the same time ... mine's an HX100V.
Sony was a little more expensive, but had a lot more features - most of which were really worth having.
In Sony bridge range the "HX" versions are higher spec than the "H" versions.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff