More lens help please

[Ex-biker]

Due to the cost of a new Dslr (other post) and the fact I want / need a zoom lens, I'm thinking of getting one of these to go with the camera:

www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1467&ManufacturerID=2&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1063&ManufacturerID=50&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=295&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

But which one?
I am swayed towards the Sigma or Tamron due to the macro function

[-DeaDLocK-]

Hi,

Me again!

They all look okay and are ideal as a first step purchase for telephoto reach. However my only advice is not to be swayed by claims of "macro". The latter two may well be able to focus closer than the Canon, but they will still be nowhere near the abilities of a dedicated macro lens.

In fact in some cases Canon and Nikon lenses without any kind of macro badging can do more macro than Sigma and Tamron offerings with macro badging - this is because Canon and Nikon reserve the word "macro" for true macro lenses (i.e. lenses with 1:1 magnification).

So by all means if you intend to do some basic close-ups then consider the macro "feature", but you will probably get nowhere near the amazing detail you can capture on a prime macro lens on 1:1 magnification.

My old Tamron 28-300 could do "macro", but IIRC it was only at a 1:4 ratio, which is NOWHERE near the 1:1 of my 50mm Sigma f/2.8 (which only cost me about £160).

[-DeaDLocK-]

Just read your reply on the other post.

I appreciate your budget is limited, but if you can at all, I would consider the new Tamron 18-200 Di lens (which really shouldn't cost more than £200 once it becomes widely available; cheaper on eBay) as an all-in-one lens for your kit.

You may "get by" with the 18-55, but in my honest opinion, it will restrict what you can do and your ultimate results.

But at the end of the day get what you like as long as you take the pictures.

Only trying to help!

[sjn2004]

Useful review site here for various lenses.

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Have you checked the forums on DPreview yet?

[woody]

Ex-biker said:

Due to the cost of a new Dslr (other post) and the fact I want / need a zoom lens, I'm thinking of getting one of these to go with the camera: www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1467&ManufacturerID=2&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38 But which one? I am swayed towards the Sigma or Tamron due to the macro function

I;ve just ordered the mk III USM version of this lens from 7dayshop for £119, I to was torn between Sigma and Canon. In the end I went for the Canon as it has the USM motor and also I'm thinking that as it's from Canon it'll probalby be better suited to the camera (300D).

Chris



>> Edited by woody on Monday 28th March 21:05

>> Edited by woody on Monday 28th March 21:06

[simpo two]

Tamron info says:

'with a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 at the 300mm setting, ideal for shooting subjects that are difficult to approach such as sporting and theatrical events. By switching to macro mode, subjects as close as 0.95m can be shot within the focal range of 180-300mm for true macro photography.'

1:2 is very good for a lens that's not a true macro. However it only seems to work in the 180-300 range - it may be a seperate switch - and 0.95m might be too far away: couple this with the max aperture and magnification and you'll need to watch for camera-shake I think.

No lens will do everything; you just have to arrange your priorities and get the one that meets the most of them. IMO feel is also important - plasticky bodies and stiff action (stoppit) can really spoil your day.

[te51cle]

My experience with Sigma lenses is that although they're optically very good, mechanically they are rather fragile. I had the APO version of the 75-300 for my Canons and I had to replace it after less than 4 years. The Tamron is cheaper than the Sigma, 'nuff said.

If you want a telephoto lens then I'd recommend the Canon. If you want to do macro work you'll be better off buying a set of extension tubes for your existing machine for example:
www.kauserinternational.com/Photography/Ohnar/Tubes/extension_tubes.htm
or www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=371&ManufacturerID=62&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=96

[nubbin]

I bought the Canon 28-200 USM to go with the standard 18-55 that comes with the EOS 300/350D, because it's a much smaller lens, and I can use a 1.4 convertor to get the longer focal lengths if needed. I've been looking at the longer lenses, and I've ordered a Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3 - it is a new lens, with good reviews, and weighs 1200g as oposed to the Sigma 50-500 which weighs nearly 1900g. Hopefully that'll do me for a few years!!

[Ex-biker]

sjn2004 said:

Useful review site here for various lenses. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/</a> Have you checked the forums on DPreview yet?

Very interesting reviews.

It seems the Tamron is slow to focus, there is nothing on the Sigma and I was shocked about the comments of Chromo Abbreviation on the Canon.

Not that I know what CA is?

Will the min focal distances make much difference? (approx 1.5m on Canon and 95cm on Tamron & Sigma, both in macro)

edited to add

Any idea what the focusing speed is like on the Sigma?

>> Edited by Ex-biker on Tuesday 29th March 20:30

[simpo two]

Ex-biker said:

It seems the Tamron is slow to focus, there is nothing on the Sigma and I was shocked about the comments of Chromo Abbreviation on the Canon. Not that I know what CA is?

Chromatic Aberration means the lens focuses different colours at different points. Typically this is seen as a red or blue colour fringe towards the corners. I think pretty much all lenses have some, but the more you pay, the less you get. If you shoot RAW, software can remove it - but you may not want to get that deep. Frankly, unles you're really fussy, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it for 'real world' photography.

Ex-biker said:

Will the min focal distances make much difference? (approx 1.5m on Canon and 95cm on Tamron & Sigma, both in macro)

Depends how close you want to get! But if you're trying to take a picture from 1.2 meters and you have the Canon, it won't focus; you'll have to stop and move further back.

Ex-biker said:

Any idea what the focusing speed is like on the Sigma?

Sorry no, but if you can stretch to it, the silent wave focus on Sigma lenses is called HSM. Infinitely better than mechanical focus, but more £.... the old story

[sjn2004]

Ex-biker said:

sjn2004 said: Useful review site here for various lenses. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/"><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/</a></a> Have you checked the forums on DPreview yet? Very interesting reviews. It seems the Tamron is slow to focus, there is nothing on the Sigma and I was shocked about the comments of Chromo Abbreviation on the Canon. Not that I know what CA is? Will the min focal distances make much difference? (approx 1.5m on Canon and 95cm on Tamron & Sigma, both in macro) edited to add Any idea what the focusing speed is like on the Sigma? >> Edited by Ex-biker on Tuesday 29th March 20:30

At a pratical level, CA is generally found where a very dark area meets a very bright area(eg branches of a tree against the sky, TV aerials). What actually appears generally speaking is a purple band of a few pixels width where the black joins the white. Most times its not visible unless you look at your pics 100% on the monitor. Some lenses produce CA of other colours eg orange with the Canon 24-70L. Highlight reflective surfaces with blown highlights also produce this effect(eg chrome parts on cars).