Suggestions for superzoom 18-200 or 28-250-300mm

[The Walrus]

Hello all,
I have a canon 40d which I would like to get a versatile all in one lens for both general use (portrait, family events, scenery) as well as motorsport and wildlife, budget is circa £300 I can spend a bit more but would like to keep it sub £400.

So far the tamron and sigma lenses have taken my eye but I wanted to know if there is something else I am missing that may be within my budget ???

Cheers as always for advice and tips

The Walrus

[andy-xr]

I've looked at similar lenses and discounted them for being too far apart in terms of zoom. I have an 18-50 Sigma and I'm still eyeing up the 50-150 they do. I think asking a lens to go from 10-250 is a bit much to then get reasonable sharpness from it.

Happy as ever to be wrong


Eggman

[mikee boy]

A do-it-all lens would be embarrassed by your camera. I'd suggest a decent 28-70 and a decent 70-300. Buy 1 now and the other when you can afford it.

[The Walrus]

mikee boy said:

A do-it-all lens would be embarrassed by your camera. I'd suggest a decent 28-70 and a decent 70-300. Buy 1 now and the other when you can afford it.

So far I have borrowed a 28-80 Canon and a 70-300mm and they where ok but I found at full zoom on the 300 unless on a tripod most shots where poor and suffered from camera shake, I liked the 28-80 but ideally would like something with a bit more zoom, the majority of the pictures I will take will be at the lower end of the lens range but I was keen to get a lens that had some ability to get decent track pictures if for instance I was stuck in the stands or set back from the track. would a 150 mm lens be enough for this ?

[mikee boy]

The Walrus said:

So far I have borrowed a 70-300mm and they where ok but I found at full zoom on the 300 unless on a tripod most shots where poor and suffered from camera shake,

Have you tried the 70-300 IS USM? Fantastic bit of kit even handheld. I've got some photos from one (on a 1000D) in the sample shots sticky above. Couldn't live without mine now, and I bought a used one recently for £235 from London Camera Exchange with a 3 month warranty.

[RobDickinson]

£300 for a zoom points to the 70-300IS or the (cheaper) 55-250IS

70-300IS is (relativly) slow at f5.6 and doesnt have USM but it produces stellar images and the IS works well.

The other is a budget ef-s lens but does great.

18-200's are do it all lens's with average to poor quality.

[mikee boy]

RobDickinson said:

70-300IS is (relativly) slow at f5.6 and doesnt have USM

There may be 2 versions then because mine is USM.

To the OP, I'd suggest you go to a decent camera shop and they'll let you try them out.

[flat-planedCrank]

mikee boy said:

RobDickinson said:

70-300IS is (relativly) slow at f5.6 and doesnt have USM

There may be 2 versions then because mine is USM.

Its micro-USM rather than the 'full' ring-type-USM (guessing that may be what RobDickinson is referring to ) - so there is no full-time manual focus, also the focusing speed is slower.

I also have the 70-300 IS USM - certainly nice image quality (helps if you stop it down a little).
Downsides? rotating front element, focusing could be faster, not much else



Cheers.

Edited by flat-planedCrank on Monday 2nd March 22:19

[havoc]

Avoid super-zooms - agree with everything posted above.

Consider 2nd-hand lenses...as long as they've been looked after they shouldn't be a problem

My suggestion:
- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Been around for a while, should be ~£400 new, if not a little less, but will be plenty on eBay etc. for less. I've had mine for >2 years now and it's an excellent lens for the price.
(There's also an older 75-300 IS USM which isn't as good but is no worse than the superzooms and can probably be picked-up for a song)

Then to complement it, depending on money:-
- Canon 18-55IS kit-lens is actually OK. (Note NOT the non-IS old cheap one, which is adequate until you can get a better one for c.£200...such as the:
- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a lovely piece of kit, if a little fragile.

[RobDickinson]

Yeah I meant real USM not the USM canon invented to cash in on their own higher end product.

Micro USM, whilst better than nothing, aint no proper USM.

75-300 non IS is pants, IS one is a bit better but woefull in comparison to the 70-300IS.

[The Walrus]

Cheers for the heads up guys I have been looking at prices for the 70-300 IS USM and I think I can get that easily sub £400 and could then complement that with the 18-55 as suggested I think for circa £100.

I take even a 28-200 is below par for most keen snappers as well ?

[Simpo Two]

The Walrus said:

I take even a 28-200 is below par for most keen snappers as well ?

Try it - you might be perfectly happy with the results. It just depends how discerning/fussy you are. But generally, the more things a lens does, the less well it can do each of them.

[SamHH]

Simpo Two said:

The Walrus said:

I take even a 28-200 is below par for most keen snappers as well ?

Try it - you might be perfectly happy with the results. It just depends how discerning/fussy you are. But generally, the more things a lens does, the less well it can do each of them.

I agree with this. Most of my lenses are cheap ones that are apparently low quality compared to some others, but it doesn't bother me all that much. The optical quality of the lens is only one factor in making a good photograph. If a 'super-zoom' allows you to take a photo that you wouldn't otherwise have done, that's much better than not getting the photo at all but knowing that it would have been super sharp if the right lens had been on the camera.

[The Walrus]

Cheers Sam - this is why I am torn at the moment as it will be a while until I can splash out on another lens, currently erring towards the two separate lenses but and all in one is handy to have purely for the reasons you have stated above, I missed some cracking shots in Africa due to having to change lenses so I was wanting to avoid that in the future, but it sounds as if it may be a compromise not worth making.

[havoc]

The Walrus said:

I missed some cracking shots in Africa due to having to change lenses so I was wanting to avoid that in the future, but it sounds as if it may be a compromise not worth making.

You need a 2nd body then, obviously!

(more seriously, when I upgraded to the 40D I kept the 20D initially as a just-in-case lens but I found having a second body with a different lens on could be really handy at times. Worth checking out the prices of 2nd-hand 300D's and 20D's, just in case...)

[The Walrus]

havoc said:

The Walrus said:

I missed some cracking shots in Africa due to having to change lenses so I was wanting to avoid that in the future, but it sounds as if it may be a compromise not worth making.

You need a 2nd body then, obviously!

(more seriously, when I upgraded to the 40D I kept the 20D initially as a just-in-case lens but I found having a second body with a different lens on could be really handy at times. Worth checking out the prices of 2nd-hand 300D's and 20D's, just in case...)

Funny you say that as I was about to say don't say get a second body, which again is not really an option.

Think I will have a wonder into Jessops over lunch and see what they have and try them out to see how good or bad the quality is.

[The Walrus]

Thanks for your help guys I eventually went for a 17-55 canon lens and was going to get the 70-300 IS USM lens but is out of stock with the guy I use.

Purely out of interest are there any other lenses for circa £350 that people would recommend over the 70-300 IS USM from Canon ?

[Gold]

The Walrus said:

Purely out of interest are there any other lenses for circa £350 that people would recommend over the 70-300 IS USM from Canon ?

Under budget the 55-250 IS is good and over budget the 70-200 f4 L is very good.

[Kermit power]

Gold said:

The Walrus said:

Purely out of interest are there any other lenses for circa £350 that people would recommend over the 70-300 IS USM from Canon ?

Under budget the 55-250 IS is good and over budget the 70-200 f4 L is very good.

You could pick up the latter second hand on Ebay for under £400.

[The Walrus]

http://www.bitesizedeals.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f...

I found this puppy not 100% about the website though, and the concern I have is that 200 mm may not be enough seeing the main use will be sports photography or wildlife.