Lens choice

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"grrr" <gkpayne@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1117974859.590659.38780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have a canon 350d and a selection of canon lenses, however, when i am
> out and about, it always seems that the lens i have attached is in the
> wrong range, and end up having to change.Given the most significant
> problem that seems to arise with dslr's(namely dust ingress), I thought
> a simple solution would be a lens with a larger zoom range (28-300),
> thus removing the need to change lenses in a hostile environment.
> However given the cost the canon lens, i have looked at the "budget"
> lenses, ie tamron and sigma. My question is this, is the difference in
> price proportionate to the quality, given that i am a keen amatuer who
> is just finding thier feet with the subject, and would perhaps consider
> the cost if i decided to get more serious. i would appreciate your
> honest advice
>

I have a Tamron 28-200 and it is good quality.
I would go for the Tamron as I suspect their 28-300 will be of the same
quality.

Gerrit - Oz

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:12:12 +0800, "Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au>
wrote:

>
>"grrr" <gkpayne@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1117974859.590659.38780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I have a canon 350d and a selection of canon lenses, however, when i am
>> out and about, it always seems that the lens i have attached is in the
>> wrong range, and end up having to change.Given the most significant
>> problem that seems to arise with dslr's(namely dust ingress), I thought
>> a simple solution would be a lens with a larger zoom range (28-300),
>> thus removing the need to change lenses in a hostile environment.
>> However given the cost the canon lens, i have looked at the "budget"
>> lenses, ie tamron and sigma. My question is this, is the difference in
>> price proportionate to the quality, given that i am a keen amatuer who
>> is just finding thier feet with the subject, and would perhaps consider
>> the cost if i decided to get more serious. i would appreciate your
>> honest advice
>>
>
>I have a Tamron 28-200 and it is good quality.
>I would go for the Tamron as I suspect their 28-300 will be of the same
>quality.
>
>Gerrit - Oz
>

The Tamron 28-300mm lens may be a reasonably good quality lens
but any lens with almost an 11 to 1 zoom ratio is going to be a
compromise & likely require more moving lens elements. Please
understand that I am not bashing Tamron or any brand, because I feel
this would be a quality problem regardless of who makes it.

Sometimes however the "good" depends on "your needs/wants".
If you find yourself in need of jumping often from wide angle to
telephoto with little or no time to change lenses, then this may be a
practical lens for "you". Fixed focal length lenses generally excel
over most zooms because they are far less complex & can usually be
built to tighter optical/mechanical tolerances even if done in a
plastic lens barrel such as Canon's 50mm f1.8 Mk II.

Best suggestion would be to check the reviews & forums to see
what people have to say about it. Also download & examine the picture
quality of any pictures you can find taken with the lens of interest &
the intended camera you plan to use it on, if possible.

My Canon 17-85mm IS lens is a good example of a quality lens
that does suffer noticeable distortion at it's esteems, especially
full wide angle. This lens has a 5 to 1 zoom ratio but for what I
primarily use it for (people candid's), distortion is rarely
noticeable or a problem "for my needs".

Best wishes, if it works for "you" & "your" happy with it,
don't be concerned about what others say, other than with regard to
possible "reliability or compatibility" issues.

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918