Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lens advise

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:52:02 PM

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

This type of question has been asked many times before and I have learnt a
great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.

I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been very happy
with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush taking pics of wild
animals. I have used all of the available manual modes possible with this
camera.

I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am leaning
towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and slow speed
(6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.

Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is it safe
to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported problems)
attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the 7900 can do
across the whole 18-200 spectrum?

My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although one
always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS (lots
of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.

I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.

Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around lens.

Thanks

Joel

More about : lens advise

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:52:03 PM

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

On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
S46dnZ2dnZ3tB17OnZ2dnbbpZt-dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@is.co.za, "Joel Dorfan"
<bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote:

> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have learnt a
> great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
>
> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been very happy
> with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush taking pics of wild
> animals. I have used all of the available manual modes possible with this
> camera.
>
> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am leaning
> towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and slow speed
> (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
>
> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is it safe
> to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported problems)
> attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the 7900 can do
> across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
>
> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although one
> always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS (lots
> of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
> also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
> the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
>
> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
>
> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around lens.
>
> Thanks
>
> Joel
>
>
>
IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true wide-angle to a
true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft at either the tele side
or the wide side, and probably both. You don't say what types of photos
that you prefer taking so it is difficult to make a recommendation but I
would go with either a wide to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide
angle shots or a normal to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the normal to
tele lenses.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:52:04 PM

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

C Wright wrote:
> On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
> S46dnZ2dnZ3tB17OnZ2dnbbpZt-dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@is.co.za, "Joel Dorfan"
> <bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote:
>
>> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
>> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
>>
>> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
>> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
>> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
>> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
>> manual
>> modes possible with this camera.
>>
>> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
>> am
>> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
>> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
>> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
>>
>> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
>> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
>> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
>> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
>>
>> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
>> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the
>> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also reported)
>> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600 vs
>> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
>> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
>>
>> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
>>
>> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
>> lens.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>>
> IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
> wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft
> at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
> don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
> difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a wide
> to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
> normal
> to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
> If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
> normal to tele lenses.

Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
more than one lens?

Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume it
was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.

I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.

--
Frank ess
Related resources
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:19:44 AM

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

Thanks for the input.
The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.

I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence the
question relating to weather or not it would be better than the 7900.

I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other reasons. The
fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best single lens
choice.

Joel

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:-ZadnRTXhai0E2bfRVn-3g@giganews.com...
> C Wright wrote:
> > On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
> > S46dnZ2dnZ3tB17OnZ2dnbbpZt-dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@is.co.za, "Joel Dorfan"
> > <bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
> >> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my situation.
> >>
> >> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
> >> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
> >> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
> >> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
> >> manual
> >> modes possible with this camera.
> >>
> >> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
> >> am
> >> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
> >> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
> >> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
> >>
> >> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
> >> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
> >> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
> >> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
> >>
> >> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
> >> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the
> >> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also reported)
> >> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600 vs
> >> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
> >> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
> >>
> >> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
> >>
> >> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
> >> lens.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Joel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
> > wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be soft
> > at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
> > don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
> > difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a wide
> > to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
> > normal
> > to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
> > If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
> > normal to tele lenses.
>
> Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
> more than one lens?
>
> Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
> expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume it
> was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.
>
> I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:19:45 AM

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

Joel Dorfan wrote:
> Thanks for the input.
> The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.
>
> I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence
> the
> question relating to weather or not it would be better than the
> 7900.
>
> I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other
> reasons.
> The fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best
> single lens choice.
>
> Joel
>

Aha.

List your "many other reasons" and see which lens most of them fit
into. You can bet not all of them will fit into any one of them.

Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

--
Frank ess

> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:-ZadnRTXhai0E2bfRVn-3g@giganews.com...
>> C Wright wrote:
>>> On 8/11/05 10:52 AM, in article
>>> S46dnZ2dnZ3tB17OnZ2dnbbpZt-dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@is.co.za, "Joel
>>> Dorfan"
>>> <bdorfan@MAPSicon.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This type of question has been asked many times before and I have
>>>> learnt a great deal from the answers. However here is my
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> I have bought a Canon 350D body only.
>>>> I have a Nikon 7900 7MP point and shoot whose results I have been
>>>> very happy with both closeup portrait and zoom while in the bush
>>>> taking pics of wild animals. I have used all of the available
>>>> manual
>>>> modes possible with this camera.
>>>>
>>>> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I
>>>> am
>>>> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
>>>> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
>>>> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me,
>>>> is
>>>> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various
>>>> reported
>>>> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that
>>>> the 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?
>>>>
>>>> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK
>>>> although one always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this,
>>>> the
>>>> Canon 17-85 IS (lots of CA, distortion and softness also
>>>> reported)
>>>> or the Tamron 24-135 would also do the job very well but at $600
>>>> vs
>>>> $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for the 24-135 it seems like a no
>>>> brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
>>>>
>>>> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
>>>>
>>>> Given the above, please help me settle on my ideal walk around
>>>> lens.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> IMO asking a lens, from any manufacturer, to go from a true
>>> wide-angle to a true telephoto is asking too much! It will be
>>> soft
>>> at either the tele side or the wide side, and probably both. You
>>> don't say what types of photos that you prefer taking so it is
>>> difficult to make a recommendation but I would go with either a
>>> wide
>>> to normal zoom if you tend to shoot more wide angle shots or a
>>> normal
>>> to tele if you find you tend to the tele side.
>>> If a lot of your shots are "people" shots I would lean toward the
>>> normal to tele lenses.
>>
>> Why did you want to "move up" to a dSLR if you didn't want to carry
>> more than one lens?
>>
>> Think about the area you wanted to step into by investing in an
>> expensive body, and buy a lens that will take you there. I presume
>> it
>> was some deficiency in the CP7900's performance.
>>
>> I can't imagine you just wanted to add an extra MP at that price.
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
August 12, 2005 12:19:46 AM

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

Per Frank ess:
>Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
>pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?

Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:19:46 AM

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

In article <4qudnSEIJfkRBmbfRVn-gA@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> Joel Dorfan wrote:
> > Thanks for the input.
> > The 7900 belongs to work and I just have the use of it.
> >
> > I understand the compromises of lenses with such wide ranges hence
> > the
> > question relating to weather or not it would be better than the
> > 7900.
> >
> > I would did not buy DSLR for the extra MP but for many other
> > reasons.
> > The fact is that I already have it and would like to make the best
> > single lens choice.
> >
> > Joel
> >
>
> Aha.
>
> List your "many other reasons" and see which lens most of them fit
> into. You can bet not all of them will fit into any one of them.
>
> Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
> pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with that.

People still don't realize the lens is more important than the camera.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:46:06 AM

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

It is not an easy transition from a -good- point and shoot. (i.e. a
good lens - like the 38-380 mm Schneider Kreuznach Variogon on the
Kodak DX 6490 - which can be opened up to f2.8 for low light, slightly
slow though -very- accurate autofocus, PASM modes ... and program modes
that give precise focusing and exposure readings compared to the Canon
EOS 350D.)
(www.treklens.com/members/aalhad)


Why did I move to a dSLR ? I did not like the jpeg compression and
sharpening that the dx6490 subjected the photos to. Looks bad on 8x12
prints.

Why did I move to the EOS 350D - because of the smooth, noise free
detail that the sensor gives.

Biggest gripe so far - GLASS IS AWFULLY EXPENSIVE.
Now I realize that 85% of the cost of the kodak dx6490 is probably the
cost of the lens.

- autfocus is inaccurate - off by around 4 cms - front focus bias -
using a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II under 10 EV - test conditions. although I
probably got a lemon, let's see how well the Canon India warranty holds
up.


I want a good normal-tele zoom that beats the Schneider Kreuznach
Variogon on the kodak dx6490. I'm looking for one that isn't as costly
as a Canon L class thingy. Will post if I find one.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:04:52 AM

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

> My older 35mm EOS had the older model 28-105 lens which was OK although
> one
> always could do with a bit extra zoom. Given this, the Canon 17-85 IS
> (lots
> of CA, distortion and softness also reported) or the Tamron 24-135 would
> also do the job very well but at $600 vs $400 for the 18-200 and $350 for
> the 24-135 it seems like a no brainer to go for the 18-200 or 24-135.
>
> I dont see myself as one to carry more than one lens.
>

As I tell anyone who listens - the lenses to buy are the L series. But they
are very expensive. When you see the results you can see why.

If you go to
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...

you can get lots of advice/reviews. I go with the 24 - 70 mm f2.8L as the
best walk round lens. Then look at a 70 - 200mm for a telephoto.

If you want an non-L (cheaper) lens then the 28-105 f3.5/4.5 is quite good
when stopped down to f5.6. But consider this; why buy and expensive body and
put a cheap lens on it? The lens is the most important bit.

John
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:10:03 AM

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

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Per Frank ess:
>
>>Isn't buying a dSLR and not changing lenses kind of like buying a 4WD
>>pickup truck and never leaving the pavement or carrying a load?
>
>
> Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.

And focus speed (which contributes to the perceived shutter lag).

And noise.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
The essentials: Kodak DX6490, Nikon D70, Canon i9950, Pioneer DVR-109,
Hitachi W37-PD2100, DGTEC 2000A, Harmon/Kardon AVR4500, Denon DVD-2800,
Whatmough Synergy, Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm LifeDrive.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:01:29 PM

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

Joel Dorfan wrote:
> I want to get one general purpose lens for the 350D and the one I am
> leaning towards is the 18-200 from either Tamron or Sigma.
> I have read much about the softness at various focal lengths, and
> slow speed (6.3) at full zoom etc. etc.
>
> Given the fact that the 7900 has produced decent results for me, is
> it safe to assume that the 18-200's (even with the various reported
> problems) attached to the 350D will far out perform anything that the
> 7900 can do across the whole 18-200 spectrum?

I don't recommend the mega zooms on a DSLR. I tried the
Tamron 18-200.

Here are some comparison shots with a Panasonic FZ20:

Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1Full.jpg

Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1.jpg

Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2Full.jpg

Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2.jpg

FZ20: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20aFull.jpg

FZ20: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20a.jpg

FZ20: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20bFull.jpg

FZ20: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20b.jpg

-Mike
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:06:26 PM

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

Mike Warren wrote:
[]
> I don't recommend the mega zooms on a DSLR. I tried the
> Tamron 18-200.
>
> Here are some comparison shots with a Panasonic FZ20:
>
> Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1Full.jpg
>
> Tamron 18-200: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron1.jpg
>
> Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2Full.jpg
>
> Tamron 18-200: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Tamron2.jpg
>
> FZ20: Maximum wide angle, full frame reduced
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20aFull.jpg
>
> FZ20: Maximum wide angle, partial Crop at 100%
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20a.jpg
>
> FZ20: Maximum telephoto, full frame reduced
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20bFull.jpg
>
> FZ20: Maximum telephoto, partial Crop at 100%
> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/FZ20b.jpg

Mike,

Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics on
the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over the full
frame. What is the weight comparison?

David
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:47:02 PM

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

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>
>> Lack of shutter lag is a pretty big thing to me.
>
> And focus speed (which contributes to the perceived shutter lag).

(a) P&S cameras (in theory, anyway) have less shutter lag than dSLRs. It's
only the AF that's the problem. (Well, some have glacial startup times.) (b)
While lenses with built-in motors (USM and the like) are _fast_, lenses
without (e.g. the Tamron 28-75/2.8) aren't all that fast.

> And noise.

The bottom line: It's the image quality, stupid.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:24:04 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics
> on the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over
> the full frame.

The Tamron lens is a waste of money if quality is important. I don't
understand why anyone using a dSLR would bother with it. If you just
want to take snapshots a ZLR is much friendlier to use.

I also compared it to the Canon S2. The S2 wasn't as good as the FZ20
but was still better than the Tamron 18-200. I printed one picture from
the 18-200 at 6x4 and the CA was still obvious. It wasn't just a faulty
sample either. I tried two of them.

> What is the weight comparison?

I don't quite get you here. The lens + D70S is much heavier than the
FZ20.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:24:05 AM

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

Mike Warren wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Thanks for posting those. Most interesting to see the better optics
>> on the noisier sensor, and how they compare at 1:1 viewing and over
>> the full frame.
[]
>> What is the weight comparison?
>
> I don't quite get you here. The lens + D70S is much heavier than the
> FZ20.

Just to know what equipment can produce what quality of pictures, and what
the trade-offs might be between cost, quality and bulk.

That's all.

David
!