Zooms Covering 24-300mm for Hiking, help me decide

I have a 7xi which I'm going to buy lenses for replacing the 35-80

kit lens. I want to cover the range from 24-300mm with at least 2

lenses. I do lanscapes, closeups (will get a true macro down the

road), and various other outdoor shots. My uses for the lenses aren't

completely limited to those applications, but primarily those. So

fast lenses aren't important to me. I do use filters such as a

polarizer and various black and white film filters.

Right now I'm looking to buy the lens covering the 24 mm + range

first. While I am willing to pay for a more expensive lens if it

means better optical qualilty, I do have a budget. I've been looking

at used lenses at KEH and B&H and reading reviews.

I was looking at the 24-105 mm and the 24-85 mm. Also, the Tamron 24-

135 mm looks good. But I've also been reading tonight good things of

the 24-50 mm. I'd like to avoid gaps in the focal lengths between 24

and 300, but if there is a better optical choice for the money that

doesn't compromise too much I'd be interested in it.

PS-my previous expereince is a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm, so I do know

the bang for the buck you can get out of the 50/1.8.

Thanks!

I tried a Minolta 24-85 and preferred the 24-50 for smaller size,

matching 55 filter thread, lower distortion, and lack of zoom creep.

But I agree with Michael about the 100-300 APO. Note that Tamron

makes an OK-quality 70-300/4-5.6 with 62 filter thread matching the

Minolta 24-85 and newer 24-105.

If you like the Tamron 24-135, consider combining it with a Minolta 200/2.8 G and teleconverter. Both lenses accept size 72 filters.

It's been my experience that I use a long zoom mostly at the long end

(for wildlife) but you might be different.

On these lenses, how bad is vignetting? and do any of them have rotating ends?

I know the Minolta 24-105 is not rotating, how about the others?

It seem ridiculous that these lenses would be designed with vignetting built into them, so complaints of it seems like it has to come with putting on filters or probably too many filters. For the most part, I'll be using no more than 1 filter at a time. Later I plan on getting a graduate neutral density filter attaching it with either a Cokin holder or just gaffer tape.

If you don't mind slow lenses, I have--surprisingly enough--been able to take reasonably good pictures using the Tamron 28-300 uber-zoom along with a Tamron 19-35 f/3.5-4.5.

Both lenses are quite slow and do display a touch of barrel distortion, but they are far better than people give them credit for. With this lightweight pair, you can cover everything from 19-300. And they're cheap.

I can't make a wholehearted recommendation, though; now that I'm used to f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, it sort of brings me down to look through slow zooms. I think I might sell them to a buddy of mine who seems interested.

But seriously, as you said, it's all a balance of budget/quality/needs.

Two lenses I AM keeping (until I can afford the Minolta equivalents, that is) are the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. The 77mm filters for these are pricey, but they're good quality glass. In fact, PhotoDo gave Sigma's 70-200 the same rating that they gave Minolta's 80-200. And the Sigma has the advantage of a non-rotating front element. I have a Kenko teleconverter I use with the long zoom to get it to 300mm. Not bad. A bit heavy, though.

If you decide you REALLY need the 24mm, Sigma also makes a 24-70 f/2.8, although I can't comment on it as I've never used it. Also, it takes 82mm filters, which presents problems both in terms of cost and filter compatibility.

Happy shopping!