24-300 lens

<p>Looking for a 24-300 lens, I'm an amateur photography, interested in mostly outdoor photography, and taking vacation photos. Want a very good quality lens, what quality lens are available. I own a canon 40D.</p>

<p>Are you sure you want only one lens?</p>

<p>28-300L is only quality lens in this range, but whether it will make you happy? I would suggest 2 lenses for this range ...</p>

<p>Tamron has a 18-270 DiII VC lens ... this lens is constructed for crop-cameras only and its stabilized.. (whcih is ok for the 40D).<br>

Tokina has (had?) a 24-200 lens which covers fullframe but is not stabilized.<br>

Sigma and Canon have a 18-200 lens (each of them image stabilized). (Both are only for crop-cameras).<br>

From filmdays there are a number of 28-200 and 28-300 lenses.</p>

<p>If you want good quality ... you should split the range into two lenses.</p>

<p>There are none. There are lots of 28-300 lenses if you value convenience over quality. Sigma, Tamron and Canon all make them. I reviewed the Tamron 28-300 here - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_300_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_300_review.html</a>. Not a bad lens for casual use if you simply hate changing lenses. I'd rather have the EF-S 18-55IS plus the EF-S 55-250IS myself if I wanted a low cost solution to a wide range of focal lengths.</p>

<p>Canon makes a EF 28-300 F/3.5-5.6 L IS USM that is hands down the very best lens in this category. It lists for USD2,069 at B&H. It is also quite large and very heavy. You might also want to consider an 18-200, which is a more useful focal range on an APS-C 40D. Canon (USD499) and Sigma (USD359) both make versions with image stabilization. From what I have read, the Canon may be slightly better, but not by much. Tamron also makes an 18-270 that has image stabilization for USD599.</p>

<p><br />Most people here will recommend that you split this focal range into 2 or 3 lenses, which will be better optimized, optionally faster, and give better IQ. And they will be right. However, I have both the Canon 28-300 and the Sigma 18-200 lenses I listed above, and there are times when these lenses are very useful, including when you want to travel light, don't know what focal length you will need, or you need to quickly switch back and forth between wide and long, and using 2 bodies is not an option. And you can get very good results from these types of lenses in many circumstances.</p>

<p>I have posted high resolution images from both of my lenses here: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/cameras_and_lenses">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/cameras_and_lenses</a> .</p>

<p>The Tamron 18-270 is a little soft (especially above 200). The 28-200 VC lens is even worse, and it hunts for focus at the long end (with the 40D - better on the 5D, but still often fails to lock in). The old 24-200 Tokina does focus better, but does not focus very close and is built like a tank (and weighs as much) - plus no IS. The Canon 28-200L is an excellent lens, but is very expensive (and being white, screams 'Steal Me')<br>

For the 40D, i would combine the 17-85mm with the 70-300 DO lens for a nice compact solution with no gaps (plus IS). If you have the 18-55 IS lens, then the 55-250 might be a good low cost fit (the 70-300 DO performs better, but does cost a lot). The non-DO 70-300 is believed to be sharper by some, but having both, I still lean toward the shorter DO version (Full time manual focus and faster ring USM).<br>

I would cover the range with two lenses, get a lens pouch that fits the larger, and have a much better kit for image quality vs a one lens solution. If you must have a one lens solution, the 18-270 is probably the best of the lot (or even the older 18-250). But, be prepared for softer images.<br>

Wayne</p>

<p> </p>