Jump to content

Frustrated with travel lenses


eugene_ho1

Recommended Posts

<p>I own the canon 450d with its kit lens EF-s 18-55mm IS and am looking for a travel lens upgrade.<br>

EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - everything seems fantastic but the barrel distortion is my concern for architecture, is it still acceptable?, I don't shoot in RAW<br>

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM nice focus scale, IS, but not cheap<br>

EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM - EF 28mm on 450d, not gd for wide angle shots<br>

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - barrel distortion, how is it compared to EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS<br>

My first choice probably EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, anyone used it before? Thanks for you help.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I guess it depends on where your traveling. If your looking for really good image quality how about a prime to go with your 18-55? That will give you a good indoor/outdoor combo. Everything you mentioned is a compromise in one way or another ( as is a prime ) For general light weight travel I would suggest a Tamron 17-50 2.8 over all of the above. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><i>"I own the canon 450d with its kit lens EF-s 18-55mm IS and am looking for a travel lens upgrade."</p></i>

<p>Depends on your reasons for wanting to upgrade. I don't think any of the lenses mentioned wpuld have significantly better IQ than your 18-55 IS. If you're looking for more reach, why not just add the EF-S 55-250mm IS? Or the EF 35mm f2 if you need a 'normal' lens for low light? </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><i>"Would a wide angle zoom lens alter the image quality a lot compared to prime lens?"</p></i>

<p>I have the Tamron zoom that Tommy suggested. At 50mm, it's as sharp as my 50mm f1.8 prime and has good colour and contrast. But the 50mm prime can be used in very low light or for extremely shallow depth of field.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One thing to keep in mind is the zoom range of the lens and its cost. </p>

<ul>

<li>On your 18-55 the zoom range is 3 (55/18=3). All of the lenses you have listed have a longer zoom range. In general the large the zoom range the more compromises were made in the design. In my personal experience my favorite lenses (in terms of image quality) have had a zoom range of 3 or less. I have also had several zoom lenses with a zoom range of 4 and other than one lens (my Canon 100-400) they have been a disappointment. Lenses with large zoom ranges tend to have more optical issues and or weigh more. Sometimes a lot more. </li>

<li>Generally the higher the cost the better the lens. Note I said generally. Sometime cost is not the best indicator of quality. Photo.net has a search feature in the upper right of the screen. If you type in a lens you will get a long list of forums were the lens was discussed. I have not owned any of the lenses you have listed so I cannot comment on which one is best.</li>

</ul>

<p>If you want minimum distortions from a lens I would look at lenses with a zoom range of 3 or less. You might want to look at the Canon 17-55 F2.8 lens. Unfortunately the 17-55 is double the cost of the 18-200mm. Sigma and Tamron also have lenses similar to the 17-55 for about $500 but they don't have IS. </p>

<p>My personal preference is to have two lenses rather than one. One for telephoto and one for normal. Individually each would probably have better optical performance than the one lens solution. One lens is in a pouch attached to my belt while the other is on the camera. It doesn't take long to switch. However each person is different and your opinion on which lens is best may be different than mine. For that reason I would recommend you find a good camera store and ask to look at the lenses on a camera. And again also use the photo.net search function to get others opinions. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>EF-S 10-22 is a very good wide angle zoom with pretty low distortion for a zoom. It is a bit more expensive than other lenses you have listed. I use it with a 24-105 f4L as a two lens travel combo. The 24-105 f4L suffers from some distortion, however.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>According to photozone, the barreldistortion of the 17-85 is abt. 4% at the wide end, and is about 4.5% at the wide end of the 18-200. See...<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review<br>

and<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is</p>

<p>Nevertheless, both of them are quite solid candidates for "one-lens" solutions. (I would personally opt for the 17-85). The barrel distortion at the wide end can be corrected in postprocessing.</p>

<p>If you wish to have no barrel distortion in the 17-20 range, you shopuld add a lens like the EFS 10-22 ... which has next to no distortion in this range.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you Rainer T for giving such a wonderful site, but I am finding some problems upon the MTF, which was said as quantity of sharpness in the site. According to Tommy DiGiovanni, the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 should be better in terms of IQ, but according to the results, it merely touches 2150 line, while my EF-s 18-55mm IS touches it more often. The EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS seems to consist great image quality, arround 2350. The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM with a small zoom range which should be of high quality according to Steven F, but it is far from 2150. Am I reading the scales wrong?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Am I reading the scales wrong?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. You can look at MTF scales and shots of test patterns all day long, or you can actually take pictures. Worrying about absolute sharpness/resolution is a sure sign of a beginner and has virtually no meaning in real life photography (where other lens characteristics are much more important).</p>

<p>If you are in the market for a wide-angle zoom, check out the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. But if you just want any super-sharp lens, take a good look at Canon's telephoto L primes (e.g., EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The travel lenses I carry are.....<br>

16-35L F2.8 USM<br>

24-105L F4 IS USM<br>

70-200L F2.8 IS USM<br>

I've always been very pleased with the results of these lenses. There is some barrel distortion on the 16-35, however I use DXO to process all my photos and it takes care of any distortion.<br>

Personally, I would avoid the "S" series lenses, if you ever upgrade to a full frame sensor body, you won't be able to use those lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Be carefull with photozones MTF numbers. There are tests done on a 350D, others done on a 50D and others done on a 5DMkII. You can only directly compare those tests that were done on the same camera. (THis doesn't touch the distortion values ... they are the same between 350D and 50D ... not so with the 5D).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you pixel peep and look at technical reviews like those on Photozone.de, you will discover an interesting fact:<br>

it is extremely difficult to design a wide range zoom lens without some barrel and pincushion distortion. Even L lenses like the mark 1 16-35mm and the 24-105mm have this "feature".</p>

<p>If you want to do architectural photography, aside from getting a view camera, your best options are to get prime lenses, especially like the TS-E shift lenses.</p>

<p>Or you can learn to post process the distortions away--it's relatively simple in Photoshop or other programs, although the results may arguably be somewhat less than getting it right on the sensor plane in the first place.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't get all caught up in those numbers and tech reviews, in the right light, even your kit lens can produce very good shots. Maybe your not getting the most of of the lens. Do you use an external flash? If so do you diffuse it? </p>

<p>The Tamron is a step up mainly because you have 2.8 across the focal range. Again light is a key factor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>> I think the EF-s 18-55mm IS image quality lacks a lot.</p>

<p>What are you comparing it too? Knowing that might give us an idea of your expectations. If you just want to 'upgrade' because you heard it's a kit lens and no good, you might not get the improvement you are hoping for by buying another lens, because your problem might not be the lens. <br>

Just my 2c</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you want to improve IQ, then use a tripod, MLU, and timer, works for a majority of lenses. If you want to shoot buildings and need to control perspective and distortion, and since your worried about quality. I'm wondering if you have the right rig to do what you want in the first place? Thats is, when I'm shooting artitecture I use a modified FD35mm T/S on a full frame sensor 1Ds. That extra 30mm you lose with a crop sensor can make the difference when backing up means going into traffic or over a cliff!</p>

<p>For my 40d I upgraded the 28-135 kit lens to a 17-55 EFs, which is an apparent step in IQ and useability for a crop frame sensor. I have a 100mm f/2.8 macro and 135 f/2 for those harder to reach places. Otherwise, it's sneaker zoom when I travel light.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A 10-22 efs lens is excellent on a 450D. Its for landscapes and architecture and enviromental portraits. many people who have one would choose if for the only lens. For a long lens look at a 70-200 F4.0 L. wtih that pair you and you kit lens you will have a lot of fun. ( A perfect replacement upgrade on your kit lens is the 17-55 2.8 efs lens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You have lots of great advice here. I have an optically stabilized 18-200mm Sigma lens that I use when I do not want to bring a whole bag of heavy lenses. It is a versatile one lens solution that produces pretty good results but does not handle low light very well. I am sure the Canon 18-200mm IS is similar as is the Tamron 18-270 with IS. In good light, my Sigma produces very nice results. For me it was a great learning tool also. For low light I added a 50mm f/1.8 since they are also light weight and cheap. In hind sight, something similar around 30mm would have been better due to the crop factor that you and I both face but the 50mm worked pretty good for me anyway.<br>

<br>

Another good combo that worked well for me later on is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200mm. Together they are much heavier and take up more valuable space when traveling but they also bring much better image quality. Both are great lenses. The Canon is pretty expensive.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If your technique is good the 18-55mm IS lens has very decent image quality. People who put it down either haven't used it or haven't used it well. It is a little more work to get good images with than a constant 2.8 zoom because you are at 5.6 on the long end. I still use mine but also use the 17-55mm 2.8 zoom which is special but heavier. I don't think the 17-85mm or the 18-200mm will have better image quality than the 18-55mm IS kit lens though I haven't used them, just read reviews, tests and anecdotes. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lens is a step above any of those lenses. I think for me a great travel kit would be a T1i, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 zooms. Here is a sample with the XSi and 18-55mm IS kit lens. <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7768634-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Indeed the 18-55 IS lens is not that bad optically. It is, and it feels, cheap, but it is also light and you hardly notice it when travelling. So, you may swap it for another lens that feels "less kit", but which actually does not give you improved optical quality.<br>

One other alternative could be the Sigma 30 1.4; this is a very good lens for a crop factor DSLR, I use one with my 1000D when I just want to travel light.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I think the EF-s 18-55mm IS image quality lacks a lot. "<br>

In what way(s) exactly? What is it you want to correct? Any sample image where your lens has let you down?<br>

<br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...