28-300 megazoom and alternatives

[jennifer_wilkinson]

For some while I have been looking into getting an alternative that covers

this kind of zoom range with one camera and one lens. Basically this would be

to use when I am travelling or walking with other people and want decent

quality without too much weight, and zero lens changes. I have been a Canon

user for 10 years and went Canon when buying my first digital SLR. I currently

own 2 5Ds, a 30D and a 20D, and a range of lenses - 24-105 4.0 L IS, 24 - 70

2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 100-400 L IS, 100 2.8 Macro, 16-35 2.8L, 10-22 EF-F, 70-

300 DO IS, 70-300 IS, 300 4.0 L IS, 85 1.2L, 50 1.4, 17-85 EF-S and 18-55 EF-S

plus 2x and 1.4 TCs. I combine these in a variety of ways depending on what I

am trying to achieve. So I am heavily invested in Canon. In checking out the

alternatives to the 28-300L L lens, I note that I could buy the Nikon D200 and

the new Nikon 18-200 ED lens, variable apertures 3.5-5.6 same as the Canon 28-

300 lens, for little more (in the UK) than the cost od the Canon (full-frame)

lens alone. Also, although the D200 and the 5D are virtually the same weight

(830g versus 810g) the Canon lens weighs about 3x its Nikon (digital)

equivalent at 1670g versus 560g. Now, one of the things that has put me off

buying the Canon superzoom has been the weight. I have alternatives for a

lighter two or three-lens setup within what I already own in nthe Canon

system, but nothing as light as the Nikon D200 plus 18-200 lens. By the way, I

own the Panasonic FZ30 which has zoom range equivalent to 36-420mm in 35mm,

but in practice don't enjoy using the camera nearly as much any SLR with a

proper viewfinder as opposed to an EVF viewfinder or composing on the LCD (the

latter is also hard to do handheld at longer focal lengths). Am I mad to be

thinking of buying the D200 plus 18-200 (equivalent 27-300 on 1.5x crop

camera) as a Canon user?

 

I have to say that I also like the look of the Nikon 200-400VR zoom for my

nature photos even though I own the 100-400 Canon zoom (but I hate the push-

pull design). And the new 105mm VR macro lens could be very useful too. These

could be future purchases if I get the D200.

 

Any thoughts? Have other Canon users faced the same dilemma? I really enjoy my

Canon L lenses, the 16-35 2.8L, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8 IS L and 300 4.0L IS

especially. On the other hand, the cameras/lenses are there to help me take

the best photos I can and also to give me the least hassle/maximum enjoyment

possible. Running two systems is more expensive (I would no doubt need at

least a decent flash for the D200, maybe teleconverters, extension tubes etc

too) - but maybe the benefits outweight the costs.

 

Any views welcome!

[John Crowe]

I can only dream of having your problems!

 

 

If the Nikon lens is the answer then go for it. You will not need to invest in anything but a flash since you said yourself that the Nikon setup would only be for one situation when you want to travel as light as possible without switching lenses. Teleconverters and extension tubes only screw up what you are aiming for so leave those for the Canon system.

 

 

I shoot 35mm, DSLR, and 4x5. Many Leica M owners shoot more than one system as do plenty of other photographers. Use the appropriate camera system for the task at hand.

[rob_murray]

You will not get the quality of your other lenses from a Megazoom. Maybe pair it down to 2 good zooms for less lens changes. Just curious why you have so many lenses that overlap in their range?

Never mind, you must have a reason or have a winning lottery ticket.

[kin_lau]

Since a 28-300 is always a compromise, why not get the 3rd party equiv's such as the Tamron or Sigma 28-300's or the 18-200 with the 1.6 crop?

[luis alvarez torres]

so many good and expensive lenses and not a single 1 series body?

[jennifer_wilkinson]

Thanks for the replies so far. The answer to the question of why so many overlapping lenses already is that I work in London and keep the 30D at work with a small tripod and the 10-22, 17-85 and the new 70-300 IS so that I can use it out and about in the evenings before taking the train home - don't want to carry it with me all the time - I just take the compactflash cards home with me afterwards. These lenses are also relatively inconspicuous compared to the white L lenses, and with the longer two being IS lenses I can usually get away with handholding. But even that involves carrying a small rucksack.

 

As to not having a 1 series body, I weighed that one up and decided that it was more versatile (and less expensive) to have the two 5Ds than the 1DS MkII. The 5Ds are great cameras. I'd rather have better lenses. I do have an EOS1V but rarely use it now.

 

Regarding the third party lenses, that's worth investigating and I will, but I'm a great fan of (a) travelling light when possible and (b) of IS or the equivalent VR - it gives me more opportunities to handhold. So if the third party lenses are heavy and/or lack IS (which the Panasonic has built in) then the Nikon would still be the best one-lens solution. This is a camera to carry when no lens changes are contemplated, especially if out with my family or on a 'non-photo' trip, accepting that this involves compromises. Better to get a shot on any camera rather than not have one to hand. I like the 24-105 on the 5D for that as well, but it's not always long enough so I end up taking the 70-300 DO as well.

 

I just wish Canon made an EF-S 17-200 with IS. I like the EF-S lenses for their portability.

[neild]

If you want/need a camera with a specially suited zoom which you will never take off, you probably would be better with (drum roll please...) a point & shoot camera!

 

As was said above, super-zooms trade quality for convenience. A P&S will help towards the weight problem too. There are some good P&S cameras out there (or will using one ruin your public image?). The alternative would be to take your two 5D's with a different L zoom on each - this would be the best idea giving the best image quality (that's why you bought the 5D's right?), and you'd certainly get fit quite quickly carrying it all around with you!

 

Putting a super-zoom on a 5D is a waste of time - the optical limitations will lie with the lens and so you may as well use a cheaper camera with less M-pixels for the image quality you'll be getting. I'm surprised that someone with such an impressive list of gear wouldn't know this already... (BTW, I'm not being sarcastic or putting you down: P&S cameras have come a long way - they are not perfect, but solve a number of the problems you say you have).

[rodney_gold1]

The 28-3000 L IS is a wonderful lens , it has exceptional image quality for its range and its major attraction IS the range(thus really only useful on a FF camera as it hardly goes wide on a cropped camera but it is useful on my 30d too)

It is an extremely heavy and extremely obtrusive walkaround lens and is not worthy of consideration if weight is an issue. I lugged mine around on my travels thru SE asia and Aussie and often cursed it's weight (which was offset by its ability in crowded tourist places etc)

If you need to change framing in split seconds and lens changes are an issue , it's the lens to get. Vignetting or light drop is quite severe wide open thru the range on a 5d. It also suffers from a poor lens hood (has to cope with too much range) and its IS/AF switches are a disaster as they get disturbed by almost anything so have to be taped to stop this. One of the huge unsung advantages of this lens is its close focussing ability , 70cm or a little less RIGHT thru the range , so it makes the lens very useful as a "semi" macro.

I had a Canon S2 IS as a walkaround , also with a 36-420 zoom range , it's not a dslr and IQ is compromised and I have relegated it to my in house product shot studio at work where image quality is not an issue(for web based pics)

I don't suggest a 2 maker system , as you say , its gonna be expensive.

I think you have to realise that there is no real "do it all without compromise single camera/lens" solution and thus weigh up compromises , a hugely expensive monster combo that makes for the heaviest and most expensive P&S(5d+bg-e4 + 28-300 - you do need the grip for balamce with this lens and the handstrap is also recommended) or just change lenses when needed.

I do not really get VR/IS on a macro - if the macro lens is used as a macro?

[yakim_peled1]

If I had your gear I would never think about buying anything else. I'd combine from this existing gear. However, as it is clearly not the case for you, simply follow your heart. You find the D200 + 18-200 VR kit to be attractive? Simply go and buy them.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[aaron l]

I'm a Nikon shooter - why the heck would you want to dump all that premium gear and get a mega-zoom you'll be dissapointed in? If you're a fast & light person, that makes sense but then you're looking at the 200-400, anything but fast & light.

 

Sometimes I wish for a Canon lens or want the 5D for the full frame when I want to go wide. With that much cash invested, just buy the D200 and the lens and use it when you need it.

[ifeito]

With the way the 18-200 megazoom is selling for Nikon I would put money in Canon coming up with a lens in that range pretty soon.

 

I know it doesn't usually make sense to wait for the best-to-come, but it's not like you're gonna be missing shots with your current arsenal! Why not wait until after september and then make your decision based on what becomes available then.

 

Ignacio

[ifeito]

Also... you could get the -elcheapo- 28-200 for about $350 and decide if that's the way you need to go.

[dogbert]

I agree that with the way the Nikon 18-200 VR is selling, it would make a lot of sense for Canon to introduce one. I can't help think you may be suffering from equipment overload - so many choices in your arsenal that the equipment may be getting in the way and hence the desire for a simple all in one solution.

 

My take is that you can have quality and flexibility (carrying a lot of gear) and not convenience. Or you can have flexibility and convenience (with a hyperzoom) but not the same quality. So pick which path you want to go down.

 

On the other hand you appear to have money to burn on gear so why not do both?

 

Personally I find I do my best work when I go out with an idea or clear purpose and take only a couple of lenses, than when I take everything in the hope that the equipment will make it happen.

[dogbert]

I am starting to think photography is like the force. One can use it for good, to make great photos, but there is a seductive dark side that involves lusting after more and more equipment. Once down that path, forever will it control your destiny.

[jennifer_wilkinson]

Thanks again for all answers. I have no intention of getting rid of my Canon gear! I did a bit more research myself and talked to a couple of Nikon photographers as well. I'm a journalist - with photographer friends in my line of work maybe it's not so surprising that I have all this great Canon gear!

 

Might be useful to comment on a couple of the suggestions made above. Regarding point and shoots, I wouldn't get any camera that gave me no manual controls, but I own two small digital cameras that do have some manual controls, the 7.1 MP Canon S70 (optical zoom equivalent to about 24-105mm in 35mm format) and the 6.1 MP Fuji Finepix F30 (has a smaller optical zoom range than the Canon, starts at 36mm) but I got it because of the superior performance at high ISOs). For what they do, I have nothing against these small digital cameras - there are some things they do really well, particularly in dealing with still subjects (otherwise sometimes have to deal with slight timelag - not good for fast-moving children). I have made it a policy to always carry one of these if I can't carry anything else, and it would be true to say that I have got good pictures that I would not have taken otherwise. I cannot be alone in finding them harder to use than SLRs, though. At least the Canon has an optical viewfinder, but the Fuji doesn't, and as noted in my first post, I dislike composing on an LCD. Rotten technique required to shoot as well - hold a small light object in front of your face and press a button while trying to hold it still (perhaps I need to make a homemade strap pod for this!). And don''t get me started on the electronic zoom switches - hard to use precisely. But the main reason for taking neither of these for the family/travelling light times I mention is that the 5D plus 24-105mm is a better single-lens option. The times I'm talking about needing a more versatile lens are when I travel for something that is not related to photography (often with relatively little time to spare), or when I get to see my son and take him out with his sister at the weekends (he lives with my ex). Those times I'm never with people sympathetic to my photographic needs - they'll tolerate a one-camera setup, but forget fumbling with lens changes! So the need for a 'superzoom' has much to do with certain social situations - it would never replace my premium gear, but I use that when I have more time (I earn a small amount on the side taking portraits and photographing events, but much of my other photography is because I love doing it). The 25-105 is a great combination for urban walkarounds, for example, but I really wish it was longer. Hence my investigation of Canpn's L superzoom and alternatives, and noting that the Nikon D200 plus 18-200 costs the same but weighs a lot less. I wouldn't even have considered this as an option had it not been for the 200-400 4.0 Nikon lens, which I have had the chance to try out through one of my Nikon friends and really liked, and the VR Nikon macro (application: if shooting small moving objects handheld may be best). Just as in my film days I had more than one system to get the best tools for the job, I was thinking the same here. The difference is the sheer cost of the cameras, though if I look at these as being my camera plus my film, the cost equation is different. Makes no sense to buy a Nikon D50 if contemplating the Nikon 200-400 in the next six months - the D200 is the obvious compromise. For now it seems that the main problem is getting hold of the 18-200 Nikon lens in the first place (I thought it was only Canon that had supply problems, but apparently I was being naive), but a colleague in Japan has sourced one for me - will be arriving next week. I'm told by my Nikon friends that the 18-200 is reported to be better than the third-party alternatives, plus it has VR - however, no Nikon photographer that I know actually has one yet. I expect the Canon is a better lens, but how many times would I leave it at home because of the weight?

 

At least next time I get involved in a Canon versus Nikon debate I'll have some idea what I'm talking about!

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Both lenses (and many others) were tested at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">PZ</a>. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[jennifer_wilkinson]

Yakim, thanks for the link.