Complete solution lens

[sacbee]

Hello all,

 

I bought my 20D with an 18-55 and later bought 75-300 USMIII.

After a couple of mountain treks I'm finding it really hard to carry

the whole kit along with backpack. Could someone suggest me a decent

lens which serves the Macro - Midrange - Telephoto purposes and quite

light enough. My budget would be around $500 - 600. I'm not specfic

about canon, III party lens would do. I usually do landscape, nature,

portrait and little bit of macro or rather I would say I do traveller

photography.

 

Thanks in advance,

Sachin

[alan_chan4]

Why not sell the Canon and buy a good prosumer then?

[sacbee]

But then which lens?

[danield]

What focal range are you looking for? Midrange is quite vague - does it mean something like 50-200mm? There should be a few lenses in that range around - but none of very good quality.

 

If weight is your issue then you are probably better off with a high-end compact digicam than with an SLR - those are small, have macro, midrange and telephoto, some even have stabilization.

[rob_murray]

Your already pretty much at the lightness limits with what you have.

Both lenses are fairly light. Maybe go with 1 lens like the Canon 28-200 USM. But if your doing that much hiking a prosumer digicam like the Canon A620 would do nicely and weigh very little. Amazing battery life also, macro down to 1cm.

[denisgermain]

Everyone would want the perfect lens... an 18-200mm 2.8 Is that costs less than 500$ and has no distortion, no vignetting and perfect sharpness and contrast.... and is less than a pound in weight.

 

Sounds like a Dslr is not for you (when you are trekking) - as other mentionned: get a Point and Shoot for this purpuse!

[tom_m2]

Let me second the recommendation for the A620 (you can also use a solar battery charger with it). The Nikon 8400 is a good choice if you need something wider. If you need a long telephoto, you could get on eof the ultrazooms. Even two small compact bodies are going to be less weight than a DSLR system.

 

The quality of any of those high-end compacts is going to be at least as good as what you have. A DSLR makes sense if you need high ISO, shallow DOF, or ultra-wide.

[rob_murray]

Not sure how far/long you would be walking but the A610/620 series can do about 600 shots on 2500mah AAs and has a lens of 35-140mm F2.8-F4.1

[J.W. Wall]

Maybe try a belt pack instead of a backpack, such as: www.kinesisgear.com. I love them because the weight is better distributed and not weighing down on my back.

[gdanmitchell]

It is probably too late to consider this, but my choice was to save camera weight by getting

a 350D rather than a 20D. This saves about a half pound. (For non-backpacking readers,

yes, a half pound is significant.)

 

I carry the 17-40 f4 (which is use most of the time), the 50mm f1.4, and the 70-200 f4. By

photography standards, this kit is still relatively light for the range and quality it provides.

Of course, by the time I add a tripod, filters, and extra batteries I'm getting up towards the

10 pound range.

 

I've thought that the combination of the 17-40 and the 24-105 f5 IS might be a pretty

good combination as well.

 

Dan

[gdanmitchell]

When I wrote; "I've thought that the combination of the 17-40 and the 24-105 f5 IS..." I, of

course, meant 24-105 f4.

[andrew robertson]

Bear in mind that a hyperzoom lens is slow, and not as good as two or more other lenses.

[sacbee]

Will a Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II Aspherical (IF) Macro zoom lens serve my purpose? How does this lens fare?

[luis alvarez torres]

If you are planing to keep your DSRL, then the Tamron 18-200 is your choice, but I recomend you the Sony Cyber Shot DSC-R1 to fullfill all of your expectatives.

[sacbee]

Nope, changing my camera to a Point & Shoot is a ruled out option. I just need an all-in-one lens. Which one do u guys suggest.

[poolak_banerjee]

I have 20D with EF17-40 lens.

 

In the same point of view (like Sachin's), I am wondering for (EF50 + EF70-200) OR EF24-105 to add on top of my 17-40.

 

I am not much in macro, only potrait and landscape. The EF17-40 has lots of overlapping with 24-105 on the low end, but again, I am keen on carrying less number of lenses.

 

Any suggestion

[andrew robertson]

Hell, it doesn't matter which one you choose. They're all poor to mediocre at best.

[jimstrutz]

I'm with Andrew on this. A do it all lens is a compromise at everything. However, that doesn't mean they are bad lenses, they are just not really good lenses. FWIW, the 18-xxx super zooms seem to provide better quality with digital cameras than the 28-xxx lenses do with film cameras. The Tamron 18-200 is said to be as good as the Canon 18-55 in that range. Not so great on the long end though.

 

Personally. I think I would settle for a 18-125 rather than the 18-200 type. But you really aren't going to save a lot of space or weight over what you have now. A little, but not much. I take a Panasonic FZ3 when I'm traveling light. A 35-420mm that fits in your pocket.