Picking a lens

[leslee_travis]

<p>I have been searching the past post and couldn't find and exact answer so to add to the hundreds of post about lens I need help! I'm not exactly a beginner been a hobby of mine for 10 years. But I am not a pro by any standards so I need some help please. I finally sold my kit lens that came with my first digital rebel so it was the old 18-55 model. I recently bought the T1i so I wanted to upgrade my lens. I have a 70-300 lens and need something smaller. I mainly will be using it for portraits and landscapes. I guess you would call it a travel lens. <br>

So I am kind of between the Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4.5 or something with more focal length like sigma 18-125 or Tamron 18-270 f/ 3.5-6.3 This one is at the top of my price point right now. The small aperture on that one scares me a little bit. Will my flash want to go off and will I have to have a low shutter and use a tripod a lot? The other thing that worries me about the superzooms (I think that's what you call them) is what I have to give up for the extra focal length like the aperture.<br>

If you could compare these to the 18-55 kit lens that I know that would be great!</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I think a lens in the range you are looking for that would work is a 28-135 canon I think it is 4-5.6 and has USM. Usually can find them very reasonable used<br>

Also, if you dont have a 50 1.8 I would recommend picking one up. They are $100 new, they feel like a plastic toy, but allow you to take great low-light photos, and I use my as my most common walk-around lens.</p>

<p>GL with your search.</p>

[redphoto]

<p>You mentioned that a small aperture scares you, but I am not sure if you are talking about a small size aperture (f/22) or a small number aperture (f/2.8). Aperture is usually described by it's size, so small means a smaller size and a bigger number. Any flash that you have will be able to handle the aperture range of the lens. The shutter speed is not important for most flash situations. You just need to set the camera at or below its flash synchronization speed. On a Canon that is 1/200. The flash outputs the same amount of light regardless of the shutter speed. You should read up some more on the use of flash to better grasp the concept.</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Recently I bought tamron 18-250mm for my K10D and I noticed an interesting that upto 65mm or so, aperture is f/4.5... So you dont really lose much with respect to aperture. Quality is not that bad. Of course sigma definitely stands out<br>

For a small tradeoff of IQ (you dont lose too much except for F/2.8 @ 17mm), you get a good range, atleast that is my reasoning<br>

As i said the sigma is a very good lens. I tried an used copy briefly ended up returning the lens as it had mechanical defect and bought tamron 18-250mm. Sigma is real sharp. Tamron is good too, the colors are very nice. Somehow I felt sigma had the slight additional punch</p>

[kari v]

<p>Tamron 18-270 VC is pretty good do-it-all lens.<br>

Here's a detailed review:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-tamron_18270_3563vc_canon">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-tamron_18270_3563vc_canon</a><br>

Charts don't look overly impressive but in the super zoom group it's not bad and check the actual full sized photos and see what you think of the quality.<br>

VC - image stabilization - helps a lot if you like to shoot mostly handheld and your subjects don't move (much).</p>

<p>Zooms with more limited range will be better. A combination like Sigma 17-70 and Canon 55-250 IS would give you more quality balanced set. I wouldn't buy a longer lens without stabilization nowadays - crop sensor and handholding at 200+mm is asking for trouble when the light fades even a bit.</p>

<p>Or perhaps Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 for large constant aperture. These non-stabilized versions are both very good (clearly better than the old 18-55 kit lens) and not that expensive.</p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>There's no one best lens or combination of lenses that fits everyone. It comes down to what you shoot and what is important to you. For example, if you shoot sports you probably want fast tele lenses. For landscapes you may want wide and ultrawide lenses. If you like to travel light or don't like to do a lot of lens changing, a superzoom is a good choice.</p>

<p>Superzooms are not as sharp as two or three good shorter ratio zooms. That's a fact. But that doesn't mean that they are not sharp. If you don't print larger than 8x10, unless you do a lot of cropping, you will not see much difference in sharpness between a good superzoom like the Tamron 18-270 VC and shorter ratio zooms. I have the Tamron 18-270 VC and I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, and Nikon 70-300 VR. I cannot see a difference in sharpness in an 8x10 between the 18-270 VC and any of the other lenses, all of which are considered sharp lenses. There are however other differences that you can see, notably the shallower depth-of-field you can get at f/2.8 compared to the slower superzoom.</p>

<p>Photography is full of trade-offs. Superzooms vs shorter ratio zooms is one example. I like to travel light. I also shoot a lot on the street and in the parks. The ability to go from a wideangle to a telephoto quickly is very important to me. I also don't print larger than 8x10. So for me, a superzoom makes a lot of sense. Others here hate superzooms. That's why I say it comes down to what you shoot, and what is important to you.</p>

<p>If you do go for a superzoom, consider the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It focuses a little faster and quieter. I chose the Tamron because their VC is a little better than Sigma's OS. It was a difficult choice, but I'm sure that I would have been happy with either of them.</p>