Please help me in choosing which lens to buy??


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 15, 2008
38
0
0
32
#1
hello, have been using 18-55mm kit lens for my 400d quite some time, decide to buy a long range lens for walkabout lens and tours, good quality photo. i have been going out to research for following lens:

1) Canon 18-200mm $1000++
2) Sigma 18-200m OS $ 650++
3) Tamron 18-250mm $650++ no OS
4) Tamron 18-270mm OS not in market yet
5) Canon 17-85mm $700++

price is estimated and not accurate*

Have been hesitated for quite some time but still no answer in buying which lens? Can anyone help me? esp those who are using these lens, whether is good or bad. Thank in advance!! =)
 

Flashbulb

New Member
Jun 20, 2008
530
0
0
#2
50-250mm IS $300-ish.
works for a lot of situation where value/performance is the issue.

question becomes if you need to use for night shots?

and also whether you know the warranty terms for each lens manufacturer.
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#3
hello, have been using 18-55mm kit lens for my 400d quite some time, decide to buy a long range lens for walkabout lens and tours, good quality photo. i have been going out to research for following lens:

1) Canon 18-200mm $1000++
2) Sigma 18-200m OS $ 650++
3) Tamron 18-250mm $650++ no OS
4) Tamron 18-270mm OS not in market yet
5) Canon 17-85mm $700++

price is estimated and not accurate*

Have been hesitated for quite some time but still no answer in buying which lens? Can anyone help me? esp those who are using these lens, whether is good or bad. Thank in advance!! =)
Why dont u get a tamron 17-50 (abt 400-450 second hand) + a ef-s 55-250 IS (300+ brand new)
 

Webitect

New Member
May 11, 2008
89
0
0
Cyberspace
www.newbiephoto.net
#4
The 17-85 is really good...but may not be long enough. It wasn't long enough for me as a walk around, I went and got a 24-105L. To see the quality difference (if you can) check out my lens test folder http://www.flickr.com/photos/webitect/sets/72157609198366487/ the bookshelf images...you may need to check exif data to find which lens I used...IMO they're pretty close....
 

Sep 15, 2008
38
0
0
32
#5
thank for the reply :) , actually i thinking of buying a 55-250mm and nx time got $$ and buy a 17-55mm, but i scare keep changing my lens will spoil or dust will go in my camera. in another words is 'lazy' la haha.
 

Trapper

New Member
Sep 25, 2008
288
0
0
fr0z.multiply.com
#6
With practice you will know when to change lenses for that extra reach of the 55-250; for general walkaround purposes the 17-55 is versatile enough. Go out and shoot more, then you'll learn more about the limitations of your gear and improve your own skills.
 

Flashbulb

New Member
Jun 20, 2008
530
0
0
#7
use the warranty to service camera...got extended the warranty?
 

gymak90

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
1,448
1
0
The Far North
#8
I think a 18-200 should be good. It's a 1-size fit all lens. Don't expect superb image quality from it, but they are decent.

The 18-200 could perform better than 55-250. Besides 55-250 is just a normal kit lens, I don't think you should pay 300+ for it.

Check out the 24-105 L or 28-135 IS as well.

Forget about the 17-85. Very not worth it.
 

Flashbulb

New Member
Jun 20, 2008
530
0
0
#9
I think a 18-200 should be good. It's a 1-size fit all lens. Don't expect superb image quality from it, but they are decent.

The 18-200 could perform better than 55-250. Besides 55-250 is just a normal kit lens, I don't think you should pay 300+ for it.

Check out the 24-105 L or 28-135 IS as well.

Forget about the 17-85. Very not worth it.
actually one of the main selling points of the 55-250 is that at $300-ish, it has Image Stabilization which is okay for walk here and there. Sigma and Tamron is cheaper but no stabilization system.
 

Last edited:

gymak90

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
1,448
1
0
The Far North
#10
actually one of the main selling points of the 55-250 is that at $300-ish, it has Image Stabilization which is okay for walk here and there. Sigma and Tamron is cheaper but no stabilization system.
True. But I think 300+ is still too expensive. Given that this lens practically has no resale value. The market is already flooded with it.

If you compare with Sigma/Tamron, then the question would be how important is IS to you. More and more lenses are having IS. The IS in 55-250 isn't exceptional. I tried to do a 3-stop compensation and it was already difficult.

I think on the long run 18-200 is still more feasible. It brings you from wide angle to reasonable telephoto. Saves the trouble of changing lenses too. This is helpful in preventing dust on sensor and especially helpful when travelling.
 

Trapper

New Member
Sep 25, 2008
288
0
0
fr0z.multiply.com
#11
True. But I think 300+ is still too expensive. Given that this lens practically has no resale value. The market is already flooded with it.

If you compare with Sigma/Tamron, then the question would be how important is IS to you. More and more lenses are having IS. The IS in 55-250 isn't exceptional. I tried to do a 3-stop compensation and it was already difficult.

I think on the long run 18-200 is still more feasible. It brings you from wide angle to reasonable telephoto. Saves the trouble of changing lenses too. This is helpful in preventing dust on sensor and especially helpful when travelling.
The thing is the TS already has the 18-55, and the 55-250 complements that very well, rather than having a complete overlap of ranges. $360 or so is actually great value for money. The 18-200 wins out on convenience factor alone, since it costs a lot more and isn't as good optically (Yes, I like to pixel-peep). I don't suggest buying lenses for "resale value". The best value is when the owner can take a lot of pics and is happy with it.
 

gymak90

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
1,448
1
0
The Far North
#12
The thing is the TS already has the 18-55, and the 55-250 complements that very well, rather than having a complete overlap of ranges.
IMHO, the 18-55 is a decent lens, but you will easily outgrow it.

I don't suggest buying lenses for "resale value". The best value is when the owner can take a lot of pics and is happy with it.
Well the benefits of owning a lens, is the mainly the satisfaction and usefulness of the lens. But unless you're real rich with deep pockets, I think it is only wise and prudent to think of resale value. It's like people don't buy a HDB flat without considering its resale value.
 

Sep 15, 2008
38
0
0
32
#13
I think a 18-200 should be good. It's a 1-size fit all lens. Don't expect superb image quality from it, but they are decent.

The 18-200 could perform better than 55-250. Besides 55-250 is just a normal kit lens, I don't think you should pay 300+ for it.

Check out the 24-105 L or 28-135 IS as well.

Forget about the 17-85. Very not worth it.
hello, thank for replying, which model you think is best for 18-200mm? canon, sigma or tamron
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#14
hello, thank for replying, which model you think is best for 18-200mm? canon, sigma or tamron
Actually if price is not an issue I would get the original manufacturer than third party ones. Unless of course we are talking about much better optics than original manufacturer, with value not in the consideration.

Ryan
 

gymak90

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
1,448
1
0
The Far North
#15
Yes, when considering 3rd party lenses or canon-made, do consult your wallet. If you can afford it, go for canon.

There is greater reliability and ease of servicing if you get a canon lens. Optic quality might be better.

Not that Sigma/Tamron make poor lenses, but sometimes their quality control isn't that strict/consistent. So if you choose to get a 3rd party lens, make sure you test it for defects, like back/front focusing issues before buying. In order words, ensure that you're buying a sharp copy.
 

Flashbulb

New Member
Jun 20, 2008
530
0
0
#16
Yes, when considering 3rd party lenses or canon-made, do consult your wallet. If you can afford it, go for canon.

There is greater reliability and ease of servicing if you get a canon lens. Optic quality might be better.

Not that Sigma/Tamron make poor lenses, but sometimes their quality control isn't that strict/consistent. So if you choose to get a 3rd party lens, make sure you test it for defects, like back/front focusing issues before buying. In order words, ensure that you're buying a sharp copy.
actually buying i can say is the easy part. Its when got problem is when the brand is tested.

try searching out stories of the brands after sales service by the members here and then decide.
 

Sep 15, 2008
38
0
0
32
#17
oh icic thank everyone. my fren recommend me to buy 18-270mm tamron with IS i think, i been searching for many shops to try for his lens, they say the lens havent reach yet. does anyone know when will it come out??
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,541
33
48
Pasir Ris
#18
hello, thank for replying, which model you think is best for 18-200mm? canon, sigma or tamron
Do you know about the compromises in picture quality for such lenses? Read the reviews to learn more about that. The (D)SLR concept means: changing lenses to get the right lens for the right purpose. 18-200 or 18-270 contradicts this concept and the price is image quality. Secondly, these lenses are quite slow. It's not a coincidence that the ranges of lenses between different manufactures don't differ much: 10-20; 18-55; 55-250 ... give and take a few mm here and there and some overlapping. Reason is: the best image quality for zoom lenses can be achieved when focusing on a certain range of focal length only.
Your concern about dust is quite useless. You will have dust in your camera and your lens, no matter what. Your camera is not dust-proof, neither is any of the lenses mentioned here. Make yourself familiar with blower, you can't escape the dust.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom