Cheap all-in-one-zoom lens wanted

[Clyde]

Ok,

My perfect set up would be the 24-105L with assorted primes, a 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 100 f2, 200 f2... Maybe a 10-22 for wide stuff... Heck, if I had those lenses, it'd be silly to use my Xt, I'd probably upgrade to the 40d...

Back in this world I have a 28-75 f2.8 tamron and the 50 f1.8. The 50 doesn't focus well in low light, so I pretty much use the tamron all the time. Though I lust after all sorts of lenses all the time, I am a poor starving artist who won't have L cash for years, if ever. The tamron does pretty much all I ask it to do, even in poorly lit jazz clubs where I get reasonable reference at f3.2 and ISO 1600.

Recently I borrowed a friends POS tamron 28-300 to take to a baseball game, and the resulting painting sold. The time has come for me to get a zoomier lens, but all my lusting time has been spent on the supermodels (L Mcfearsome?). This leaves me sadly uninformed about the 3rd party offerings.

I'm eyeing the sigma 18-200 OS, the tamron 18-250, the sigma 70-300 (which'd involve swapping at ballgames), the 55-250 IS... How do they compare in focus speed, sharpness and contrast? What should I add to the list? What should come off? Which should I pick? Why?

Thanks...

Clyde

[JTL]

Ok,

My perfect set up would be the 24-105L with assorted primes, a 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 100 f2, 200 f2... Maybe a 10-22 for wide stuff... Heck, if I had those lenses, it'd be silly to use my Xt, I'd probably upgrade to the 40d...

Back in this world I have a 28-75 f2.8 tamron and the 50 f1.8. The 50 doesn't focus well in low light, so I pretty much use the tamron all the time. Though I lust after all sorts of lenses all the time, I am a poor starving artist who won't have L cash for years, if ever. The tamron does pretty much all I ask it to do, even in poorly lit jazz clubs where I get reasonable reference at f3.2 and ISO 1600.

Recently I borrowed a friends POS tamron 28-300 to take to a baseball game, and the resulting painting sold. The time has come for me to get a zoomier lens, but all my lusting time has been spent on the supermodels (L Mcfearsome?). This leaves me sadly uninformed about the 3rd party offerings.

I'm eyeing the sigma 18-200 OS, the tamron 18-250, the sigma 70-300 (which'd involve swapping at ballgames), the 55-250 IS... How do they compare in focus speed, sharpness and contrast? What should I add to the list? What should come off? Which should I pick? Why?

Thanks...

ClydeI had the Sigma 18-200 OS and then got the Canon 24-105 f/4 L. Guess what happened to the Sigma after that! :D:D:D

The Sigma 18-200 OS is o.k....but just o.k. Personally, I found that the non-OS version was sharper, had better color and was more contrasty...

Why isn't the Canon 70-300 IS on your list? Pretty good lens for the money...

[cdifoto]

f/6.3 is scary.

[JTL]

f/6.3 is scary.Totally depends on what you shoot...;). For instance, for a straight landscape shooter, f/2.8 is a gigantic waste of money...and a lot of unnecessary weight...

[cdifoto]

Gives me the heebie jeebies.

[JTL]

Gives me the heebie jeebies.You are too funny! You're making me crack up...and causing me stomach pains...:D:D:D

[Rhys]

I have the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I had the Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6. I sold the Tamron because it didn't work well with my XT. The Canon has built-in IS although I find the IS assistance to be worth very little. The range just isn't good enough. The Tamron was far sharper than my Canon. I keep thinking of selling my Canon to buy a 70-200 f4 IS Canon.

[faisal]

I agree with JTL....The Sigma is just okay, noting great unless you plan to shoot all your shots at F6.3 or above....Its a perfect one lens to do it all solution if you're looking for something like that and the OS is pretty good but in your situation you'd be better off buying something like the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS or the 55-250 f4-5.6 IS....If you really don't want to spend a lot (even though the 55-250 isn't that costly) you could go for a Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG...

[Gintaras]

55-250 f4-5.6 "IS" sounds like the best choice for a budget lense. normal zoom can be solved with 18-55 II "IS" Canon lens, which also costs little compared to L lens.

check the reviews and do your homework before buying:
Canons cheapo
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=2
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review?start=2

heck, if i am not mistaken for the price of 70-300 IS you can get 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS, that is a real bargain. and canon did substantial improvements on newer cheapo glass i suggested, so it might be worth.

btw, for wide angle Tokina placed a 11-16 f2.8 lens, which sounds like the best wide angle friend of XTi. i am not sure of 10-22 canon which is pricey lens and images i seen from it were not as amazing as its price. having fast wide angle can be very good for indoors, but ... not for portraits ;)

Tokina 11-16/2.8
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=2

[Mark_48]

I've got a Sigma 18-200 Non-OS lens. I also have a few L lens, primes, and others that cover a range from wide to long. I bought the 18-200 as a lens to put on an old 300D Rebel (soon migrating to a 20D) to be able to carry around or toss it in the car so I'd simply have something with me and not carry an assortment of lenses. For what it is I'm happy with it. Not as sharp as other lenses I have nor will it do well in low light ("f/6.3 is scary"), but I'm more likely to have it with me more often than not.

If your looking for a lens to cover low light and have exceptional quality, this ain't it, but it covers good ground for average everyday snapshots.

I've found Pbase's lens galleries a good resource for researching what others are doing with a particular lens. Here's a link to the 18-200 non-OS
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-200_35-63_dc

and OS version....
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18_200_35_63_dc_os

[cdifoto]

I've got a Sigma 18-200 Non-OS lens. I also have a few L lens, primes, and others that cover a range from wide to long. I bought the 18-200 as a lens to put on an old 300D Rebel (soon migrating to a 20D) to be able to carry around or toss it in the car so I'd simply have something with me and not carry an assortment of lenses.
For me, a little P&S works better for that since it can literally stay in a pocket. Whip it out for a shot, then put it back so I can continue with my everyday tasks. Keeps my hands free the entire time I'm not actually snapping a pic...and it's not swinging around on my shoulder as if I'm doing a wedding.

Of course there are compromises like anything else...it's high ISO isn't the cleanest, f/5.1 at only 140mm, and P mode is as manual as it gets. Sometimes you just have to deal.

[Mark_48]

For me, a little P&S works better for that since it can literally stay in a pocket. Whip it out for a shot, then put it back so I can continue with my everyday tasks. Keeps my hands free the entire time I'm not actually snapping a pic.

I've got an older Canon P&S, 4MP I think, but the 300D beats it image quality easily, so it tends to get taken out more.

[cdifoto]

I've got an older Canon P&S, 4MP I think, but the 300D beats it image quality easily
I should hope so. :eek: :D

The little Fuji I have is definitely a compromise but really...anything smaller than 100% looks great. I'm not a pickle-peeper so it works fine for me. Fuji's Super-CCDs do a good job though, all things considered. Some P&S cams are utter crap though and I wouldn't even buy one with someone else's cash.

[faisal]

The 400D + the Sigma 18-200OS beats any P&S I've seen/used by a mile IMO. But as I said, you would really want to shoot most of the pictures at f6.3+ to get the best out of it and that really sucks for interior photography. Thats when the 430EX gets out of the bag....

It's a great lens for a hobbyist who isn't looking for anything professional plus doesn't want to spend a lot of money. Also it's a great lens to learn with and decide what focal length one prefers...

[cdifoto]

The 400D + the Sigma 18-200OS beats any P&S I've seen/used by a mile IMO.
That's true. It would (and should)...because that's an ~$1100 kit. :D

It would be a relatively compact dSLR combo though. I just get sick of slinging a camera on my shoulder all the time, especially when the odds of me taking a lot of photos are pretty low.

[JTL]

55-250 f4-5.6 "IS" sounds like the best choice for a budget lense.]I think I'd go this way as well. It may be cheap and plasticky, but the image quality is awfully darn good for the money...

[faisal]

That's true. It would (and should)...because that's an ~$1100 kit. :D

It would be a relatively compact dSLR combo though. I just get sick of slinging a camera on my shoulder all the time, especially when the odds of me taking a lot of photos are pretty low.

True....it should be for that price....and it is a very compact DSLR combo which makes it easy for me to carry especially if I've got the car....its like a ultra-zoom with DSLR quality!!!

[cdifoto]

True....it should be for that price....and it is a very compact DSLR combo which makes it easy for me to carry especially if I've got the car....its like a ultra-zoom with DSLR quality!!!
No doubt. If I wanted the ultra-zoom type package, that's probably the way I'd go. Heck maybe even a 1000D or whatever the latest baby is.

[Clyde]

Sigma 18-200 OS $429 @ buydig

Sigma 70-300 APO $184 @ sigma4less

Canon 55-250 IS $278 @ buydig

Canon 70-300 IS $518 @ buydig

Tamron 18-200 $280 @ buydig

Tamron 18-250 $439 @ buydig

Canon 200 2.8L $703 @ B&H (Just because she is Elle!)

So, let's say anything over $440 is out of reach. At the moment I'm leaning towards the canon 55-250, thanks for the review pointers Gintaras, and JTL seems right. f5.6 is quite a ways from 2.8, almost as scary as 6.3. That said, I don't think of these as indoor lenses.

I said I lusted after the 24-105 and primes because I saw a locally well known photographer with a nikon 300 and 3 big cheap looking primes at a rock show not too long ago. Later he was working a roller derby match with an assistant and his wife, all with different primes. Though I don't know nikon primes, I doubt any of them were more than $700, he had a 35, an 85, and maybe a 135 or something. He gets great shots, and his set up was really modest excepting the camera.

After that, I figured that anything above f2.8 doesn't count as fast, and so I could be actually using a $278 lens while trying to save up for a 70-200 f2.8 IS ($1,669 at buydig, not gonna happen).

CDI, the fuji 40fd is really tempting, it'd be nice to always have something in my pocket for those surprising moments of beauty that pop at you when you don't have a camera bag. That too comes after some reachy lens. After I pay rent, then buy expensive paints, linen canvas and some 5" wide frames... Haven't even replenished the Ramen yet...

Uff,

Clyde

[faisal]

Canon 55-250mm anytime.....unless you want one lens for all than the Sigma 18-200mm(Tamron one has no IS)....not too sure about the Tamron 18-250mm though

[Rhys]

I used to use primes exclusively. Now I prefer to use zooms on the basis that I need to carry less. In my 20s I thought nothing of lugging around 9 lenses and 2 bodies in a camera bag big enough to row across the Atlantic in. Now that I'm in my 40s, I prefer lightweight and less lenses.

[Idnas71]

Recently I borrowed a friends POS tamron 28-300 to take to a baseball game, and the resulting painting sold.


Did you have any sample pics from this lens and the baseball game? I like to take my camera to baseball games, too. It was a lens I was considering, along with the Canon 50-250 IS. I believe DCResource posters, 24Peter and Rooz, both gave their thumbs up for the Tamron 28-300 VC. My apologies if mistaken.

Thanks,
Sandi

[24Peter]

Did you have any sample pics from this lens and the baseball game? I like to take my camera to baseball games, too. It was a lens I was considering, along with the Canon 50-250 IS. I believe DCResource posters, 24Peter and Rooz, both gave their thumbs up for the Tamron 28-300 VC. My apologies if mistaken.

Thanks,
Sandi

Sandi - I give the Tamron a qualified thumbs up. Assuming you can live with 28mm on the wide end of the zoom, and assuming you only want to carry one lens, I think it's a good value. Here are full size samples straight from the camera - no PP (other than to remove my street names from the first two - hey, I don't want Rhys stalking me, ya know ;) )

Same scene, wide open, just zoomed in: (BTW - I didn't notice a big difference stopping down the lens - performance is pretty good wide open at all focal lengths)

28mm F 3.5
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/postuploads1/IMG_6170.JPG

60mm F 4.5
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/postuploads1/IMG_6171.JPG

119mm F 5.6
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/postuploads1/IMG_6172.JPG

300mm F 6.3
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/postuploads1/IMG_6173.JPG

[24Peter]

I had the Sigma 18-200 OS and then got the Canon 24-105 f/4 L. Guess what happened to the Sigma after that!

Same here.

The Sigma 18-200 OS is o.k....but just o.k. Personally, I found that the non-OS version was sharper, had better color and was more contrasty...

I never had the non-OS version. The OS version is great at 18mm and at 200mm. But there are several places in-between where is it very wonky - soft edges, weird CA & contrast. It also never focused consistently for me on my 40D.

Why isn't the Canon 70-300 IS on your list? Pretty good lens for the money...

Agreed.

I also recently shot with the new 55-250 IS. Good alternative for the $$$ but I still prefer the 70-300 IS.

[Idnas71]

Thanks for the test pics on the Tamron 28-300! Pretty neighborhood. And you just can't be too safe when it comes to preventing being stalked. lol!

[Clyde]

Thanks everyone for your advice, the 55-250 looks like a good cheap lens. Newegg had it for $271, and I just ordered it.

Sorry about not posting the 28-300 photos, I am a bad photographer, and it was a bad lens. While I have posted photos in the past, really I am more a painter than a photographer, and am kinda embarrassed to post photos in the same forum as jameson and cwphoto. It wasn't the IS version, and that particular lens didn't impress, though the focal length was peach. Also, with "VC" it is over $500. For that outta-my-ballpark-price, I'd rather have the 70-300 IS or the cheap 70-200 L.

Thanks again,

Clyde