Lenses and Filters for Canon T3i

[Hard-habit-to-break]

Hi

 

I have a Canon T3i (600d), with an 18-55mm lens and 55-250mm lens plus a 50mm (F1.8) lens. We are hoping to go to Alaska next year, plus cruise back to Australia and I am looking for a good walkaround lens. The 2 main lenses that I have I know would equate to a walkaround lens, but I don't want to keep changing them and risk dust/moisture etc.

 

What does everyone think of the Tamron 18-270mm lens?

 

Also, filters. Considering a polarizing filter, but only because I was told that it helps with taking water photos as there is no reflection???

 

New to DSLR's, have had this camera for about 12 months and still learning!

 

Thanks :)

[mskaufman]

I love my Tamron 18- 270. It covers almost 90 percent of my shots.

[markeb]

What do you want to accomplish? What's missing today in your kit?

 

Frankly, you have a great set of starter lenses. Arguably, you have the set of starter lenses for an APS-C camera. Where are you having issues with lens changes? What ranges?

 

Generally, you will sacrifice (image quality) IQ with a superzoom, such as the Tamron. If you really want a walk around lens, with good to very good IQ, you have two choices (with choices inside those choices).

 

The first choice is limited zoom range, but very fast aperture. That's the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 USM and the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM. Both are incredibly good. The Canon is also, unfortunately, over $1000 new. The second is greater zoom range, reasonably fast, and very good IQ. Those are the Canon 15-85 IS USM and the Sigma 17-70 EX DC OS HSM.

 

I'm sick; I have both the Canon 15-85 and the Sigma 17-50. The Canon spends probably 80-85% of the time on my camera; it's that good. No, it doesn't have the reach of the 18-270, but the IQ is amazing. It focuses fast, and quietly, and is a great lens. The Sigma is reported to be almost as good, for a better price. My Sigma 17-50 is my go to lens for twilight, streetscapes, etc., where the zoom range isn't as important, but the lighting is. I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for true low light use.

 

So, IMHO, you have three great lenses. I'd personally move up in IQ rather than zoom range, and the 17-70 or 15-85 lenses give you a great range for a walk around, with much better IQ than your kit lenses.

[mskaufman]

Can't argue with Markeb about the value of quality lenses. When I went to Alaska and Europe I didn't want to miss a shot and liked the fact that I did not have to change lenses to get the shot. I am not an expert and hence probably did not notice any degradation in image quality using the zoom lens.

 

An example, we were at Totem Bight in Ketchican and I was taking pictures of the totem poles when three humpbacks showed up offshore. I was able to just zoom in and take the picture. Same when we saw an eable in a tree. I guess it comes down to personal prefrerence. I like not having to change my lens when the situation changes.

[Steviewonder1]

I have a 28-300 Image Stabilized Tamron on my Canon T4i with no filters at all. When I was in Alaska shooting snow and glaciers I had a Rebel XTI (with the same lens) and never had issues with reflected sun or anything and all came out really great. On the whale watching in Juneau I had the only lens that could get up close and personal with the whales as I was in a sea of Point and Shoot's and cameras with kit lenses that looked like they just came out of the box. Make sure you have done lots of shots with your camera before you go way off on a Great Vacation time to shoot some really fantastic pictures. Also check out and see if there is a camera class on the ship that may be offered. If so take it and they will have more tips on getting great shots.

[awboater]

I can highly recommend the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8.

 

In DxOMark testing this lens beat the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Nikon version of the Sigma also beat the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8.

 

Sigma lenses are hit-and-miss, but sometimes they come up with a great lens. The 17-50mm f/2.8 is one of them.

 

Yea, I have one.

 

I like this lens so much, I am thinking of selling my Nikon AF-S 18-200mm "vacation" lens and start carrying my dog heavy 80-200mm f/2.8. Or instead of the 80-200mm, perhaps my 85mm f/1.8 prime and Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6. That way, I have the low end/low light areas covered, and can use the 70-300 when I need more reach - which doesn't necessarily need to be as fast of a lens.

 

It's not that the 18-200mm is a bad lens, but like all super-zooms, it has some optical "bumps".

 

Filters; I usually only carry a circular polarizer and ND filters these days. These days, just about everything else can be done in-camera or in post-processing.

[markeb]

Can't argue with Markeb about the value of quality lenses. When I went to Alaska and Europe I didn't want to miss a shot and liked the fact that I did not have to change lenses to get the shot. I am not an expert and hence probably did not notice any degradation in image quality using the zoom lens.

 

An example, we were at Totem Bight in Ketchican and I was taking pictures of the totem poles when three humpbacks showed up offshore. I was able to just zoom in and take the picture. Same when we saw an eable in a tree. I guess it comes down to personal prefrerence. I like not having to change my lens when the situation changes.

 

Curiosity got the better of me today. And, a version of this question was posed yesterday on my primary Canon forum. My original answer is probably my gut answer to this sort of question on a photography forum, but there's something of an assumption that anyone posting on that forum is going to be very seriously into photography...

 

Most reviews are good for the Tamron 18-270. The latest has image stabilization and a high speed focus motor, both of which are great. I've seen at least one review that favored the Sigma 18-250, and the specs on it look marginally better, but both should be great lenses. The Sigma is currently on a promotion for $399, which makes it less than the best price I've seen on the Tamron. If you register the lens, Sigma has a 5 year warranty (if memory serves; 3 year standard); the Tamron has a standard 6 year warranty. Both come with lens hoods in the box, which will be VERY handy in Alaska. And, both have fixed front elements, so you can easily use a circular polarizing filter (which I'd recommend). The CPL is very good for cutting down on glare from snow, water, ice, etc. Both lenses also feature high speed and quiet autofocus, which you will notice over your (very good) kit lenses.

 

So, while I'll stick with my original suggestion that you're compromising with a superzoom, after doing a little more looking today, either the Tamron or Sigma look like great lenses. I have more experience with Sigma, but see a lot of recommendations on Canon forums for the Tamron as well.