Which new lens? Thoughts...

[peacelovemickey]

Hi all.... I am just getting back into photography, I don't really have the "eye" for good shots, but having fun trying ;)

 

I've had the Canon Rebel t4 with the 2 lenses that are stock for over a year, getting pretty comfortable with settings, light, etc.! However, changing lenses is silly to me and want a more inclusive lens.

 

I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - $425 or the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD-$ 450- plus $70 rebate off.

 

Mostly shooting my 3 year old and now she's gearing up for dance recitals, sports, parties, Disneyland, etc.! Also, going on Alaskan cruise in July.

 

Not sure if I really need the 18-270.

 

Any tips... Suggestions, etc.!

 

Thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Rock_ON!!]

What are the 2 lenses you currently own?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[peacelovemickey]

What are the 2 lenses you currently own?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

18-55 and 55-250, they were the ones that came in the bundle!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[WintrHawk]

Why do you consider changing lenses to be silly?

 

Photography is about compromise. And optical physics dictates that certain compromises must be made if you want something that is more compact with a higher zoom factour. In particular, the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses you have will be faster and provide better image quality within the comparable focal length range than a single lens that attempts to cover all that focal length range... especially so in a manageable form factour. This is not to say that superzooms don't have their place but you should be aware of the reasons why intechangeable lens cameras exist and the advantages they give you.

 

But going back to the decision between an 18-200 vs 18-270...

 

As you allluded to in your post, you aren't sure if you need 270mm. If you intend to capture wildlife in Alaska, then you will certainly need more than 200mm. You in fact will probably need more than 300mm. I found my 70-300 to be rather short for capturing eagles for instance. And for bears, you want as much standoff distance that you can afford. For Alaskan telephoto work, consider renting something that gets you into 400mm or greater territory.

 

For pictures of your family and daughter's events, 200mm will be fine and the Canon lens should be overall faster across the zoom range with less aperture regression than the 18-270. It might even be faster across the entire range than your current combination although I doubt it for the midrange focal lengths.

[peacelovemickey]

My problem is a 3 year old is alllll over the place so sometimes I miss stuff as she's running around, I can get the close ups, but not so much the further away shots. I'm thinking for sports too, close shots and down the field shots.

 

For example on previous cruises I'll take a shot of her, family, etc., but miss something off the ship...

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[mskaufman]

I have both of the lenses you are considering. I like them both because it minimizes lens changes and when I am on a tour there often is not time for changing. Both lenses do a good job in terms of response, color and IS. That said, for $380, I like the Tamron.

[ReturnCruiser]

I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - $425 or the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 VC PZD-$ 450- plus $70 rebate off.

 

Not sure if it matters in your purchase decision, but I seem to recall that the T4 has a 1.6 crop factor. The 270 will be equivalent to a 430mm and probably difficult to hold still without a tripod. There's a good review of this Tamron lens on the dpreview site.

[peacelovemickey]

Not sure if it matters in your purchase decision, but I seem to recall that the T4 has a 1.6 crop factor.

 

This is correct....good point!

 

Maybe I should just work on switching lenses :)! spend the money on an excursion :)

[mskaufman]

Not sure if it matters in your purchase decision, but I seem to recall that the T4 has a 1.6 crop factor. The 270 will be equivalent to a 430mm and probably difficult to hold still without a tripod. There's a good review of this Tamron lens on the dpreview site.

 

Before you buy I would recommend going to the store and holding the Tamron. It is a fairly compact lens. I have never had a problem and use it as my "walking around lens".

[Gardyloo]

Before you buy I would recommend going to the store and holding the Tamron. It is a fairly compact lens. I have never had a problem and use it as my "walking around lens".

So do I. It's a competent lens, however like most superzooms it suffers from a couple of things - sharpness at high zoom (at the 270mm end) is not all that good, and the aperture is small enough at high zoom that moving objects become problematic even with image stabilization/vibration damping.

 

At some point it's the camera's capabilities that become more important - how quick and accurate is the autofocus, how easy is it to go to automatic ISO settings or adjust them quickly, how good is the sensor. If you have enough pixels you can bump the ISO (in order to stop down a little, or use high shutter speeds in low light, etc.) without losing too much image quality, even under enlargement.

 

So it's a conundrum, but if I were in the market for a $500-$600 lens at the moment frankly I'd stop and think about a different camera instead, such as the Lumix DMC-FZ200, with its ultra zoom and f/2.8 constant aperture, light weight, Leica lens, and great price. You have many of the controls you get with higher-end SLRs, but without the bulk or weight.

 

We go to Africa fairly frequently and I've found a good P&S like the Lumix way easier to use. Try switching lenses when the lion is running after the impala.

[dugan127]

We have the 18-270. Not the best but more than good enough given what it will do. I would rather get a good shot than miss a great shot changing lenses. I use it for 5 year olds T-ball and even at 270 it's not bad even when they are running the bases. For times I have time I use my Canon 70-200 2.8l but that's $1300 without stabilization.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[peety3]

Step 1: Go here: http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon

Step 2: Read the "Roger's Take" (or similar) for any lens you're considering.

Step 3: Read this too: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set

 

You'll at least emerge with a lot more awareness of what you might be getting.

 

With respect to Alaska, longer is almost always better. Consider renting the 100-400. We did our first Alaska cruise with the 500 on a 1.3x crop factor, and had a blast. We did our second with a 400/4 on a 1.4x TC on FF, and had a blast. We're doing our next one with a 200-400/4 with built-in 1.4x TC on FF, and possibly also a 600/4 on a 1.4x.

[ikirumata]

If you are considering renting a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for Alaska, consider renting the 400 f5.6 instead. Chances are you are going to be shooting at 400mm all the time anyway, might as well get the lighter prime lens instead (arguably better image quality too).

 

Good luck!

[peety3]

If you are considering renting a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for Alaska, consider renting the 400 f5.6 instead. Chances are you are going to be shooting at 400mm all the time anyway, might as well get the lighter prime lens instead (arguably better image quality too).

 

I'd be cautious about life with a 400 prime. Take a look at our 2010 Alaska photos (

) and find your way to Honeymoon-27 (taken with a 70-200/2.8IS on a 1.6x crop factor camera, so at most 320mm EFL) and Honeymoon-28 (taken with a 500/4IS on a 1.3x crop factor camera, so 650mm EFL) at almost the same exact time. The tight shot is cool, but there's no context, and I was stuck at 650EFL while my wife had "choices" of 112-320EFL.

 

I'd also point out that inexperience with a long prime makes "target acquisition" tough. On our 2012 Alaska cruise, I had the 400/4 on a 1.4x TC on a FF body. With a lot of concentration, I got comfortable staring at the subject, then putting the camera in about that exact direction and refining through the viewfinder. My wife, who is a hawk at finding and shooting whales, looked like she'd gone to a "clay pigeon via machine gun contest".

[WestfieldTraveler]

We have the 18-270. Not the best but more than good enough given what it will do. I would rather get a good shot than miss a great shot changing lenses. I use it for 5 year olds T-ball and even at 270 it's not bad even when they are running the bases. For times I have time I use my Canon 70-200 2.8l but that's $1300 without stabilization.

 

I totally agree - I've had the same lens for several years using it on my sony A55 and between that and the LCD viewfinder I find it is great lens for getting the picture. I'll grant that you'll probably to better with a non-super-zoom lens or that 2.8! above, but I don't have that kind of money to throw at a lens. I just really enjoy not having to change it, and having a nice compact bag to carry "everything" around in. And I've done lots of photos in lower light and between the camera and lens I've gotten great, sharp results.

 

Go for it!