All-in-one or stick with Canon?
pookieguy
Registered Users Posts: 4 Beginner grinner
Hi all, Want to get back into photography and already decided on new Camera. I'm getting the 70D instead of waiting around for T6i to come out. However, posting here to get opinions on lenses. I'm torn between an All-in-one or just stick with Canon quality and deal with the two lense issue again. These new All-in-one lenses look quite enticing and looking at both the Tamron 16-300mm or Sigma 18-300mm. Just sounds convenient but on the other hand, I'd like to stick with Canon. Note that I'm on tight budget and is why I mention this and want advice on best pair with the 70D. So... Torn between these two lenses or stick with a two lense carry again. If so, it would be the Canon 18-55mm and Canon 75-300mm lens but the one with IS. . A bit more expensive and less convenient, but I think quality will be better for wildlife shots which I primarily like to take. Any opinions/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
--mike
Sent from Galaxy S4
--mike
Sent from Galaxy S4
0
Comments
I would rather recommend that you get a good constant aperture, standard/normal zoom lens like the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF plus the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM you mentioned earlier. Those two lenses give you a great amount of versatility in a 2 - lens kit, and image quality is much better overall than a super-zoom lens.
Reviews for all of these lenses:
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Also,
In the review it mentions at the end of the Tamron review to not confuse two models which are the same. How do I know which is the correct?
Thanks again.
Sent from Galaxy S4
Just wondered if you'd considered the 100 - 400 Canon?
As Canon recently announced the arrival of the mk2, (some) people will be eager to get rid of their mk1's at prices that might be within your budget?
pp
Flickr
Sent from Galaxy S4
At the short end of the zoom range, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF is at f2.8 and the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is at f3.5, a difference of around 2/3rd stops more light passing through the Tamron lens. This is around 1.3 times the light transmission through the Tamron lens versus the Canon lens while both are at maximum aperture.
At the long end of the zoom range, the Tamron lens is still capable of f2.8 while the Canon lens is at f5.6, a difference of 2 stops, or the Tamron lens is letting 4 times the light through. An aperture of f2.8 also means that the high-precision capability of the center AF region is activated, meaning more accurate auto-focus. The larger aperture also means faster AF acquisition, especially noticeable in low light.
From that review:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens
with the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC Lens.
The older non-VC lens (this model) has superior image quality."
In Tamron-speak "VC" means "Vibration Control". This is the Tamron version of optical image stabilization. While image stabilization is generally a good thing, the older version of the lens, without the "VC", is a better optical performer. In most instances, a standard zoom does not necessarily need image stabilization, plus the older version costs less (in used condition).
Image stabilization generally has a much greater effect on the image quality of a telephoto zoom, and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM does benefit from the Canon image stabilization (IS). Again, don't confuse this lens with one of the much cheaper 75-300mm lenses from Canon. The Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM has better sharpness in the 200mm-300mm range than the cheaper 75-300mm versions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks,
--mike
Sent from Galaxy S4
Image quality is a function of all of of the properties of the lens, the camera, the shooter (yourself and all of your shooting capabilities) and the environment of the shoot (environmental and atmospheric.)
Image sharpness, assuming a qualified photographic shooter, is mostly a function of lens sharpness.
Image blur, which can affect image sharpness, can indeed be caused by camera and/or shooter movement. Camera movement can be somewhat compensated for using stabilization technology. Stabilization technology can be either mechanical (tripod, monopod, etc.), optical (Canon "IS", Tamron "VC", etc.), or chip based (which doesn't apply in this case). Stabilization technology does not make a less sharp lens sharper, nor does it prevent image blur.
A less sharp lens will never be able to improve on base lens sharpness, whether or not it has image stabilization.
Wide angle lenses, including wide angle zoom lenses, rarely "need" image stabilization, because their short focal length does not exaggerate shooter/camera instability. In other words, proper shooter technique (shooter stance plus breathing control and timing) is generally enough to produce little to no image blur.
Standard/normal lenses, including Standard/normal zoom lenses, benefit somewhat from image stabilization, in that their focal lengths may amplify the effects of shooter/camera instability. Proper technique is still important, and often more important than optical or chip based stabilization.
Telephoto lenses, including zooms, are the class most affected by shooter/camera instability, so they gain the most benefit from competent optical image stabilization.
Mechanical camera/lens stabilization is more effective than either optical or chip based stabilization. Dual mechanical stabilization, where both camera and lens are independently stabilized by dedicated tripods, is the most stable portable apparatus, used by only a few photographers in a few situations. Generally, you should turn off optical or chip stabilization when the lens/camera is mounted on a tripod or monopod
Given all of the above, I would always rather choose a lens of higher sharpness over a lens of lesser sharpness but with optical stabilization, if both lenses were otherwise similar.
In the case of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens vs the same lens with stabilization (VC), I would choose the older non-stabilized lens knowing that I can apply proper shooter technique or mechanical stabilization as needed.
To add another context to the above, I own lots of cameras including medium formal film and large format film cameras, and none of those cameras or lenses include stabilization technology. I use a combination of proper technique and, as required, mechanical stabilization to provide minimal image blur. Needless to say, I can achieve professional image results "without" either optical stabilization or chip based stabilization, as have countless photographers before.
To "really" mix things up, while I still recommend the older Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens (without VC stabilization) for your application, if you feel that you can afford to pay a bit more (the VC version does cost more, even used) and if you cannot learn proper shooting technique (shooter stance plus breathing control), the VC version is not so much worse sharpness that it lacks real value.
Ultimately, a lens with both excellent wide-open aperture sharpness, "and" a very competent optical stability technology, really does exist in the form of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Unfortunately, this lens is also (you guessed it) very expensive. This lens is also somewhat prone to getting dirty behind the front element and the IS stabilization is a bit prone to failure, so the lens is not without fault.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
--mike
Sent from Galaxy S4[/QUOTE]