Super zooms?

photogmomma

Okay, I have a 5D with some awesome lenses (Canon 24-105 L, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, etc, etc.) and I had a horrible accident with the 5D that has made me really rethink using it as my every day camera.... (I'll post that in another post.)

Anyway, I just purchased a 30D so I could make sure I don't screw up again and I'm looking for a good all purpose lens for it. I know Tamron makes a super zoom (28-300) and so does Sigma (18-200) and I just love the idea of having a lens that will just stay on the camera for the most part.

I know that all super zooms are soft at one end of the other. I know they won't compare to my other lenses. But I also know that if it falls in the river while I'm camping, I won't freak out completely as I would if that happened to my L lens or my 5D.

Can anyone give me the pros and cons? This a lens for camping, hiking and possibly skiing. It needs to be decent, but not perfect by any stretch.... And I know I could get two lenses and have better quality (heck, I already have the 28-105 USM EX lens), but I'd rather just have one so I didn't have to carry as much.

Thanks so much!

claudermilk

Following that train of thought to it's logical end, why mess with an expensive, bulky DSLR at all then? Just get a G7 or something along those lines with a permanently-mounted super zoom that is 1/2 the size and 1.4 the pricve and call it done? To me the whole point of a DSLR is to not make those kinds of compromises--swapping narrower-range zooms, or even primes is part of the territory and part of the advantage. There is no good, or even crummy "all-purpose" lens for a DSLR IMHO; again I get back to the interchangeable lens part of the equation: you get a set of lenses designed to suit your own needs.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but it seems to me that people asking how to get away with just one lens on their DSLR are looking at the wrong kind of equipment for what they want.

Second thought is: why buy more lenses? You already have a great lineup that works perfectly well on a 30D.

dangin

i'm personally not a big fan of sigma, so i can't speak much to it. but if you're looking at tamron, they do have a 28-300 like you mentioned. there's a new VC - vibration compensated (AKA: antishake) lens that was recently announced. it's called their: AF28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR DI VC LD ASPHERICAL (IF) MACRO lens

what a mouthful!!!

anyway, i'd hold off to see what the pricing is on this bad boy as it hits the street. i'd guess it'd probably lower the price of the current 28-300 lens; maybe save some money or spend more on the new one.

photogmomma

claudermilk wrote:

Following that train of thought to it's logical end, why mess with an expensive, bulky DSLR at all then? Just get a G7 or something along those lines with a permanently-mounted super zoom that is 1/2 the size and 1.4 the pricve and call it done? To me the whole point of a DSLR is to not make those kinds of compromises--swapping narrower-range zooms, or even primes is part of the territory and part of the advantage. There is no good, or even crummy "all-purpose" lens for a DSLR IMHO; again I get back to the interchangeable lens part of the equation: you get a set of lenses designed to suit your own needs.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but it seems to me that people asking how to get away with just one lens on their DSLR are looking at the wrong kind of equipment for what they want.

Second thought is: why buy more lenses? You already have a great lineup that works perfectly well on a 30D.

Because it's my backup camera as well as my kick around camera. In other words, if something bad were to happy to my 5D, I wouldn't want to go to a photoshoot with a G7. And I can't afford to get 5 different cameras. As a matter of fact, it'll be a while before I can get this type of lens.

Also, why bring my $1200 L lens along with my $900 sigma when I can grab a $400 lens that covers the gamut. For a hell of a lot less.

I do see where you're coming from, but the 30D is already bought and shipped and I know I made the right decision. And I'm much more likely to bring a DSLR even if you say I shouldn't.

i'm personally not a big fan of sigma, so i can't speak much to it. but if you're looking at tamron, they do have a 28-300 like you mentioned. there's a new VC - vibration compensated (AKA: antishake) lens that was recently announced. it's called their: AF28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR DI VC LD ASPHERICAL (IF) MACRO lens

what a mouthful!!!

anyway, i'd hold off to see what the pricing is on this bad boy as it hits the street. i'd guess it'd probably lower the price of the current 28-300 lens; maybe save some money or spend more on the new one.

Thanks so much! I'll keep my eyes open.... I'm not chomping at the bit to get something immediately. And I don't even mind getting something used. So I'll hang loose for a while and take a look at those!

claudermilk

photogmomma wrote:

Because it's my backup camera as well as my kick around camera. In other words, if something bad were to happy to my 5D, I wouldn't want to go to a photoshoot with a G7. And I can't afford to get 5 different cameras. As a matter of fact, it'll be a while before I can get this type of lens.

OK, makes sense. More to the story then.

Also, why bring my $1200 L lens along with my $900 sigma when I can grab a $400 lens that covers the gamut. For a hell of a lot less.

Ummm..because you already own the L lens which will more than do the job? Therefore spending another $400 isn't necessary, and will likely be disappointing?

I do see where you're coming from, but the 30D is already bought and shipped and I know I made the right decision. And I'm much more likely to bring a DSLR even if you say I shouldn't.

I'm certainly the last one to say you shouldn't take a DSLR! I'm one of those freaks that drags along mine where most people would be happy witha pocket P&S. Then, when they're wishing for something like at least a G7, or a Rebel with a kit lens, I'm the guy dragging out the Mamiya.

I'm just confused with looking at one of these marginal superzooms when excellent L glass is available. I know I would be dissatisfied with one of these lenses after using L glass. But, then it's not my money.

photogmomma

claudermilk wrote:

Ummm..because you already own the L lens which will more than do the job? Therefore spending another $400 isn't necessary, and will likely be disappointing?
quote]

Because going camping and hiking with an L lens and teh Sigma could cost me $700 more if something catestrophic happens... And they happy to be VERY heavy lenses in comparison. I will sometimes backpack in and now have two little girls that I'll need to carry stuff for so that extra 4-5lbs that the lenses would cost me would mean I can't carry any clothes or extra shoes for them. Not sure if they'd like that!

I'm willing to trade the high quality for something light and cheaper so if it gets ruined, I won't cry - that much. (Otherwise I'd keep dragging my 5D and all my high end lenses.)

I should also mention that I'm a portrait photographer and live in paradise so if I *really* need an outdoor photo that rocks and isn't a bit soft on either end I'll drive to where I can shoot and not worry about the good equipment. But my good equipment is mainly for portraits, not outdoor shots. I still want better than P&S shots for my camping trips, but they don't have to be professional quality.

Making better sense now?

photogmomma

claudermilk wrote:

I'm certainly the last one to say you shouldn't take a DSLR! I'm one of those freaks that drags along mine where most people would be happy witha pocket P&S. Then, when they're wishing for something like at least a G7, or a Rebel with a kit lens, I'm the guy dragging out the Mamiya.
.

And glad I'm not the only freak! !

jdryan3

claudermilk wrote:

I'm certainly the last one to say you shouldn't take a DSLR! I'm one of those freaks that drags along mine where most people would be happy witha pocket P&S. Then, when they're wishing for something like at least a G7, or a Rebel with a kit lens, I'm the guy dragging out the Mamiya.

I'm just confused with looking at one of these marginal superzooms when excellent L glass is available. I know I would be dissatisfied with one of these lenses after using L glass. But, then it's not my money.

I'm with you Chris. That is not a knock on the OP, especially after reading the other posts.

During my recent trip to Zion, I hiked up the Narrows several miles: 5D, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and tripod in tow. For the unitiated the Narrows is the Virgin River as it flows through a long at times very narrow canyon into the park. At times there are just knee high pools, rocks and some smallish but quick rapids to walk thru.

I had a number of people ask me why carry that into the river. Why take the risk. :crazy For me, those trips are exactly the reason to buy top of the line equipment - for me, a P&S doesn't capture what I want. It is the reason I moved to an SLR a number of years back. If not then, when.

Yes, it could have fallen into the river, into the Grand Canyon, stolen from my hotel or car. Ironically, I was back home when the strap gave way and the 5D/24-70 went crashing to the asphalt. Oh well!

ziggy53

Andi,

My fear for you is that you will be giving up an awfull lot by choosing the all-in-one lens. Specifically, you will loose lens speed and sharpness, compared to the lenses you have.

I suggest that the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD will give fantastic results for many hiking opportunities (some nature portraits, nearly vista landscapes and just general walk-a-round usage) and they are good enough to use in a professional situation as well. (Weddings and group portraits for instance.)

For more distant wildlife you might look at the Canon 70-200mm, f4L, one of the true "L" bargains and not too heavy. Couple it with one of the inexpensive Tamron teleconverters for more distant subjects (even though you mighy have to manual focus (gasp)). Again, you have an excellent professional lens that can be used for making money and to back up your Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8.

True, this is a bit more expensive route, but you will have some more versatile equipment as a result.

I would also pack the EF 50mm, f1.4 because there are some lowlight images that the Canon 30D, at ISO 3200, and with that lens, would be just amazing!

When I did more hiking/backpacking/camping, many of the best opportunities occured at dawn or at dusk.

claudermilk

jdryan3 wrote:

I'm with you Chris. That is not a knock on the OP, especially after reading the other posts.

During my recent trip to Zion, I hiked up the Narrows several miles: 5D, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and tripod in tow. For the unitiated the Narrows is the Virgin River as it flows through a long at times very narrow canyon into the park. At times there are just knee high pools, rocks and some smallish but quick rapids to walk thru.

I had a number of people ask me why carry that into the river. Why take the risk. :crazy For me, those trips are exactly the reason to buy top of the line equipment - for me, a P&S doesn't capture what I want. It is the reason I moved to an SLR a number of years back. If not then, when.

Yes, it could have fallen into the river, into the Grand Canyon, stolen from my hotel or car. Ironically, I was back home when the strap gave way and the 5D/24-70 went crashing to the asphalt. Oh well!

I'm familiar with that hike, though at the time I was still with my little P&S. I did run across a guy humping a full-blown wood & brass-bound 4x5 rig up the river. Had a nice chat with him, too. Anyway, I wouldn't think twice about dragging my 20D rig and Mamiya rig up that--same deal: it's why I spent all the money on it. Now that I have proper gear, I want to go back through Utah's NPs again.

I see the reasoning behind where the OP is going. I think ziggy's idea might be a good one. I know the 70-200/4 is about half the size and 1/3 the weight of the f2.8 versions. I'm not familiar with the Sigma or Tamron, but will go with ziggy's expertise.

I'm not sure if I can be any help now, since my viewpoint is I spent nearly $3k on the best glass I can get in order to drag it out into the wilderness to get the best images I can. I have insurance for it if disaster strikes. I don't do the long, multiday backapcking trips, mine are day hikes & well, we artists are supposed to suffer for our art, aren't we?

Edit: after all that nonsense, I run across this thread at FM you might find interesting: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/555115

photogmomma

Edit: after all that nonsense, I run across this thread at FM you might find interesting: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/555115

Thank you!!! That's exactly what I was trying to figure out. It sounds like the Sigma 18-200 OS is what I'm looking for. Because these photos will be for giggles and grins and for family outings, I am not overly concerned with the quality. Certainly I want it to be good, but if it's not L lens quality, I'm also fine with that....

I may look for this lens soon and make sure there is a return policy so I can bring it back if need be.

Thanks a TON! I really appreciate your link!

photogmomma

ziggy53 wrote:

Andi,

My fear for you is that you will be giving up an awfull lot by choosing the all-in-one lens. Specifically, you will loose lens speed and sharpness, compared to the lenses you have.

I suggest that the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD will give fantastic results for many hiking opportunities (some nature portraits, nearly vista landscapes and just general walk-a-round usage) and they are good enough to use in a professional situation as well. (Weddings and group portraits for instance.)

For more distant wildlife you might look at the Canon 70-200mm, f4L, one of the true "L" bargains and not too heavy. Couple it with one of the inexpensive Tamron teleconverters for more distant subjects (even though you mighy have to manual focus (gasp)). Again, you have an excellent professional lens that can be used for making money and to back up your Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8.

True, this is a bit more expensive route, but you will have some more versatile equipment as a result.

I would also pack the EF 50mm, f1.4 because there are some lowlight images that the Canon 30D, at ISO 3200, and with that lens, would be just amazing!

When I did more hiking/backpacking/camping, many of the best opportunities occured at dawn or at dusk.

I would definitely be packing my 50mm. I just love that lens! But I'm still leaning towards a super-zoom since I just dont' want to lug a ton of equipment when I'm hiking in. And because it's not for selling, just for fun, I'd be okay with decent/passable images.

But I will definitely be thinking hard about this. I am still not 100% or even 75% sure... and I won't get anything until I am!

Thank you very much for your feedback, Ziggy! Much food for thought!

claudermilk

photogmomma wrote:

Thank you!!! That's exactly what I was trying to figure out. It sounds like the Sigma 18-200 OS is what I'm looking for. Because these photos will be for giggles and grins and for family outings, I am not overly concerned with the quality. Certainly I want it to be good, but if it's not L lens quality, I'm also fine with that....

I may look for this lens soon and make sure there is a return policy so I can bring it back if need be.

Thanks a TON! I really appreciate your link!

No problem. I've discovered that I was suffering a mild case of L-snob-itis that I needed to correct. :bwg Now, after all my original blather, I'm starting to take a look at the Bigma for zoo shooting. That 500mm for under $1k along with some excellent example shots is very tempting.