all round lens

petebuster1

petebuster1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
It took me 4 months to decide on the 60d and have bought the f1.8 which seemed an obvious choice but want an all round walkabout with a decent zoom lens but this seems even harder to decide on, i'd like something above the basic kit lenses but also good value for money pref not above the £350 mark.
Any suggestions appreciated
ive been looking at
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC .
NEW SIGMA 18-250MM F/3.5-6.3
 
Last edited:
Yes was very tempted by that one but having read many user rather than pro reviews on some of these lenses I'm not sure many are worth the huge price differences ie the tamrons £170 more than the canon and on the reviews i'm not sure i see £170 worth of difference,i think it can be confusing and misleading, no wonder newbies like me have so much trouble finding the right thing. I think going cheap is where to start and see how happy i am with results. i'm not going to be useing photoshop or things like that, to me thats for pros, ive no need to disect photos and i really dont think you need to spend thousands to get excellent quality pics, a friend of mine who's been in photography 40 years has recently proved that to me.
But thats going off the thread sorry
 
Last edited:
f/1.8 doesn't really help much - the focal length would! I'm guessing that you mean the 50mm f/1.8 aka the nifty fifty?


Photoshop (especially Elements) is an extremely useful tool for basic jobs like cropping, resizing, removal of unwanted elements etc, so don't dismiss it completely!

Not a Canon user so can't comment specifically on the lenses you mention, however, I can say that in general, a lens with a shorter range will probably out perform one with a long range, so in theory, the Canon lens listed should be sharper than the Sigmas. It's also a fraction faster at the 250mm end than the Sigma that stretches that far and that can make a difference in marginal light situations.

Hope this helps,

Nod.
 
Yes thanks and yes the nifty fifty , something like Photoshop I probably would like to.start useing at some point if i can find the time
 
Last edited:
the 55-250mm is a very good lens for the price you pay for it and with the IS its even manageable at the long end
 
petebuster1 said:
Yes thanks and yes the nifty fifty , something like Photoshop I probably would like to.start useing at some point if i can find the time
Click to expand...

Photoshop elements is plenty for most amateur uses, no real need to fork out the hundreds of pounds the full CS version costs.

Thought you probably meant the 50mm.

IMO, the most useful range is reasonably wide to short telephoto, something like the 35mm equivalent 24-70, as fast as you can afford or get, probably f/2.8. For a crop sensor, an 18-55 or similar gives approximately that range of focal lengths. Further lenses to go wider or longer can be added as funds and the womenfolk allow! ;) My personal tastes run more to the wide end of the scale, hence my use of a Sigma 12-24 and a Sigma 8mm fisheye.
 
Nod said:
Photoshop elements is plenty for most amateur uses, no real need to fork out the hundreds of pounds the full CS version costs.

Thought you probably meant the 50mm.

IMO, the most useful range is reasonably wide to short telephoto, something like the 35mm equivalent 24-70, as fast as you can afford or get, probably f/2.8. For a crop sensor, an 18-55 or similar gives approximately that range of focal lengths. Further lenses to go wider or longer can be added as funds and the womenfolk allow! ;) My personal tastes run more to the wide end of the scale, hence my use of a Sigma 12-24 and a Sigma 8mm fisheye.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise there was a photo elements thank you will look into that
 
Anyway the 60d arrived today so looking forward to getting started, I also bought the Canon 18-55 for £ 40 although I know not a great lens will be good to get used to the camera.
Now what I know I'll need is a lens with a good zoom I was looking at the sigma 70-250 which seems to have good reviews also the tamron 70-300 vi,I am prepared to spend a little more for the zoom as I know will use that a lot. Ideally something not too big
 
Last edited:
The canon efs 55-250 is a belter of a lens for the price the IQ is excellent and they can be bought new from kerso at 119 at the moment, 250 in jessops
 
If you decide to upgrade the Canon 18-55, the Tamron 17-50 is a good, cheap upgrade.
 
Most of the lenses you have mentioned (70-250, 70-300, 55-250) are not all round lenses because they are too long at the short end. They could work well with the 18-55mm that you have bought but two lenses ain't an all-round lens solution. The other two (18-200 & 18-250) have a very good focal length range for all-round use but such a large zoom range comes with a trade-off in image quality.

The beauty and function of an SLR system is that you can change the lens to suit the requirement - to have only one lens for all-round use, imho, compromises the advantages of the system. If you look for a one-lens solution, you will be disappointed in the results or frustrated by the shortcomings.

If you're thinking about going beyond the 'standard zoom' range (of which I would consider 135mm to be about the limit of the long end), then I think you need to get a good idea of what you need it for and how long you need it. then you can make an informed choice for a second lens to meet your requirements.

If you want versatility then I recommend that you go for a three-lens set-up:
  1. a standard zoom that is wide and long enough for most 'day-to-day' use
  2. something wide - e.g. a 10-20mm
  3. something long - this could be a (fast) prime, a relatively short 70-200mm or a long-reach zoom such as the Sigma 150-500mm

Stick with the 18-55 and work out what you're missing out on. You might even decide that you don't need the extra reach but you could do with an extra stop or two on the aperture.
 
weybourne said:
If you want versatility then I recommend that you go for a three-lens set-up:
  1. a standard zoom that is wide and long enough for most 'day-to-day' use
  2. something wide - e.g. a 10-20mm
  3. something long - this could be a (fast) prime, a relatively short 70-200mm or a long-reach zoom such as the Sigma 150-500mm
.
Click to expand...

I agree with Adrian, for my setup I use:

  1. 24-70mm F2.8L as my walkabout lens
  2. 10-20mm F3.5 only for those times that require an ultra wide angle
  3. 70-200mm F4L IS for getting to the places that (1) cannot reach

These are all expensive lenses and are heavy to carry around, but it is worth it.
 
I have the efs 55-250 and I adore it, it's my favourite lens so far, and I've tried the tamron 70-300, and I still prefer the efs. I get better results with it.
 
BIGEYE said:
I agree with Adrian, for my setup I use:

  1. 24-70mm F2.8L as my walkabout lens
  2. 10-20mm F3.5 only for those times that require an ultra wide angle
  3. 70-200mm F4L IS for getting to the places that (1) cannot reach

These are all expensive lenses and are heavy to carry around, but it is worth it.
Click to expand...

All very helpful thank you i was thinking the f4l for zoom but realised thats no good for a walkabout and thats something i'll get later on so for now i'll get a good walkaround (i'll be useing the 18-55 just to get used to the camera),what would be the max reach for a walkaround? thanks and of course any suggestions,maybe mid price range,cant go the 2.8 prices i'm afraid
 
Last edited:
EF-S 18-135mm or EF-S 18-200mm are nice walkarounds and in your budget
 
Get a good copy of the 55-250IS and you'll be blown away. The handling isn't great for manual focus but everything else is just fine for the price!
 
Moos3h said:
Get a good copy of the 55-250IS and you'll be blown away. The handling isn't great for manual focus but everything else is just fine for the price!
Click to expand...

As the price of these are so good ill.get one anyway
 
The sigma 24-70 can be an awesome lens but quality is variable, a good one is a marvellous bargain but try before you buy!
 
As James (Moosh) just said, the Sigma (or indeed any of the top brands) 24-70 f/2.8 is a great walkabout lens. My D700 is rarely without it BUT, it's only really and ideal lens on FF, IMO, it's not wide enough at the short end on crop bodies. I'm calculating in my head that the same FoV on a crop body would need a 16-46 (taking 1.5 as a general crop factor).

My favourite walkabout lens on crop used to be my good, faithful kit lens from my first DSLR, a D70; the great 18-70.
 
Nod said:
As James (Moosh) just said, the Sigma (or indeed any of the top brands) 24-70 f/2.8 is a great walkabout lens. My D700 is rarely without it BUT, it's only really and ideal lens on FF, IMO, it's not wide enough at the short end on crop bodies. I'm calculating in my head that the same FoV on a crop body would need a 16-46 (taking 1.5 as a general crop factor).

My favourite walkabout lens on crop used to be my good, faithful kit lens from my first DSLR, a D70; the great 18-70.
Click to expand...

so i should be asking whats the ideal walkabout on a crop lens? whats the difference in terms of the lens on crop or FF camera? got a lot learn still lol
 
Last edited:
I have the Canon 28-135mm and it is a great walk around lens. IQ is good and its quiet and fast focus. Importantly, its not too expensive to buy !
Some would say it's not too "wide angle" enough especially if used on a 1.6 crop sensor but never the less I find its on my 30d most of the time. You will not be disappointed with this lens.
Ive upgraded to full frame now but I can't bring myself to get rid of this lens - so it's staying on the 30D.
 
I originally used the Sigma 18-200 for maybes 2 years. I then gradually upgraded first to sigma 24-70, then 70-200 f2.8, and then finally 10-20. This upgrade process took about 18 months.

As has been mentioned carrying the extra weight is the only negative, and possibly the changing lenses. But as was also pointed out the purpose of buying an SLR is to have the option of changing lenses when the situation requires.

If I had the money, would I have bought all my 3 lenses with my camera???

I dont necessarily think I would, I think using one lens for a long time really made me think about my camera settings, my composition, light, etc. Then when I moved to using better quality lenses with much faster apertures I appreciated more what they could do. I think having lots of choice, lens wise when you are learning how to use your camera could create extra problems, or extra decisions that slow you down.

Just my thoughts.
 
I have the EF-S 18-135mm which was the kit lens I chose with my 60d. It does the job as a decent travel lens with a more than adequate zoom and the 18mm offers, for me anyway, a wide enough angle to work with . I believe a new version of this lens has been released with the STM motor for around £350...although I may be mistaken on the price.

I guess it depends on how much range you are ultimately looking for.
 
petebuster1 said:
so i should be asking whats the ideal walkabout on a crop lens? whats the difference in terms of the lens on crop or FF camera? got a lot learn still lol
Click to expand...

OK, for those of us who learned photography a fair time ago, we used (in the main) to use 35mm cameras, and got used to how a shot would look through a 20mm, 50mm, 90mm etc lens. All that was fine until digital SLRs appeared with smaller sensors than the 35mm film frame (36mm x 24mm). They were generally around 2/3rds the size, about the size of an APS-C film frame, giving lenses an apparent gain in focal length of 1.5x (called a crop factor).

What this means in practice is very little! Someone who has never used 35mm film doesn't know how a 50mm makes things look on a 35mm viewfinder/film image, so it's immaterial but an ex 35mm film user could be a little dismayed to find that the field of view he used to love from his 20mm lens now looked more like that he used to see through a 30mm lens on a DSLR with a smaller sensor.

What's the best range on a walkabout lens for a crop body? Depends very much on where your interests lie and which focal lengths you prefer. If you like wide angles (not super wide, just normal wide), a lens that starts at 18mm or shorter should do you fine. However, if you prefer telephoto shooting, maybe something that starts at 55 or above would be better. Not sure of what's available at the affordable end of the market and what's good and what's not so good. However, I'm not sure that superzooms and SLRs mix too well (although the 30x [24-720!] superzoom on my walkabout Fuji HS30 seems to work very well), otherwise I would recommend one of the 18-200/250 lenses that are now available, or even the Nikon 18-300. If you're looking for low light capability, you'll want a lens with a wide aperture, probably f/2.8 for zooms. Then again, if you want a non zoom (prime) lens, decide which focal length you want and look at all the options!
 
i'd want something at the longer end so would be looking at 200mm, which is why i've been looking at the sigma 18-200,tamron 18-270 but i do wonder if your getting £250 odd worth of a better lens than the canon 55-250 which seems very popular, i do zoom a lot which is why i loved my sx40.
 
Last edited:
If you can visit a local retailer who stocks a good selection of lenses, take your (camera) body along and ask to take some sample shots with the lenses you're interested in. Take one at each step up the focal length (say 50mm, 80mm,135mm, 200mm, 250mm) and at a few apertures (wide open, f/8, stopped right down). Now, take the card full of pictures home and pixel peep on your computer. Zoom right in to 100% and look carefully for signs of softness, odd colours near dark/light transitions, distortions along the edges. Maybe even print a few examples at what you expect you largest print size to be, probably A4 but maybe bigger. If these decent sized prints look good to you, the lens is almost certainly acceptable for what you want at the moment.
 
i would love to do that,the problem is i live in a small country town and the nearest camera shop is 14 miles away and with work i get little chance hence your feedback is so helpful,i'm tempted to go for canon 55-250 as i've read such good feedback about it but read the same about the tamron 270 but is there really £300 worth of difference? i do wonder why one is so much cheaper?
 
Last edited:
That's why I said IF you can... I fully understand that for some people it's not as easy as jumping on a bus, either because the bus service is totally carp or because they are simply not on a bus route!

However, it must be possible for you to get to camera shop town sometimes, even if it's just once a month! If you work in that town, do you get a lunch break? Don't be too much in a hurry to spend your money! Far better to wait until you can be sure of making the right decision than acting hastily then wishing you'd gone in a different direction.

BTW, in my experience, the shorter the zoom range of a lens, the better the image quality tends to be at either end, especially at wider apertures (smaller numbers). For a while, I had a Tamron with a very convenient wide to 300 range but it suffered for it, especially at the long end. I'm sure lens design has improved since then but now, I prefer to have a collection of zooms to cover wide to telephoto - 2 lenses can do it if you're not wanting to go too wide (a 24-70 and a 70-300) or, if like me, you like ultra wide angles, you can always add a 3rd lens - in my case, a 12-24 and on FF, that's plenty wide enough for most uses, although I do also have an 8mm fisheye!

Depending on budget, I would go the 2 zoom route, either cheaper, slower lenses (some of which are great performers) or faster (heavier and better), more expensive ones (f/2.8, 24-70 and 70-200) I fully appreciate that your budget may not stretch that far but maybe there's a decent 2nd hand stockist within range? Or, if you qualify, the Classifieds section on this forum.
 
Mostly the differing costs are down to the elements in the lens. It's basic optical design stuff. The smaller the field the lens has to deliver, and the smaller the zoom range, the easier it is to design something with minimum distortion and aberation without recourse to aspheric elements and funny (ie expensive) glasses. That's why superzooms on compacts are relatively much cheaper because they only need to deliver a small image at the sensor. A superzoom on a full frame camera would probably, even nowdays with much wider use of fancy glass etc, be a thing of horror.... Or weight a ton and cost a grand+!

(And of course paying for the name...)
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
That's why I said IF you can... I fully understand that for some people it's not as easy as jumping on a bus, either because the bus service is totally carp or because they are simply not on a bus route!

However, it must be possible for you to get to camera shop town sometimes, even if it's just once a month! If you work in that town, do you get a lunch break? Don't be too much in a hurry to spend your money! Far better to wait until you can be sure of making the right decision than acting hastily then wishing you'd gone in a different direction.

BTW, in my experience, the shorter the zoom range of a lens, the better the image quality tends to be at either end, especially at wider apertures (smaller numbers). For a while, I had a Tamron with a very convenient wide to 300 range but it suffered for it, especially at the long end. I'm sure lens design has improved since then but now, I prefer to have a collection of zooms to cover wide to telephoto - 2 lenses can do it if you're not wanting to go too wide (a 24-70 and a 70-300) or, if like me, you like ultra wide angles, you can always add a 3rd lens - in my case, a 12-24 and on FF, that's plenty wide enough for most uses, although I do also have an 8mm fisheye!

Depending on budget, I would go the 2 zoom route, either cheaper, slower lenses (some of which are great performers) or faster (heavier and better), more expensive ones (f/2.8, 24-70 and 70-200) I fully appreciate that your budget may not stretch that far but maybe there's a decent 2nd hand stockist within range? Or, if you qualify, the Classifieds section on this forum.
Click to expand...

im in no rush my couple of cheap lenses will do for time being,my works in the middle of nowhere but i'll wait till we go to cambridge again, your advice is much appreciated.
 
The other thing i was thinking and i fully appreciate what your saying about 2 lenses covering the ranges, but as you you might have gathered i live in a rural area and most my photo taking is of wildlife and whatever i might see while walking and obviously to capture something it would hardly ever be possible to change lenses as things dont tend to pose for you,which is why i was thinking one all round lens.

The other thing is in peoples opinions is there really any quality difference between the so called walkabouts ? or are they much of muchness?
if there's little difference in canon 55-250 for say £120 and the tamron 18-270 for treble the price, its a no brainer? or is it?
 
Last edited:
petebuster1 said:
The other thing i was thinking and i fully appreciate what your saying about 2 lenses covering the ranges, but as you you might have gathered i live in a rural area and most my photo taking is of wildlife and whatever i might see while walking and obviously to capture something it would hardly ever be possible to change lenses as things dont tend to pose for you,which is why i was thinking one all round lens.
Click to expand...
That sounds (but I could be wrong) that you need the reach of a long lens - if birds are your thing, then you will struggle with a cheap 250 or 300mm long end - little brown things are usually still little through a 300mm. A lot of wildlife toggers start at 300mm and then go up. There's still a lot though that you can do with 250 or 300mm.

If you can cope with the weight but you don't want to change lenses, you'd be better off with something like the Sigma 50-500 - a lens that defies the usual rules of diminishing returns with greater zoom ranges - but it is a bit of a beast and a few quid more than the lenses you've been talking about. It has a cheaper brother, the 150-500 - but 150mm might be too long for a one lens solution.

Aimless and opportunistic shooting whilst walking with a single lens isn't the best way to get wildlife shots - you're better off going with the right equipment for the job and a game-plan. You're also going to maximise your opportunities if you take more than one lens and are prepared to change lenses for different subjects etc (think of it like a fisherman changing from surface-bait & float to bottom-bait and ledger)

The other thing is in peoples opinions is there really any quality difference between the so called walkabouts ? or are they much of muchness?
if there's little difference in canon 55-250 for say£120 and tamron 18-270 for treble the price its a no brainer?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say there's a much of a muchness. The lenses mentioned in this thread vary greatly in image quality, build quality etc. Some will auto-focus quickly and quietly, others will struggle to focus in anything but ideal conditions, 'hunting' noisily backwards and forwards for the focal point. Some can be manually focussed without switching them to manual (HSM or USM type motors - these are the fast and quiet ones) but others you should switch them from auto to manual.

I haven't had any experience of the 55-250 or of the 18-270 but as far as I can tell, people are eager to get hold of the Canon 55-250 but a lot of people quickly move on from super-zooms such as the 18-270. Super-zooms don't get very good reviews (unless compared to lesser able super-zooms).

If you're on a really tight budget and you want a bit of reach, then I wouldn't recommend a super-zoom (but please remember that I have never used one - only read about them and applied a bit of common) but would recommend a starter 18-55mm lens together with the 55-250mm. The 18-55 isn't a bad lens and the 55-250 gets rave reviews (but I've never used one). When you've had those for a bit, you should get an idea as to where you need to go focal-length wise and what you want to spend some serious money on (you might be prepared to go 2nd hand to get what you want).
 
yes thanks for that,i think 250-300mm would do for most wildlife situations.there's so many choices its harder than picking the camera:thinking::lol:
 
two options
a really good 18-250 ish or split up the focal range

my money would be on
tamron 17-50 VC
canon 55-250 IS

or a sigma OS 18-250

both solutions are around 300 quid give or take
or replace the 55-250 with a 70-300 for some more range, IS is expensive but the tamron or sigma option is cheaper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top