all round lens

weybourne said:
I don't - but I think it's a starting point on a tight budget.
Click to expand...

depends on what your taking and how close you can get to it, there's no hard and fast rules with wildlife most if it depends on luck,what and where you want to shoot, i took some great pictures with my sx40 but it was a bit too slow for anything moving but obviously the better the mm and lens the better
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
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
Click to expand...

i think i'll probably go for the Tamron 18-270 or sigma 250,i dont want to run before i can walk and really feel an all rounder would be best for me at the moment,later on i'll look at better glass and 2 or 3 lenses. I'd rather go for those than the cheaper looking canon.
 
petebuster1 said:
i think 250-300mm would do for most wildlife situations.
Click to expand...

petebuster1 said:
depends on what your taking and how close you can get to it, there's no hard and fast rules with wildlife most if it depends on luck,what and where you want to shoot, i took some great pictures with my sx40 but it was a bit too slow for anything moving but obviously the better the mm the better
Click to expand...
To depend on the type of subject that you're taking and being able to get close enough to it with 250-300mm is not the same as 'most wildlife situations' in my reckoning. I'm not for a second suggesting that 250-300mm range is no good for wildlife or that there aren't factors other than gear, but I still reckon that 250-300mm would not do for most wildlife situations (but that is different to making do - adapting our approach/technique to the constraints of the gear we have - which we all do).
 
weybourne said:
To depend on the type of subject that you're taking and being able to get close enough to it with 250-300mm is not the same as 'most wildlife situations' in my reckoning. I'm not for a second suggesting that 250-300mm range is no good for wildlife or that there aren't factors other than gear, but I still reckon that 250-300mm would not do for most wildlife situations (but that is different to making do - adapting our approach/technique to the constraints of the gear we have - which we all do).
Click to expand...

i suppose that depends on what wildlife situations your talking about? a compact will do for many and not for many more.A wildlife situation could mean anything? My picture above was a wildlife situation with a bridge camera and it did the job.i didn't need a 600mm range for that, just time on my hands . Its a very very varied subject matter and lens needs likewise.For the most part i know 300mm will more than cover my needs, i wont be miles away from the subjects.
 
Last edited:
petebuster1 said:
i suppose that depends on what wildlife situations your talking about? a compact will do for many and not for many more.A wildlife situation could mean anything? My picture above was a wildlife situation with a bridge camera and it did the job.i didn't need a 600mm range for that, just time on my hands . Its a very very varied subject matter and lens needs likewise.For the most part i know 300mm will more than cover my needs, i wont be miles away from the subjects.
Click to expand...

When you said that "250-300mm would do for most wildlife situations", I thought you were talking generally - I didn't realise you were talking specifically about your situations - it makes sense now.
 
well if i had time to sit in a hide for hours taking specific wildlife subjects (though this is hardly the African plains) then obviously i would want something better but unfortunately at the present at least thats not possible, if for example i'm walking to work which is countryside i might see a deer so would just need something with a bit of zoom,though now its dark in the mornings there's not much chance of that either.For the moment at least while i'm still very much a novice i just need a lens that can do a bit of everything,when i know a bit more i can then think about better lenses.
 
Last edited:
Anyway getting off the wildlife subject does anyone think the sigma 18-250 is worth £200 more than the canon 55-250? i know its build quality is better, i'm not so sure about image quality,i've seen great reviews about both and other lenses and this is where it gets complicated. Many reviews seem to be done by pros with photoshop etc so its like everythings tested under microscope conditions which is not needed for most of us so i'm asking in laymans terms and more reality, ie if i put 2 pics on a computer would i really see 2,3,4,5,600 £s worth of difference because what i often seem to see on youtube tests is not a lot of difference other than price and build quality.Bearing in mind like most people i dont need to print 3ft poster size prints.
I appreciate i'm talking like a novice but i am and photography is really quite complicated but i will get there,lol
 
Last edited:
the 18-250 is a different animal to the 55-150
for 300 quid you can split up your lens range
which is 17-55 f2.8 and then the 55-250. (£100 2nd hand) this is what I'd do I think
although a superzoom 18-250 is very appealing , any lens has compromises
that's why the L glass is 70-200, 100-400, 17-40 etc not huge ranges.
the exception is the 28-300 but that's even more expensive and large to compensate

The more a lens can do, typically the more compromises that have been made (ish)
so most primes go below f2.8 and are typically very sharp but of course you zoom with your feet :)
 
DizMatt said:
the 18-250 is a different animal to the 55-150
for 300 quid you can split up your lens range
which is 17-55 f2.8 and then the 55-250. (£100 2nd hand) this is what I'd do I think
although a superzoom 18-250 is very appealing , any lens has compromises
that's why the L glass is 70-200, 100-400, 17-40 etc not huge ranges.
the exception is the 28-300 but that's even more expensive and large to compensate

The more a lens can do, typically the more compromises that have been made (ish)
so most primes go below f2.8 and are typically very sharp but of course you zoom with your feet :)
Click to expand...


the 17-55 is pretty expensive and i have the 18-55 kit lens which ive been quite impressed with so far and for £40 ;) so do i need the f2.8 is it really going to give me £700's worth of better pics:eek:though i do realise its much better
 
Last edited:
whats really taken my fancy is the tamron 70-300 di vc but what would i get as a cheaper lens to cover the range below? or get a cheaper all rounder when i dont need to lug that around (it seems quite big) you see so many options:shake: its good hunting and i'm loving it but i am a bit fussy and will only go really cheap if its a bargain like the 18-55 but i cant think L lens just yet:'(
 
Last edited:
petebuster1 said:
just waiting for arrival for my 60d now, wasn't happy with just one lens so bought the Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD which seems a good all round lens and with the f1.8 that should have me set up for a while,looking forward to their arrivals
Click to expand...
What happened to the Tamron 18-200mm that you bought?
 
petebuster1 said:
the 17-55 is pretty expensive and i have the 18-55 kit lens which ive been quite impressed with so far and for £40 ;) so do i need the f2.8 is it really going to give me £700's worth of better pics:eek:though i do realise its much better
Click to expand...

sorry, I might have meant the tamron f2.8 17-50
I had one and it was pretty good, versatile and pretty sharp
there is a sigma version and VC is handy but not really needed on a 17-50 unless you like lowlight shots.
A couple of tamron lenses would work very well, but on the longer range, 250-300 then IS/VC/OS is very handy I think
 
petebuster1 said:
whats really taken my fancy is the tamron 70-300 di vc but what would i get as a cheaper lens to cover the range below? or get a cheaper all rounder when i dont need to lug that around (it seems quite big) you see so many options:shake: its good hunting and i'm loving it but i am a bit fussy and will only go really cheap if its a bargain like the 18-55 but i cant think L lens just yet:'(
Click to expand...

My ex has this lens, I've played with it for a good week and I'm going to get one myself (70-300) it's actually pretty light/compact though the 55-250 is lighter. There isn't much difference in IQ to my eye, seems to be a very versatile, useful lens. I would be happy with either one in your shoes :-)
 
StephyB said:
My ex has this lens, I've played with it for a good week and I'm going to get one myself (70-300) it's actually pretty light/compact though the 55-250 is lighter. There isn't much difference in IQ to my eye, seems to be a very versatile, useful lens. I would be happy with either one in your shoes :-)
Click to expand...

Is that the tamron 55-250?
 
Nope, canon 55-250 and tamron 70-300
 
Another question what would be 2 really good lenses for say every day use and one for good zooming if you want the combination? ,not budget.
 
petebuster1 said:
i guessed that after i asked the question:lol: thanks
Click to expand...

:lol:

My fault, worded it badly!
 
petebuster1 said:
I didn't realise there was a photo elements thank you will look into that
Click to expand...

I have photoshop Elements 10 and it does everything that I need it to do. It crops, resizes, adjust colour saturation\levels, removes excessive noise from pictures and even removes blemishes from your pics which is just about everything that an amateur photographer will need I think. I just recently found out that photoshop elements 11 is now available. Amazon have elements 11 for £63.60 and Elements 10 is still available for £59.00. Prices will obviously vary depending on where you shop but I still think its great value for money when you consider the cost of the latest main photoshop program which is cs6 and that will cost you over £700 from Amazon.
 
dundeebirder said:
I have photoshop Elements 10 and it does everything that I need it to do. It crops, resizes, adjust colour saturation\levels, removes excessive noise from pictures and even removes blemishes from your pics which is just about everything that an amateur photographer will need I think. I just recently found out that photoshop elements 11 is now available. Amazon have elements 11 for £63.60 and Elements 10 is still available for £59.00. Prices will obviously vary depending on where you shop but I still think its great value for money when you consider the cost of the latest main photoshop program which is cs6 and that will cost you over £700 from Amazon.
Click to expand...

yes thanks i certainly wouldn't pay £700
 
Last edited:
Well i've decided on the sigma 18-250 os macro version as i can get this for same price as the older version and from what ive read its better,i've also bought a sigma 70-300 apo for a bargain price so will use this to see if 300mm is enough for me, i can then decide to go for the better tamron vc or if 300 is not enough will get an l lens with more mm at later date.
 
Last edited:
Think it might be better to.pay a little extra and have the 3 year warranty most selling these only come with 1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top