thinking about a superzoom .......

paulyoung666

paulyoung666

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,596
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
......... to partner with my 450D , i have the 18-55 IS and the 70-300 IS USM , happy with both lenses but get so frustrated when a lot of the time i seem to have the 'wrong' lens fitted , so , i am looking for peoples suggestions to replace the 2 for 1 , the other problem is , the money needs to be about the same , would be happy to sell and buy the superzoom from here secondhand but would need an OS or VC version :)
 
I hear good things about the Tamron 18-270, and almost considered it once. That's a massive range right there, as wide as your widest lens, and very nearly as long as your longest lens!

What I would consider doing is sell both of your current lenses, get yourself a superzoom for general use and then a prime in a focal length you are more likely to use, for those 'special' moments where a bit of extra quality/background blur would be appreciated. For me that would be something along the lines of said Tamron and an 85ish mm prime.

At the end of the day, only you can decide.
 
thanks , as usual there is a minefield of conflicting info on what is good / bad etc , anyone have real world experience of superzooms ? :)
 
The one thing you are going to have to accept from your superzoom is that you are going to compromise on IQ especially in comparison to your 70-300

if you would rather have the convenience over the IQ then there is no problem with making that choice and getting yourself one!
 
good point , i knew this wouldnt be easy :gag: :lol:
 
The 18-200 would be an obvious suggestion but I really didn't get on with it. The 24-105 loses a bit of range at the wide end but does have a nice range and would be a definite step-up as far as IQ goes. Not exactly cheap, mind but it is my choice for a walkaround lens.
 
Last edited:
I've got the Sigma 18-200 OS. Initially I didn't like the IQ as everything seemed a bit soft (I was comparing this to my Canon 100mm macro), however after giving it another go after a year of sitting in a drawer, its lovely to go out without a bag of stuff and fiddling with lenses.
 
keep em coming peeps :) , looking for all the thoughts i can collect :)
 
I had same problem, 450D with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, got fed up with swapping lenses and forever having the wrong one on !

Now using a Sigma 18-250 OS which serves me well. Tried comparing the Canon lenses with the Sigma when I first got it, but struggled to say which was best IQ. However I'm relatively new to DSLR photography and I'm sure a pro could tell which is best.

Having said that, my skills are getting better and I'm planning on buying primes from now on for specific shots such as airshows, portraits etc and keeping the Sigma as a general purpose walkabout lens for which it does a very good job !
 
Last edited:
lightspeed998 said:
I had same problem, 450D with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, got fed up with swapping lenses and forever having the wrong one on !

Now using a Sigma 18-250 OS which serves me well. Tried comparing the Canon lenses with the Sigma when I first got it, but struggled to say which was best IQ. However I'm relatively new to DSLR photography and I'm sure a pro could tell which is best.

Having said that, my skills are getting better and I'm planning on buying primes from now on for specific shots such as airshows, portraits etc and keeping the Sigma as a general purpose walkabout lens for which it does a very good job !
Click to expand...

I think this plays a big role in deciding if the swap was worth it. The 18-55 and the 55-250 are average lenses themselves and the superzoom would probably be of similar results. it's the OPs swap from the 70-300 where the difference will really be noticed.
 
Tamron 18-270 is a reasonable lens IQ wise.....not as good as two smaller range zooms however. But the biggest problem I found with mine was it was so slow to focus in anything other than very good lighting conditions....indoors it was useless, even with the AF assist lamps on my SB900 flash. Got rid quickly and bought the lenses on the left....ok I know you are a Canon user but the point still stands. Dont do it!

Neil
 
joescrivens said:
I think this plays a big role in deciding if the swap was worth it. The 18-55 and the 55-250 are average lenses themselves and the superzoom would probably be of similar results. it's the OPs swap from the 70-300 where the difference will really be noticed.
Click to expand...

The 55-250 IS is far from average, its a blinder of a lens!! The IQ is on par with the 70-300 IS, and in fact is sharper past 200mm than the 70-300 IS - I would be surprised if you cant tell the difference between a (properly used) 55-250 IS and a superoom.

Im very happy with my Canon 18-135 IS which I use on holiday and random walkabouts, sharper and wider and more usable than the 28-135 IS I was going to buy.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The 55-250 IS is far from average!! The IQ is on par with the 70-300 IS, and in fact is sharper past 200mm than the 70-300 IS - I would be surprised if you cant tell the difference between a (properly used) 55-250 IS and a superoom.
Click to expand...

have to disagree with that, you must be thinking of the 75-300 not the 70-300 which is by far a superior lens to the 55-250 in my opinion.
 
joescrivens said:
have to disagree with that, you must be thinking of the 75-300 not the 70-300 which is by far a superior lens to the 55-250 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Nope Im talking about the 70-300 IS USM, which some find soft at the far reach, the 55-250 stays pin sharp throughout. I cant tell the difference between my 250 and my brothers 70-300, until his 70-300 gets past about 200 or so mm when it appears to soften unless stopped right down.
 
odd jim said:
Nope Im talking about the 70-300 IS USM, which some find soft at the far reach, the 55-250 stays pin sharp throughout. I cant tell the difference between my 250 and my brothers 70-300, until his 70-300 gets past about 200 or so mm when it appears to soften unless stopped right down.
Click to expand...

can't say thats my experience, I found the 50-250 pretty average, whereas I got great results from my 70-300 - most people claim the 70-300 to be a hidden L lens for a reason - they don't say the same about the 50-250, it's just considered a good deal for the cash it costs
 
keep em coming peeps :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top