Looking For Some Recommendations..

[GTAMADDOG]

Right, so I finally bought a DSLR (500D) a couple of weeks ago and although the 18-55mm kit lens seems good enough for taking photographs of things which are near to me I am starting to miss the zooming capabilities of my FZ38 with it's 18x optical zoom.

 

Therefore, I'm after some recommendations for zoom lenses. I've looked around on Jessops and found Tamron 70-300mm lens which I was very close to buying and collecting from my nearest store today because I'm probably going for a walk tomorrow and I'm not sure if I'll get on too well with the limited zoom on the kit lens, but after looking around on some other forums and at some of the reviews I'm not sure if it's a wise purchase or not, even despite it's price. People on other forums seem to suggest the Canon 55-250mm IS lens is a good addition to a kit lens and is a good zoom lens as well, they don't rate the Tamron or Sigma lenses too much though which put me off the Tamron lens I found. The Canon 55-250mm IS is £230 on Jessops and as much as I'd like to get a lens today ready for tomorrow I don't fancy paying that much for it after I've seen it on Amazon for £156.

 

Now I look at Amazon I see there are quite a few other Canon zoom lenses on there for under £200 which is about as much as I want to spend really. I'm not saving up for a (used) Canon L lens because I'm not a good enough photographer to warrant buying one of those or anything much over £200 truth be told. Keeping in mind I do need a lens for rallying and other motorsports at some point in the near future.

 

Should I get the Canon 55-250mm IS lens or are there any lenses I've missed?

 

Or, am I an idiot? Which I'd probably say yes to :p

[Variodical]

I'm using the EF-S 55-250 and it is quite capable in many situations.

I've used it for sports,wildlife and others and I find the image quality decent.

One thing to note though, there is some vignetting (dark edges) at its max zoom, not a pretty sight.

 

I don't know much about the Tamron, though from what I've read its not too bad. I'm planning to replace my 18-55 with a Tamron

Avoid the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III.

[t.]

I can't help on the Tamron front but I have a Sigma 70-300 (the cheap one without stabalisation) and it's okay so long as the weather is bright. The 70-300's are fairly big for hand holding and without the stabalisation I find that getting a nice sharp image pretty tough unless the weather is glorious. Otherwise you'll be ramping the ISO up to get the desired shutter and that in turn makes the image less clean. So with this focal range I would put IS, VR or whatever you call it as a must, in my opinion of course.

 

So how does the Sigma compare to first party lenses? Well in my experience it's not bad. The colours and contrast certainly lack the punch I get from my Nikkor Lenses and if you go all the way to 100% you can see differences but again, the casual eye probably wouldn't.

 

So which would I get.... I would personally take the better quality glass and sacrifice some zoom but it all depends on what you need. I imagine 300mm at a track for example would make a noticeable difference but as I've not really been to one I wouldn't know, Kelv should though... wherever he is.

[TDU 505]

Definitely ignore the 75-300s. All of them.

 

There's really no beating the 55-250 IS if you're only willing to spend that much.

 

The Tamron 70-300 I heard, is a bit better than the Canon 70-300, but both are a bit more than the 55-250.

 

Stretch a bit more, and you might find a 70-200 f/4L USM. Lovely L lens, but without IS, you might have a problem.

 

I would recommend the 55-250. There's really no beating it's price vs performance.

 

 

EDIT: Or as Tom recommended, the Sigma 70-300 (Look for the APO version) isn't shabby either, but you're not getting any form of stabilization, which might put you off.

[TDUFREAK500]

Try a canon 18-200 I used on one a friends camera the other day they are stable,sharp and you can zoom in a good distance a great lense overall

[TDU 505]

Yes, but you failed to mention cost two to three times more than a 55-250.

[T0M722]

*hi-jacks thread*

 

I'm really really close to buying a 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF-S lens...

 

IS THIS A GOOD CHOICE? :P

[t.]

Yes.

 

Next.

[TDUFREAK500]

Yes, but you failed to mention cost two to three times more than a 55-250.

 

I didnt know that because I don't own the Lens or the Camera I was just borrowing it of a friend

[T0M722]

Yes.

 

Next.

 

*proceeds to checkout*

[t.]

Yes, but you failed to mention cost two to three times more than a 55-250.

On top of that my old 55-200 produced nicer images than my 18-200, though neither was bad.

[GTAMADDOG]

Thanks for the replies. I think the Canon 55-250 will probably be my next purchase then in the next week or two, although I'll have a look at the Sigma 70-300 if I get a quiet day at work this week so I can doss about on the internet all afternoon :p

[MANTE84]

As I said you guys before i'm planning to buy a DSLR camera. It will be the 60D but another question appear, which lense should I get the 17-85 IS USM or the 18-135 IS ! It's a hard choise because the USM is nice but this lens is fully not recommanded ... I want if it's possible your review of it.

[T0M722]

^ Oooh. Tough choice. The 17-85 isn't very sharp when close to objects, but I don't know. I think I'd still go for the 17-85. Maybe you could stretch your budget to something else.

[t.]

As I said you guys before i'm planning to buy a DSLR camera. It will be the 60D but another question appear, which lense should I get the 17-85 IS USM or the 18-135 IS ! It's a hard choise because the USM is nice but this lens is fully not recommanded ... I want if it's possible your review of it.

 

Check out this guy's Flickr. He's a friend of mine and he uses a 60D and the 17-85 Canon Lens. His results are generally pretty nice with it. Based on what I see there I'd say it's a good investment. Of course user skill impacts results greatly.

[TDU 505]

Check out this guy's Flickr. He's a friend of mine and he uses a 60D and the 17-85 Canon Lens. His results are generally pretty nice with it. Based on what I see there I'd say it's a good investment. Of course user skill impacts results greatly.

 

I don't wish to be the devil advocate here, but at 1024 on the long end, you probably can't see much of it's optical flaws. Although this does mean one thing - if you, MANTE, aren't going to be printing your pictures but merely posting it on the web, it should be fine. I'm a bit unsure about the 18-135 though. It does perform decently, but I'm fairly sure you'd want more fairly quickly.

[t.]

What you say is a fair point. I'm able to see how unsharp my 18-200 was at that size though, worryingly lol.

[MANTE84]

So if I understand well what you said guys, you'd going sure for the 17-85mm. Peoples has a different point of view of this lense, it is better than the 18-55 sure. Why wouldn't i go for the 18-135 ? The AF is slowy than the USM of the 17-85mm. I'll dont print them don't think so, i'm just publing them on the web and i want a decent picture which is sharp. I found a nice advert for a 60d with a 17-85mm I'll call him to night for confirm my purschase ... This is the better lense i found in kit with the 60d and corresponding to my budget. I think peoples who critic it don't are really photographers ... Later i'll buy a 70-300 so the 17-85mm is the perfect lense. Why not buy a 24-70mm L USM later .. but at first i have to begin with something. Have a nice end days guys ! Thanks for all your help !

If the 17-85mm isn't the sharper lense ever for which lense should I go. For a total of 1200 €

 

Oh and my dad actually own some lenses which are the canon ef 35-80mm and a 80-200mm

[TDU 505]

The 18-55 IS is actually sharper than the 17-85. You're paying for a slightly wider and longer lens, with USM focusing motor.

 

Optically, it's actually worse.

 

I think peoples who critic it don't are really photographers

 

I'm taking offense. :)

[t.]

Mark has so far as I can tell quite high expectations from his glass, and what he says should be considered although it may not be quite as crucial to someone in your situation. I currently use a 24-120 f4 which is a fairly expensive purchase for someone like me but it's delivering what I want, I wouldn't dream however of recommending spending that much to someone who is just starting out with a DSLR.

 

In the conditions you will be using the camera though it really isn't going to be noticeable. Carrying around fixed or short focal lenses is great if you have huge amounts of time, money and space but for most of us a decent zoom does the job.

 

If I had to buy either of those today, I'd take the 17-85. I can take shots from my 24-120 and crop them down, and the end result is better than the whole framed zoomed further on my cheaper 18-200. That makes sense in my head.. not so sure it does on screen but hey, whatever.

[MANTE84]

I totally agree with you Tom .. I've another time edited my lastest post where I said which lenses I actually own .. I do not have the choise I take the 17-85 because after it I have a 80-200mm so this is the best purschase I could do now and it makes quite good pictures as I saw on the link Tom post before.

TDU 505 I wasn't speak about you but about some websites which say criticism about this cam's.

One thing i'm sure I'll buy some L lense a day ...

I'll let you know my choise on this thread .. I hope to say okey to the seller tonight

Price of the cam's with 17-85 : 970 € so the price of the cam's with a 18-55 ...

[TDU 505]

I totally agree with you Tom .. I've another time edited my lastest post where I said which lenses I actually own .. I do not have the choise I take the 17-85 because after it I have a 80-200mm so this is the best purschase I could do now and it makes quite good pictures as I saw on the link Tom post before.

TDU 505 I wasn't speak about you but about some websites which say criticism about this cam's.

One thing i'm sure I'll buy some L lense a day ...

I'll let you know my choise on this thread .. I hope to say okey to the seller tonight

Price of the cam's with 17-85 : 970 € so the price of the cam's with a 18-55 ...

 

Hahahaha relax I was just joking. :)

 

If the 17-85 isn't going to cost you more, then you'd might as well pick it up. It's a well, live-able lens. And USM is nice to have.

 

Personally, I'd grab a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but even that costs more, albeit slightly.

[GTAMADDOG]

Well, I bought the 55-250mm in the end. Went on to Amazon today and for some reason the website started showing me a Canon 55-250mm for £116 which I thought was a pretty hefty discount to make in less than a week until I realised they'd gone for their cheapest supplier who is based in the U.S., I didn't really fancy taking a punt with that so just bought it for the original £155 and also decided to get a Hoya UV filter while I was at it.

 

No doubt it'll get delivered after 10:30AM on any given week day when I'm not here and it won't be the Royal Fail delivering it either.

[MANTE84]

Well the 55-250mm is a great lense which is nice for it price ! But I just saw Nikon offer 100 € for the D7000 so ... I'll have to make another choise ... I'll see which camera i'll get

[MANTE84]

Let the time do his thing, I have waitin' till today for order that camera. You can't feel like how I am actually in front of that computer. It's the better day ever ... I finally decide to order this 60D. I took it with a 18-135 .. quite nice for begin. I'll give you my review asap.