Large range lens for Canon 500d

[whizzbang]

Hi!
Hubby has given me the go ahead for a new lens.
I am looking for a more versatile lens to take away on an is trip.
I was hoping for a 18-250(+) lens for my cabin 500D.
The problem is everything I am finding is not a 58mm that my camera needs.

Am I looking at the right thing? Soooo confusing. I love macro photography, but for this trip I thing the higher range of focus would be better (I think).

- - - Updated - - -

cabin 500d is clearly my Canon 500d ????????????????

[arthurking83]

.....

The problem is everything I am finding is not a 58mm that my camera needs.

....

Not 100% sure what you mean by this .. your camera needs 58mm! :confused013
If my assumption that this 58mm relates to any current UV/protection filter .. you don't need that!
In fact you don't even want that! If you have any clear filters in front of any lenses you have .. get rid of them. Use them as temporary lens caps, cup coasters or whatever .. but not on the lens whilst you are taking photos.

So if that 58mm need comment is related to the filter thread size, then don't worry. Just get yourself the necessary 18-xxx mm zoom lens and enjoy!(and DON'T be swayed by any sales person that you need a protection filter for it or junk like that.
What could be a handy filter is a circular polariser(CPL) filter tho.
These are different, and actually do something useful. Learn how to use one, when to use one and when not to use one .. and you'll barely take it off(me thinks).

I'm pretty sure Tamron, Sigma and Canon all make half decent 18-XXXmm lenses that all do pretty much similar things.

If you had a spare $1000 to throw at the issue, you may even like the new Tamron 18-400mm lens too.
I've just been browsing some info about this lens, and at 200mm it looks very usable.
At 400mm it's OK-ish .. for displaying the entire frame, but you wouldn't want to crop any image shot at 400mm too much.

If you do get any new superzoom lens, and do want to get a new CPL filter, just make sure you get one for it's size. The thread size is stamped on the inside of the lens cap .. (ie. XXmm .. it'll be obvious)


ps. I'll edit the thread title from cabin to canon for 'ya too.

[whizzbang]

Ohhhhh, such great advice thank you Authurking83
Not 100% sure what you mean by this .. your camera needs 58mm! :confused013
If my assumption that this 58mm relates to any current UV/protection filter .. you don't need that!
In fact you don't even want that! If you have any clear filters in front of any lenses you have .. get rid of them. Use them as temporary lens caps, cup coasters or whatever .. but not on the lens whilst you are taking photos.
OK, so the 58mm is the size of the lens that needs to be covered, not the part that connects to the camera itself!!!! Right. That makes alot of sense. So with this new knowledge, it appears I can have any lens as long as it is compatible with my Canon 500D!


[/QUOTE]
If you had a spare $1000 to throw at the issue, you may even like the new Tamron 18-400mm lens too.
I've just been browsing some info about this lens, and at 200mm it looks very usable.
At 400mm it's OK-ish .. for displaying the entire frame, but you wouldn't want to crop any image shot at 400mm too much. [/QUOTE]
This is what I was looking at, was just bummed that it didn't come in my camera size :lol2:



[/QUOTE]ps. I'll edit the thread title from cabin to canon for 'ya too.[/QUOTE]

Thank you!!! Damn auto-correct!!

[Tannin]

Be aware that superzooms (lenses with a very large zoom range) make a lot of design compromises to achieve that enormous range. In short, they do everything, but they don't do anything very well.

Do you remember the 1970s? Cast your mind back to a fashionable and heavily advertised bit of cutlery called the Splade. It was essentially a distorted sort of a spoon with sharp edges, and tines like a fork. Everybody bought a set of them or got them for Christmas, and everybody used them for three weeks, and then went back to using knives, forks, and spoons because while the Splade was indeed a knife, a fork, and a spoon all in one, and you could indeed spear things on it, cut things with it, and (with some difficulty) drink soup out of it, it wasn't actually very good at doing any of its three tasks, and you'd always put down the Splade in favour of a proper knife, fork, or spoon if you had one handy.

Superzooms are the photographic equivalent of a Splade.

Does this mean that you shouldn't get one? No: they are really handy when you are unable to take your knife and fork main lenses with you, in particular for travelling. And although they are quite large, a single superzoom is much smaller and more convenient to carry than two or three orthodox lenses. So, unlike the Splade, they have a place in the world. Just don't expect miracles.

Expect a not-very-wide wide end (usually 18mm where a normal zoom these days is often 15mm) with heaps of barrel distortion (a bit annoying but not the end of the world), a mediocre middle, and a not-very-sharp long end, the whole thing rather slow. Sound horrible? No, perfectly adequate when used within its limitations. Just be aware of them before you buy.

I haven't kept track of which are the better ones these days, but it is reasonable to assume that the longer the promised zoom range is, the worse the result will be (unless the manufacturer has done something truly heroic). All else being equal, an 18-200 will be better than an 18-250, let alone an 18-400 - but all else is seldom equal. Your best bet is to jump over to thedigitalpicture.com and check out the alternatives. Bryan Carnathan's reviews are generally (and rightly) regarded as the fairest, easiest to read, and most comprehensive on the web.

Edit: you may find this interesting: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-200mm-f-3.5-6.3-DC-Macro-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx

[arthurking83]

.... All else being equal, an 18-200 will be better than an 18-250, let alone an 18-400 - but all else is seldom equal. .....

In some ways yes, in others .. no!

The way I've always looked at it as simply as ... at the extremes.
Those lenses are almost 100% certainly going to produce quite average image results at either 18mm(wide end) or XXXmm(long end), where XXX = whatever the focal length is on the long end.
So, you know that an 18-200mm usually has bad IQ at 18mm and 200mm, and an 18-300 bad at 18 and 300mm.
But the 18-300 may have(and usually does) have usable IQ at 200mm(where the 18-200mm usually won't)

At the short end(ie. usually 18mm) the resolution is usually good, but like Tannin said, they barrel distort like a madhouse mirror!
So if you wanted a nice image of some nice looking building, or whatever straight lined subject matter .. you'd be better off standing further back and zooming a smidge. If you use distortion correction software you end up losing that wide field of view anyhow, so shy not just do that in camera(ie. good practice) to start with. Also note that distortion(for me, and I know many other people) is less of an issue as other image quality results. i.e .. in landscapes, distortion is for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. For people images, groups or portraits, again irrelevant on the whole.

I was browsing the TDP site too and comparing a few superzooms, and found the Sigma 18-300 to be a very useful looking all rounder.
I'm thinking of getting either that Sigma, or after seeing more results, maybe the Tamron 18-400.

For me it's going to come down to price AND IQ. That is, if I find that the Tamron has better image quality at 300mm than the Sigma does, then even if the Sigma is half the price, I'd still prefer the Tamron. I know the Tamron is nearly $1K from my nearest shop as those idiots use some google ad thingy and I've been bombarded with that info a little while ago! :p

[Tannin]

Those lenses are almost 100% certainly going to produce quite average image results at either 18mm(wide end) or XXXmm(long end)

This just isn't so. They produce results well below average at the wide end and the long end, and usually in the middle of the range as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I should have mentioned that your idea is nevertheless an interesting and creative one.

[Geoff79]

Tony and Arthur make great points, as usual. It appears that these type of lenses do have pretty poor reputations, but for your intended use, and for what I've used them for for many years, I find they go alright.

The main thing to keep in mind is that a good photographer is still going to take a better photo at 300mm on an 18-300mm lens than a poor photographer will on a 300mm prime lens. :)

Anyway, if you do decide to go for a range from 18-200-ish, as per a recent thread, I am currently using my Tamron 18-250mm instead of my Canon 18-200 as I can't see a difference in image quality and like the slight extra range.

But if I was in your shoes, this Tamron 18-400mm the chaps are talking about sounds interesting. I'd go for that and savour the challenge to try and take some great shots with a lens not known for giving great results. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whizzbang]

But if I was in your shoes, this Tamron 18-400mm the chaps are talking about sounds interesting. I'd go for that and savour the challenge to try and take some great shots with a lens not known for giving great results. ;)




Thats a big gamble for a huge overseas trip ;)

[bricabrac89]

Just to confuse you...

Don't forget your Canon 500D is a crop sensor (APS-C), so any lens you do purchase will need to be multiplied by 1.6x to get the effective zoom range.

e.g A Tamron 18-200mm is effectively a 28.8-320mm zoom.

Whereas if you stick to a Canon branded lens and get the Canon EF-S 18-135mm or 18-200mm the zoom range specified is your effective zoom range.

Note:
EF Mount - Made for Full Frame, multiply by 1.6 on Crop Sensor (APS-C)
EF-S Mount - Made for Crop Sensor, no need to multiply, will not fit a Full Frame Canon Body.

[ameerat42]

Just to confuse you...

Don't forget your Canon 500D is a crop sensor (APS-C), so any lens you do purchase will need to be multiplied by 1.6x to get the effective zoom range.

e.g A Tamron 18-200mm is effectively a 28.8-320mm zoom.

Whereas if you stick to a Canon branded lens and get the Canon EF-S 18-135mm or 18-200mm the zoom range specified is your effective zoom range.

Note:
EF Mount - Made for Full Frame, multiply by 1.6 on Crop Sensor (APS-C)
EF-S Mount - Made for Crop Sensor, no need to multiply, will not fit a Full Frame Canon Body.

Well, the "confuse you" part is right, and the rest mostly wr:(ng.

Best if he (and you) forget it...

What you must mean is something like...
"On a crop-sensor camera you get a restricted angle of view, which you can figure out using the specified crop factor, such as 1.6."

In addition, the focal length of a lens does not change, whether it is used on a full-frame camera or on a crop-sensor camera.
The resulting image sizes of the (usually distant bird) will be the same in both cases, just that one will have "more scenery" in
the field.

So to summarise: forget about "equivalent focal length" as a not very useful (my bias?) idea.:cool:

- - - Updated - - -

PS: a "zoom range" for a lens can be expressed as a multiplier, like "4X zoom".

[bricabrac89]

Well, the "confuse you" part is right, and the rest mostly wr:(ng.

Best if he (and you) forget it...


Pity they even mention it in lens specifications then really isn't it???

I mean, on the Sigma site itself for their 70-200mm f2.8 lens it says;

"Designed for full frame cameras, the 70-200mm 2.8 will work on APS-C sensors translating to roughly 112-320mm"

[ameerat42]

I know it's bandied a fair bit, but I don't know why. Perhaps they don't, either.
But it's certainly wrong there.

At least here on AP we try to set it straight.:D

[I @ M]

Pity they even mention it in lens specifications then really isn't it???

I mean, on the Sigma site itself for their 70-200mm f2.8 lens it says;

"Designed for full frame cameras, the 70-200mm 2.8 will work on APS-C sensors translating to roughly 112-320mm"



Purely a means of making the punters think that they are getting extra mm for their $$$. A bit like VW marketing come to think of it. :D

[ricktas]

Agree with the above. A 70-200mm lens is just that. It doesn't magically change itself based on what camera you put it on. What changes is the field of view.

How sensor size affects the field of view: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Focal_Length_vs_Crop_Factor