Is there a "do everything" lens?

SlowSteve

SlowSteve

Messages
58
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all.

Got my first camera yesterday - ended up with a Canon 400d - which is old, but seems to take OK pictures. Decided to be all edgy and hip - or perhaps just sensible - and get the 50mm f1.8 prime lens, rather than the kit lens, as I will be mostly taking pictures of the family etc.

Been reading about lenses over the last few weeks. Lots of different lenses for lots of different purposes.

What would be great is if I could just have one lens which fills the entire range I would want to shoot in. I think that would be filled by something like an 30-200 or a 24-200 sort of size. If it had macro as well, that would be wonderful.

In that sort of range, there seem to be two general types of reviews:

--- "This is a very good lens, and excellent value for only £3000".
(Nothing made of a lump of glass which costs £3000 is going to fall into MY idea of "good value" - not when Mrs Steve is making demands for handbags and shoes!)

or

--- "This lens is horrific, and I wouldn't consider using it as a door stop"
But.. the price is about £200 - £400 - which I would consider spending.


Now, my pictures are either going to live on the PC, or some of the good ones may get printed out on 6x4, or maybe 7x5 stock , and also they guy behind the camera - me - is a ham-fisted so and so to who the idea of an arty shot is about as natural as a whales attempts at neuro-surgury.

In this scenario - can I buy one of these cheap "do everything" type of lenses and not regret it? Is the £200 glass really no good? Or is that when your looking at images blown up on a 6 foot canvas that the issues come in?


Thanks for any advice?

Steve
 
Hi try the sigma 18 - 200mm covers what your after, do a search on line target price £135.00 or less with warranty second hand.

As for macro keep the 50mm and get some AF extension tubes jessops or kenko for about £70 great little kit there for just over £200.00


Next




Merc

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
Last edited:
Any lens that does everything is a compromise,but there are some quite good compromises.As mercmanuk says the siggy 18-200 is not bad and the Tamron 18/270 VC gets some quite good write ups

Chris
 
For indoor family shots the 50mm f1.8 is a brilliant lens but at near wide open apertures you may have difficulty focussing especially with fast moving children.

As a walkabout lens I use the Canon 28-135mm lens which I find is very good.

.
 
im also on the lens hunt .. and have fast realised that all 18-200's etc do compromise their image quality a lot for that extra range. however if your not going to be pixel peeping then this shouldnt be a massive problem.

with an aps-c sensor you'd ideally get a min focal length of 18 or so.. as this would allow you to get in the group shots of the family... but im not sure if youd need to reach all the way up to 200mm?

with the marco.. just get some extension tubes and turn the 50mm into your macro lens as suggested above.. nb i havent tried this myself.
 
Until yesterday I have been using a the Sigma 18-200mm for a couple of years as my main lens and to cover everything you have mentioned I think it would be a really good choice. Most of my photos with it have just been used for web or printed out smaller than A4 and I have generally been pleased with the results. As people have already mentioned, but I think you elude to that you are aware the image quality isn't going to compete with something cost anything up to 20x the price.
 
I use the new(ish) Canon 18-135 IS lens as my general "do everything" lens, and I'm very pleased with it for a superzoom.

My recent thread in Landscapes and Scenery of the Cornish coastline were all taken with the 18-135.
 
Is there a to do everything lens? NO!
If there was I'd have 12 grand in the bank!
 
a 10-800mm f1.4 lens springs to mind lol, imagine the weight not to mention the diameter on the long end !!!
 
Sigma 28-300 macro is pretty good but soft at the long end. My ultimate "I want" lens is the 28-300L. Great range, nice and sharp and its an L, with an L price tag.
 
I have many lenses, but the one that is on my camera most of the time is the Canon 18-200mm IS. Although you will see reports condemning 18-200mm zooms because of poor image quality it is generally because they have been tested on 15mp or 18mp cameras. Like you I have a 10mp camera and the Canon 18-200mm provides excellent results on that size sensor. Also being a Canon lens the Canon DPP software sorts out any distortions because it recognises the lens. I find the IS on this lens is absolutely superb.
 
imho you have two options:
1.) buy a large ranging wide angle to zoom lens like the canon 18-135, 18-200, sigma 18-200, tamron 18-270 etc which are all compromising quality to some extent but huge convenience of only ever owning/carrying one lens.
2.) alternatively look at the type of photos you want to take and buy the best lenses within budget to suit this type of photography. eg a canon kit lens (18-55) can be doubled up with a canon 55-250 to give a good zoom, your 50mm 1.8 as said can be used with some relatively inexpensive extension tubes to give you macro capability.
Inevitably if you get more involved and enjoy your photography you will want to upgrade at some point..
 
I would also get the 18-200mm Sigma lens just over a hundred pound it will be a good well rounded lens. If you sell your nifty 50 you would only spend an additional 40 pounds on the sigma.

But if you do keep the 50mm 1.8 then buy a macro kit on ebay for about £15. and you have a great portrait lens, and macro lens.
 
The sigma 18-200mm that everyone is taking about, is it the non OS model?
 
Is there a do everything lens? To an extent. You can get the lenses that have been mentioned above but there's a compromise, you lose image quality.
 
I have the sigma 18-200 and I love it. Never comes off my camera
 
Get a bridge camera. FUji hs20 - 24mm-720mm range and also will do macro.

The compromise is that it it not a dslr.
 
The compromise with a bridge camera is image quality as well though, in fact they are much worse IQ than a D-SLR with one of the superzoom lenses. Which you get all depends on how good you want IQ to be. If you want the best IQ then you get a D-SLR and fast glass.

Personally the IQ difference between a superzoom lens and a couple of 'kit' type zooms is noticeable and so I wouldn't use a superzoom. Things like chromatic abheration and definition are worse with a superzoom than a kit lens and with a bridge camera definition is much worse again.
 
Thanks for the info on this.

I was thinking about seeing if I could get a few of the suggested lenses on hire for a few weekends, shoot the same sort of stuff, and then see what the results look like.

Like I say, the absolute largest any pictures are ever going to get is a large photo like a 7x5 to go in an album, so I am not sure how much value I will get from top quality glass - I am unsure images will ever be large enough to actually see the ultra fine detail.


Am I right in thinking this way?
 
If you're not going any larger than that then I'd choose the Fuji bridge camera. The only downside to the latest Fuji bridge cameras is the image quality but at the size you're going to use you won't even see it.

You are correct in your thinking. (y)
 
Mark.A said:
The compromise with a bridge camera is image quality as well though, in fact they are much worse IQ than a D-SLR with one of the superzoom lenses. Which you get all depends on how good you want IQ to be. If you want the best IQ then you get a D-SLR and fast glass.

Personally the IQ difference between a superzoom lens and a couple of 'kit' type zooms is noticeable and so I wouldn't use a superzoom. Things like chromatic abheration and definition are worse with a superzoom than a kit lens and with a bridge camera definition is much worse again.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! The other compromise that has not been mentioned is the Wallet! And the bridge would win that battle.

But yes, at the long end a bridge is never going to have the same IQ as a dslr.
 
I had the Sigma 28-300mm when I owned my 400d. It was a convenient lens and capable of ok pictures but soft at the long end and never wide enough for me at the short end given the crop factor.

Personally I'd invest the money on a good lens with a more limited focal range and save up for something else later down the line. Maybe go for an 18-50 f2.8 instead?
 
Purchased a Sigma 18-200mm for my canon, haven't had a chance to test it properly yet.
 
SlowSteve said:
Hello all.

Got my first camera yesterday - ended up with a Canon 400d - which is old, but seems to take OK pictures. Decided to be all edgy and hip - or perhaps just sensible - and get the 50mm f1.8 prime lens, rather than the kit lens, as I will be mostly taking pictures of the family etc.

Been reading about lenses over the last few weeks. Lots of different lenses for lots of different purposes.

What would be great is if I could just have one lens which fills the entire range I would want to shoot in. I think that would be filled by something like an 30-200 or a 24-200 sort of size. If it had macro as well, that would be wonderful.

In that sort of range, there seem to be two general types of reviews:

--- "This is a very good lens, and excellent value for only £3000".
(Nothing made of a lump of glass which costs £3000 is going to fall into MY idea of "good value" - not when Mrs Steve is making demands for handbags and shoes!)

or

--- "This lens is horrific, and I wouldn't consider using it as a door stop"
But.. the price is about £200 - £400 - which I would consider spending.


Now, my pictures are either going to live on the PC, or some of the good ones may get printed out on 6x4, or maybe 7x5 stock , and also they guy behind the camera - me - is a ham-fisted so and so to who the idea of an arty shot is about as natural as a whales attempts at neuro-surgury.

In this scenario - can I buy one of these cheap "do everything" type of lenses and not regret it? Is the £200 glass really no good? Or is that when your looking at images blown up on a 6 foot canvas that the issues come in?


Thanks for any advice?

Steve
Click to expand...

Splitting in two seems the best bet imo - you'll get better IQ and it'll cost less, the only tradeoff being having to carry 1 extra small lens. It's what I've done though in my case cost less didn't happen for a few reasons (yay 2.8 zooms :LOL:)
 
troutfisher said:
Any lens that does everything is a compromise,but there are some quite good compromises.As mercmanuk says the siggy 18-200 is not bad and the Tamron 18/270 VC gets some quite good write ups

Chris
Click to expand...

I am going to agree here. I have a canon 450d with a 50mm prime and a Tamron 18-270. I bought the Tamron last weekend to use as a walkabout lens.

It is currently £299 at jessops (Discontinued, but you can check which stores still have it in stock and pick it up. My local didn't but got one requested from another store for me).

These are two pics I took with it:


Trio by King Antonius, on Flickr


Splashing by King Antonius, on Flickr


Check the local stock levels here: http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/75469/show.html
 
King Antonius said:
I am going to agree here. I have a canon 450d with a 50mm prime and a Tamron 18-270. I bought the Tamron last weekend to use as a walkabout lens.

It is currently £299 at jessops (Discontinued, but you can check which stores still have it in stock and pick it up. My local didn't but got one requested from another store for me).

These are two pics I took with it:


Trio by King Antonius, on Flickr


Splashing by King Antonius, on Flickr


Check the local stock levels here: http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/75469/show.html
Click to expand...

Looking at the full size image of that first flower the lens is shockinly soft with bad CA :eek:
 
What is bad CA? I need a bit of practice wit the lens too :p
 
Chromatic Abbreviation. Or however it is spelt... Sorry about that, forgetful moment!
 
What about sigma 18-250mm, I've seen them new for £300, is it worth it for the extra 50mm for the extra ~£170?
Anyone had good or bad experiences or reports on it?
 
I can recommend the Tamron 18-250mm if you can find one, MUCH better than the 18-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top