trying to chose a new lens

I

impaul

Messages
50
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Im still quite new to the whole digital SLR thing and i could do with some advice on buying a new lens. At the moment I've got a canon 350D with the 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm looking for a zoom lens to use for surfing photos and also to take travelling.

It has been suggested that a sigma 28-300 lens might be a good option, but I have also heard that it isn't very good for wider angle shots, and also at full 300mm length I would need to use a tripod which i dont really want to have to do.

Should i be looking for maybe an 18-200mm lens to do the lot, or a 55-200 lens and keep both lenses?

A few choices that jessops have is:

Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC (Canon AF)
Canon EF 55-200mm F4.5/5.6 MK2 USM
Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro (Canon AF)

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Lens (Canon AF)

Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI (Canon AF)
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro (Canon AF)

Any advice on these lenses would be greatly appreciated.
 
All those lenses are slow at the telephoto end, its allways difficult to recommend a lens, even for a given subject, when the recipient requires it to do everything.
These lenses make sacrifices to cover a larger range and wont be great at every length.
If you want a do-it-all lens thats fine..personally, they just disappoint me one way or another.

My advice is to buy a telephoto for long shots and a wide angle for wide angle shots, both can be zoom lenses but try to keep them constant apperture.
Camera bodys are disposable, they come they go, the real investment is in the glass that you buy, dont think for one second a lens is a lens is a lens, it isn't, the expensive ones are expensive for a reason.

You will need a tripod, especially for a slow lens, but even that cannot stop motion blur in a surf shot.
 
I would say that a zoom lens with a max of 200mm wouln't give you enough reach for surf photography. 300mm would be a better bet, with a tele-converter, even better! But using slow lenses with tc's makes them slower still and often affects the auto focus.

Take a look at what your budget is and what you can get for it (second hand also).

As joxby said, Have one lens for wide angle and another for telephoto.
Have a look at a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
 
Thanks for the replies. Some good suggestions, i'll look into them.
 
So what would be the downfall of a 28-300 lens compared to a 70-300 lens? At the moment i'm thinking the 28-300 would be more versatile and might mean i only need to carry one lens with me, which sounds like a good thing!

Most people have suggested to use a 70-300 lens and keep the kit lens too, but what will it achieve? Will using the 2 different lenses rather than one 'do it all' lens provide a better quality picture?
 
lens design is all about compromise.

Comparing a prime lens against a zoom at the focal length of the prime and the image quality of the prime will be superior, and likely to be faster in terms of aperture.

A zoom with a short range will also be better in the same terms than a zoom with a longer focal range.

However, a long focal range zoom has the advantage of versatility. I'll take some photos with my 28-300 tammy and you can see what you think.
 
impaul said:
Most people have suggested to use a 70-300 lens and keep the kit lens too, but what will it achieve? Will using the 2 different lenses rather than one 'do it all' lens provide a better quality picture?
Click to expand...

Yeah, in simple terms but the thing I notice the most with shorter range zooms and primes is how nice the out of focus stuff is rendered. It's weird at first to think about the stuff that isn't the subject but it's what you're isolating it with... I've seen some horrible bokeh with the sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (gutting considering it has VR) which totally derailed my interest in that lens as on paper it's pretty good!

Sharpness alone isn't enough so it's hard to know what you're buying without getting to play with a lens first so make friends with camera types and perv over their gear :)
 
28-300 might be more versatile but as others have said you'd lose quality and speed. The Sigma 70-300 APO (I've got one) is a great lens up to 200mm but like most lower priced lenses quality drops off after that and it's not the fastest at focusing.
If you're serious about your surf photography you'd be better off with a 70-200 f4 or f2.8 but they are pricey.
 
I really like that sigma 70-300 APO... it has a nice bokeh and is sharp enough for good pics even at the 300mm end I think, just not that fast is all.
 
Steep said:
If you're serious about your surf photography you'd be better off with a 70-200 f4 or f2.8 but they are pricey.
Click to expand...


70-200 f4 L is £340 (kerso) less £70 cashback until end december = £270 ;)

that's not pricey for high quality glass
 
I think i might go for a sigma 70-300 APO. I'll go and check it out as soon as christmas is out the way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top