- This topic is empty.
Zoom Lens
-
Hi, looking for some advise on purchasing a zoom lens, I was looking at the following Canon lens, 18/200mm, 17/85mm and 15-85mm, and also the Sigma versions.
regards Wayne
18-200 is a piece of junk, as well as any other ultrazoom. The other two shouldn´t be bad, 15-85 is newer. What budget do you have and what do you want to shoot?
18-200 is a piece of junk, as well as any other ultrazoom.
Theres allot of people out there that use 18-200 lenses and are really happy with them. I don’t think I would call them a piece of junk. Its a great zoom range and would make a great general purpose walkabout lens. I do remember when Nikon came out with their 18-200 they were really difficult to find in shops as they were getting great reviews and Nikon could not make them quick enough….
MMX wrote:
18-200 is a piece of junk, as well as any other ultrazoom. The other two shouldn´t be bad, 15-85 is newer. What budget do you have and what do you want to shoot?
I disagree entirely re; the 18-200. I had a Siggy for years and had excellent results from it. Below is an example at full zoom, it was also th OS version
Oh and yes… it makes a great print!
Martin wrote:
Theres allot of people out there that use 18-200 lenses and are really happy with them.
Of course they are, because they just transferred from a point and shoot camera so they would be happy with any DSLR.
lousy wrote:
I disagree entirely re; the 18-200. I had a Siggy for years and had excellent results from it.
Excellent results compared to what? An iPhone?
I know many photographers who transferred from zooms* to primes, but I´ve never heard about a photographer who transferred from primes to zooms. Try to think why.
*Zooms such as 16-35 f/2.8 L, 24-70 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8 L, not ultrazooms
PS: here are two graphs to compare: Sigma 18-200 (80mm) and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L (70 mm)
Do you still call the Sigma “excellent”?
MMX: Comparing a 70-200 2.8L and a Sigma 18-200 is not a valid comparison, one costs allot more than the other, your comparing apples to oranges…
I have to say I laugh when I read your posts, keep it up, very entertaining. For someone 22 years of age you have no shortage of technical waffle and insults….
:lol:
MMX Said: I know many photographers who transferred from zooms* to primes, but I´ve never heard about a photographer who transferred from primes to zooms. Try to think why.
I jump between zooms and primes all the time, I know lots of others that do also…
Quote:[
Excellent results compared to what? An iPhone? /quote]
:roll: :roll: :roll:Wayne…I hope you can decide what lens to buy and enjoy your photography. Best of luck with your purchase.
Hi Wayne,
You can see a review of the 18-200mm lens at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
I would regard that site as one of the definitive reviewers of all Canon products and I don’t see him calling it a piece of Junk.
There might be better lenses for the same price but might not cover the range you want.
I would advise you to have a look at the reviews for what type of lens might cover the type of photography and budget you have in mind.As already mentioned by Pat, good luck with your purchase and most of all, have fun and enjoy it……/Mikka
Martin wrote:
MMX: Comparing a 70-200 2.8L and a Sigma 18-200 is not a valid comparison, one costs allot more than the other
Of course it does, quality always costs something while cheapness is one of the typical features of junk :D
If a $250 ultrazoom was able to provide “excellent results” who on earth would buy a $2500 telephoto?But if you want a “valid comparison” – I asked a Canon employee about Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM (it costs about $2300) and even he told me “Don´t even think about it, it´s a waste of money”. And you can imagine how a $2300 L series Canon performs compared to a $250 Sigma.
BTW since when does age matter in photography? I know a 17 year old girl who has better portfolio than some people who could be her parents…
Mikka wrote:
You can see a review of the 18-200mm lens at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
I would regard that site as one of the definitive reviewers of all Canon products and I don’t see him calling it a piece of Junk.Don´t you think that if he did it, he would probably never get another Canon lens for a review? :wink:
I have already seen the review, if you can read between the lines, you will find out what he really thinks (I was disappointed, however… not bad… reasonable… relatively… with a lens like this… etc.)Moreover he says: “I was highly skeptical that this lens could produce even reasonable optical quality… performs better than I expected… I’m going to take higher grade, more-specialized lenses with me. Probably a backpack full of them – and a high quality tripod and head”
So what did he really say? Do you see anything more than “It´s not a complete disaster but I wouldn´t buy it anyway”? I don´t.
PS: He reviewed the 28-300 L too, have a look if he called it “a waste of money” :wink:
Sorry guys, I know that I´m hard to please, but if I can´t do something 100% I rather don´t do it at all and find a less capital intensive hobby. Why would I waste my time being average in one activity if I can use the same time to be excellent in another? Nobody gives a damn about average people. I remember who was the Formula 1 champion 10 years ago but I don´t remember who was second the previous year.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
