Advice on zoom lenses & OS for Canon 400D plesae

Discussion in 'Canon' started by JohnSongwriter54, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. Hi, I recently bought a Canon EOS 400D with the kit 18-70 lens, but
    now I'm looking at something longer. For convenience, an 18-200 zoom
    would be good and I've been looking at the Sigma lenses. There's one
    with Optocal Stabilisation and one without and the difference in price
    is significant.

    Can anyone advise on whether the OS system is worth the c50% extra?
     
    JohnSongwriter54, Aug 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JohnSongwriter54

    me Guest

    It depends upon what you intend to shoot and under what conditions. If
    you always will be in bright light where you can easily keep shutter
    speeds above 1/focal length it might not be worth much to you.
    Personally, I love both my stabilized lenses, 70-200 f/2.8 & 200-400
    f/4 and make use of the stabilization on an almost daily basis. Last
    night I was shooting a juvenile pair of yellow crowned night herons
    with the 200-400 + 1.4tc (560mm) at shutter speeds around 1/200s.

    Only you can tell if it's worth the $$ to you.
     
    me, Aug 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I use Nikon and Panasonic, and I wouldn't want to be without stabilisation
    at the longer focal lengths. At 200mm I would want stabilisation to be
    available.

    Your needs may differ, of course. I do tend to shoot indoors sometimes
    where the light level is a little lower.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 8, 2008
    #3
  4. JohnSongwriter54

    SMS Guest

    I'd avoid Sigma lenses at all costs.

    You might want to wait for the new Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC
    (vibration compensation) lens. It was just announced about a week ago.
    They didn't say when it will be available.

    Canon has a big gap in its amateur end lens line, with nothing to
    compete with the Nikon 18-200mm VR. At the high end, Canon has a great
    lens, the 28-300 IS, but it's $2300.

    Even though the lower end long lenses are invariably a compromise, since
    Nikon has one, Canon should have one too. Canon's a bit too conservative
    when it comes to offering products that it knows are going to be a
    compromise product, i.e. the Nikon 18-200 VR has been criticized for its
    build quality (but not its optics). With Sigma lenses, you're asking for
    trouble, especially when paired with a Canon SLR.
     
    SMS, Aug 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Hello. Photo Plus magazine (www.futurenet.co.uk) reviewed IS lenses in its
    July 2008 issue.
    It reviewed:
    CANON
    EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
    EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS
    EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS
    EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
    EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

    SIGMA
    18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC OS
    120-400 f4.5 - 5.6 DG OS HSM

    TAMRON
    28-300 f3.5-6.3 XR Di VC

    "Best value" was the Canon 18-55; "Best on Test" was the Canon 55-250.

    If it helps, the review said of the Sigma lenses:

    18-200: "hugely versatile, high quality finish and build; purple fringing is
    too noticeable; not the sharpest tool in the box"
    120-400: "excellent optics; impressive OS; great for sports or wildlife
    shots; too weighty to live in your kit bag; it's pricey unless you need it".

    Hope this helps.
    If you didn't see the review then you may be able to get a copy of the
    review via the web site.

    Regards, Ian.
    Nottingham, UK.
     
    Fred Anonymous, Aug 9, 2008
    #5
  6. What kit lens? Canon does not produce any 18-70mm lens ...
    There are 16-35, 17-40, 17-55, 17-85, 18-55 (various
    versions, with and w/o IS, that's the kit lens), ...
    acceptable price, large zoom range, acceptable image quality.
    Choose any two. The third will be the opposite. The Sigma
    has a HUGE zoom range and LOW price ...
    Sigma is ... ah, renown for interesting quality assurance
    (i.e. you can get a gem or a lemon) and has had problems with
    compatibility (though they try and re-chip lenses).
    Yes, absolutely! Worth every last cent.
    Unless you *exclusively* use tripods and/or shoot at 1/320s or
    faster --- which is hard with that slow (small aperture, dark)
    lens, unless every subject is in sunshine --- and/or always
    use flash.


    I wouldn't recommend a soup-zoom lens, though, unless weight and
    size are absolute killer criteria. (i.e. climbing the Mount
    Everest you want lightweight gear --- but then better take a
    superzoom camera instead, it's smaller and lighter!)

    Have you looked at Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS lens? Yes, it costs
    way more, but it's a case of "you get what you pay for". If I
    was you, I'd rent both lenses and see which one works best for me.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 9, 2008
    #6
  7. Whoops. I meant the 18-55.

    I appreciate all the helpful comments and advice. Still undecided but
    I'll seek out more reviews.

    My guess would be that stabilised lenses would be more vulnerable to
    problems/damage because of the more complex construction. There is an
    insurance plan on offer with the lens but I'm always wary of these as
    they rarely seem good value.
     
    JohnSongwriter54, Aug 11, 2008
    #7
  8. Any of Canon's 70-200mm lenses will be way more durable than
    your current lens, *especially* when you handle your lenses less
    than gently.

    I'll still not advise using them instead of a hammer, though.


    And even if IS lenses were intrinsically more fragile or
    delicate, I'd still choose them every time for tele lenses.
    To me and my shooting, IS is very valuable.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 11, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.