Cicopo wrote:
Call me crazy or lucky, don't know which will be correct but I've owned both versions of the Sigma 18-200 & got rather good results with them, but they were only used on 20D & 40D bodies. I now have a Tamron 18-270 VC as my one lens lightweight travel lens on a 7D. It's not L quality but but I've done some R/C events with it & it produced good results. I took that combination on vacation (just got back Thurs) not knowing there'd be an air show so as much as I wish I'd taken better gear I did what I could with what I had. This was the first time I shot an air show (full scale planes) plus I wasn't sure about shutter speeds to use & had to shoot towards the sun for most of the event....Show more →
The 20D and 40D (which I've owned) are far more forgiving than the newer 18MP Canon cameras. The 7D, 60D and t3i will also show the effects of the slightest shake (shake not corrected by IS) much more readily than the earlier cameras. I see some evidence of shake in your photos. By the same token, my old Canon 28-105 USM is very sharp on my Canon 5D Classic ... another forgiving camera; but it's not all that sharp on the t3i ... it's unusable on that camera, in fact.
- Steve
Me shake? Not hard to believe; I'm now a senior citizen & my government gives me money every month because of it. Irregardless as a general purpose / travel lens I'm quite happy with what I have, BUT I also own a decent selection of L's with a 28-300 on it's way.
Added. I didn't think the VC (IS or OS) would have a pan mode so I turned it off for the flying part of the event. Not sure whether or not that was necessary but based on a bad experience when panning car racing with my 24-105 I wasn't willing to risk leaving it on.
Steve -- I hear you about the weight of the big L lenses on big 1-series bodies. But it's a compromise I can make at the moment if all I'm carrying is the camera, lens and flash -- with IS.
I bought my 15-85 used on ebay for $600. It had a slight ding in the front element coating, off-center, but visible on close inspection. The seller refunded another $100 making it a really fantastic deal. I see Canon refurbs for around $600 or less, so that seems fairly reasonable. Try one out sometime and see if you like it -- it's my favorite (useful) APS-C lens and rarely leaves that body. And the 18MP are so great I don't have a problem shooting at ISO 1600 for events -- usual setting is 1/50 @ f/5.6 for ambient light, with flash.
Like you, I'm always looking for that perfect compromise lens!
Cicopo -- Very nice shots of the planes! Whatever works, right?
veroman wrote:
I'd oblige, except I didn't save any of those images. Why would I?
- Steve
P.S.: I just looked at some of the test images from the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's only $100 more than the Sigma I brought back and, of course, doesn't have anywhere near the focal range. But for $100 additional, I got myself well over thousands of dollars more in quality. My travel glass will be the 17-50 and their 28-75 for a total range of 27-120. It'll have to do.
A 15-85 makes more sense than this combo which overlaps too much. It also has stabilization. If I'd been on APS-C and wanted just one lens that'd be it.
Snopchenko wrote:
A 15-85 makes more sense than this combo which overlaps too much. It also has stabilization. If I'd been on APS-C and wanted just one lens that'd be it.
I don't mind the overlap. That kind of overlap can be a big plus in terms of not having to switch lenses all that often. Either one of those lenses actually has enough focal range to be a full-time lens. My wife and I drove across country in 2008 with an xsi and only one lens: the 17-50.
For me, the combo overall has two distinct advantages over the 15-85:
1) I can use the 28-75 on my full frame cams
2) They're both f/2.8 (worth its weight in whatever)
But the 15-85 is certainly a terrific lens, and it has IS. I might rent one sometime and see for myself.
- Steve
stanj wrote:
The 18-55 and esp 55-250 are quite unremarkable. Not sure about the Sigma in Steve's post, but still, may be more of the same.
The point of a hyper zoom is that you don't have to switch lenses. The 28-300 on my 1Ds3 is the ultimate P&S setup, albeit a bit heavy and pricy, but it can conquer pretty much anything in daylight. That's worth a lot to me (and I end up using it far more than the 24-105).
Agreed on the 28-300L. I even get by with it on my 7D. Sure, you lose the wide-end some, but oftentimes I can deal with that, especially when I'm on vacation or hiking and don't know what I'm going to be shooting. My other walkaround is a 15-85, which produces great results, but when I look back at the pictures and see that I didn't use the 15-28mm range that much, I figure I might as well use the 28-300L and gain a lot of reach. Although I still travel with both of them typically.
...all I need to do now is pick up a 5dMKII for a good price, clamp the 28-300L on it, and I could travel the world with one lens and one camera!
veroman wrote:
Like I said ... reality sometimes has to smack you real hard before you give up on some kind of a dream ... in this case, a dream lens; the kind you can just leave on the camera 100% of the time and get all the focal range and quality you need for all your shots for all time to come. Yeah, sure ....
- Steve
To expect that from a lens that is far cheaper and far more ambitious in FL coverage is unrealistic. There's a reason much more expensive glass exists, and those more expensive zooms generally are in the 3x range (or 4x at max).
For travel with a crop camera, the tammy 17-50 and 85/1.8 make a stellar combination. I wear a small fanny pack with 1 lens in it, and 1 lens on the body when I travel - and it works out well. It does mean you might have to swap a lens from time to time, but the whole point of an interchangeable lens camera is to allow you to put the best glass for the job on it.
timbop wrote:
To expect that from a lens that is far cheaper and far more ambitious in FL coverage is unrealistic....
Of course it is! And I know should know better. I've been at this since 1970. I've shot every format and every type and brand of lens you can imagine. But, experienced or not, I'm also very human and sometimes get sucked in by hype. Fortunately, it doesn't happen often. Can't remember the last time before this ....
- Steve
This happens, and on other more expensive lenses in their line up as well. Luckily, I was wary enough to go rent a new 120-300 2.8 OS before buying one. First one's AF was all over the map. It later was discovered by the rental company (a very good one by the way) that its AF was in fact faulty. Ok, so we rented a different one. AF turned out to only provide acceptable sharpness in the range of 220-260mm. Really wanted the lens to be "the one" but in the end was sure glad to have gone the rental routine vs buying and having to deal with all the subsequent issues.
BTW: each of the rental costs were completely waived. No dollars out and glad I didn't buy one.
jj_glos wrote:
I'd love to see that user review of the 18-200 that swayed you to make the purchase, it must be the best work of fiction ever!
The problem with relying on user reviews is that there is usually not enough context for the reader to properly evaluate its usefulness. Sometimes the reviewer will indicate their experience level and other equipment, but most do not. Without that context, it is hard to fully gauge how appropriate the reviewer's opinion might be to the reader (i.e. how likely the reader is to form the same opinion wrt the reviewed item). I don't care what an exuberant newbie thinks, nor do I care what an overly picky pixel-peeper says - I want to hear from an experienced user in circumstances similar to what I run into. Even then, there's also the problem of "I just got the lens!" - IMHO, such a review is worthless.
You are better off looking at sites like "the-digital-picture.com", where a large amount of gear is reviewed by the same small group of users (in this case 1). By looking at reviews for lenses you have used, you can better gauge how "picky" or "generous" the reviewer is. Also with sites like the-digital-picture, you can see actual shots at a standard target - a picture is worth a thousand words, after all.
