Which lense is the best

[dharmit]

Hi,

I am planning to move on from my kit lenses 18-55 and 55-250 on my Canon EOS 450D to something more universal and advanced amateur. I have following lenses in mind and if someone here has prior experience with any of them, their help will be much appreciated.

1. Tamron or Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 (AU$482 and AU$682 respectively)
2. Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3 (AU$1327)
3. Canon 24-105 f4L (AU$1347)

The first lens will cover the entire range of my existing kit lens from 18 to 250 with the same f numbers so there is no compromise there.

We are planning to go to India for a 2 month trip and we will be visiting a couple of bird sanctuaries and animal sanctuaries + considering the fact that I am interested in taking macro photos of flowers and macros in general I wont miss my 250 range but do you thing that 50-500 will enhance that? I have seen the performance of Sigma 50-500 on my friend's Nikon and the pictures were beautiful, but I am also keen to stock my lens supplies with L series Canon Lens.

So many decisions to make. Can someone please help or let me know what other lens should I consider except the three mentioned above.

Thanks
Dharmit

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dharmit

The first lens will cover the entire range of my existing kit lens from 18 to 250 with the same f numbers so there is no compromise there.

Not quite. It covers the same range, but you lost 1/3 stop at the long end. You also make compromises to image quality: the 18-250 is designed to cover all those lengths, but it stretches itself thin to do it. All superzooms do.

Originally Posted by dharmit

We are planning to go to India for a 2 month trip and we will be visiting a couple of bird sanctuaries and animal sanctuaries + considering the fact that I am interested in taking macro photos of flowers and macros in general I wont miss my 250 range but do you thing that 50-500 will enhance that? I have seen the performance of Sigma 50-500 on my friend's Nikon and the pictures were beautiful, but I am also keen to stock my lens supplies with L series Canon Lens.

In your list it is the 50-500 (the "Bigma") that surprised me. You've got a superzoom (the 18-250) and a general walkaround zoom (the 24-105), btu then you throw in a super telephoto?

Originally Posted by dharmit

So many decisions to make. Can someone please help or let me know what other lens should I consider except the three mentioned above.

Thanks
Dharmit

COnsider instead the 24-105 and the 100-400 combination. Longer reach than your current set up with better quality all around, and both are L lenses.

[dharmit]

Thanks OsmosisStudios,

There is actually budget constraint as the 100-400 (for which I am drooling since I took photos with my 55-250 at a bird sanctuary) costs AU$1993 and if I am also buying 24-105 (AU$1347) the total would be more than the cost of tickets of me, my wife and my 2 year old son . Well not actually but certainly me and my wife's ticket

I was thinking to ditch my kit lenses and get a single lens as I sometimes miss the shots while changing from 18-55 to 55-250.

I am certainly photo quality freak and like to do minimum PP on the photos. I believe that if I get it right in the camera, it will save me hours on my computer.

Quality wise, what is the best lens combination? Please remember that 18-250 is in replacement to my kit lenses.

After you said that 18-250 is not upto par (quality wise) will 24-105 and 150-500 (AU$1097) Sigma do the job?

Cheers
Dharmit

[dharmit]

Oh and I was also planning to get a 430 EX II flash for my camera too

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dharmit

After you said that 18-250 is not upto par (quality wise) will 24-105 and 150-500 (AU$1097) Sigma do the job?

Cheers
Dharmit

This would an acceptable option, though I cant help but think that the extra money from the flash would be better spent on a proper 100-400 (even used, if necessary).

[WooD]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

This would an acceptable option, though I cant help but think that the extra money from the flash would be better spent on a proper 100-400 (even used, if necessary).

Agree about the Canon 100-400mm, a friend of mine has one, and it's a great lens. She bought it manly for surf shots, but has been taking some great portraits with it.

I've never owned a lens with a super broad range, but I don't see how you could get great IQ out of them.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by dharmit

1. Tamron or Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 (AU$482 and AU$682 respectively)

The first lens will cover the entire range of my existing kit lens from 18 to 250 with the same f numbers so there is no compromise there.

As Os says, not exactly. You'll have the focal length range covered, but the maximum apertures (that isn't an aperture range, you know) aren't the same (6.3 vs. 5.6). And you'll probably be gaining softness, distortion, and CA, particularly on the wide end. Worse, some of the superzooms at the wide end can exhibit "mustache" distortion, which is a combination of pincushion AND barrel distortion together, which is not easily correctable in software. Just saying. You're paying more for less image quality in order to cover the zoom range. For travel, this can be worth it. But if you're an image-quality fiend (as by your longing for L glass, I gather you may be), this is not the optimal route. Your 18-55/55-250 is likely to give you better image quality than a superzoom, while costing half as much.

We are planning to go to India for a 2 month trip and we will be visiting a couple of bird sanctuaries and animal sanctuaries + considering the fact that I am interested in taking macro photos of flowers and macros in general I wont miss my 250 range but do you thing that 50-500 will enhance that?

Ok, first thing--have you actually met the 50-500 up close and in person? It's one big honking lens. It's big, it's heavy, it's conspicuous, and few dare to attempt handholding it. Are you sure this is going to be a lens you want to travel with? As everyone says, the 100-400L is likely to be a better choice, here, if you can afford it.

Here's a review that compares the 50-500 (Bigma) against the 100-400L. You'll want to note the size difference.

...but I am also keen to stock my lens supplies with L series Canon Lens.

Ok, I hate to say it, but that's not the attitude you want to have. Ever. Just because a lens has a red ring and an L in its name doesn't mean it's the best lens for you. You really have to go by the individual character of the lens and what you want it for. Ls are big. They're heavy. They're expensive. They're really conspicuous. If you want to travel small, light, stealthy and cheap, they are not your answer. And they do not make all your pictures gorgeous any more than the 18-55 turned all your photos butt ugly. Ls do not make up for lack of photography skillz.

And thirdly, the 24-105? Why the hell would you want that if you also have the superzoom? You're just covering the same ground, and only at f/4. The 24-105L (which I own and love) is a compromise lens. It's the high-quality version of a superzoom. It's not particularly wide, though (especially on a crop body), it's not particularly long, and it's not particularly fast. If you plan on using it indoors for available light and moving subjects, think again. This is an outdoor walkaround lens. Great for tourist/travel use. But for your $1000, do you want something more?

I would definitely recommend getting the 24-105 instead of the 18-200ish superzoom.telephoto, as long as you recognize its inherent limitations. It's not particularly wide (especially on a crop body), it's not particularly fast, and it's not particularly long. Paired with the 100-400, all you would need to add is a fast prime to have most contingencies covered. I'd recommend a 50 f/1.8 II, if you're not sure that having a non-zooming lens is going to work for you, as it's only $100, and beats the pants off the 18-55 kit lens (go back and re-read that link I put in up there on "maximum aperture"). Or maybe a 35/2 or 28/1.8 if you want something closer to normal on a crop to use as a walkaround prime.

[dharmit]

Thanks inkista for a detailed reply.

I noted the difference in aperture in 18-250 after I posted the thread and now am seriously thinking about it.

I have seen 50-500 on a Nikon mount from one of my friend and he was shooting with it at a Cultural Fest we had in Townsville. He could take Wide and Super Zoom photos with this Bigma and that was one of the reasons I was attracted to it. I was thinking that if I take this along with my Sigma 10-20, I would have nearly covered everything and maybe if I have space I can take my 18-55 which will cover the range from 10 to 500.

I did check the link that you have posted and have found the differences between the huge lenses and the quality of photos they take indoors. I would really like to see the results for outdoor photography but that's alright. I have seen the 50-500 perform in stage lighting and the results were good (although I haven't seen them on computer but he posted some of the images online and I have seen them and they are good).

The reason I wanted to stock my bag with mythical "L" series lenses was because I know for the fact that they are better in quality, build and weather resistance. It was not something that because it is "L" I will take it. But thanks for bringing that to my notice and I will keep that in mind. And I certainly know the price that I have to pay for "L" tag

The website and you convinced me not to buy 24-105.

I have a 50 f1.4 and I sure love it but I cannot take it with me as a traveling lens all by itself.

May be I will start saving for 100-400 for a next trip sometime next year and this year I will just use my 18-55 and 55-250

Is there a huge difference between 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 and 24 f2.8 (price wise first is twice as costly as f2.8 and 24 will give me extra wide photo than 28)

I wanted to hear from some one who is already using Sigma (Bigma) lenses but its alright, I will search the threads if someone has a mention of them somewhere.

Thanks for your time.

If you have anything else to add, please do so.

Cheers
Dharmit