Oct
24
(2006)
Shopping for Zoom Lens
Filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: camera, canon, lens, photography, sigma.
I’ve been jonesing for a zoom lens since I picked up my Canon XT back in June. The kit lens is not too bad (aside from some chromatic aberration), but a longer lens would be great. I had been eyeing the Canon 55-200 EF lens, at around $300 bucks at the local Black’s, but after reading some reviews, I want to stay far far away from that lens and its questionable build quality.
After a bit of poking around on The Camera Store’s site, I think I’ve found a much better alternative. A Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro. There’s no image stabilization, so I’ll have to use a tripod when in the 200-300mm range, but at $320CDN, it’s a much better deal. And reviews suggest a much sturdier build quality.
Poking around some sample images shot with that lens, I’m pretty happy with it. Sure, it might not stack up against a $1500 lens with image stabilization and the works, but it’s cheap enough to be able to pick it up without many regrets.
Unfortunately, I think the lens is too slow for much indoor work. I don’t think it’s a suitable candidate for photographing workshops here at the TLC. But as an outdoor lens, it looks pretty darned good.
Update: On recommendation from Raffaella, I think I’ll hold out for the Canon 28-135mm f.3.5-5.6 IS USM. It’s a little more spendy (just under $600 CDN), and not quite as long, but the Sigma may be too long, and the build quality won’t be quite as good as this. And the image stabilization would help when shooting at the 135mm end of the lens. Now to go return some more empty bottles, and look under the cushions on my couch…
Comments
8 Responses to “Shopping for Zoom Lens”
Hi D’Arcy, I’ve got the 28-135 and it’s a mighty fine lens. It’s a bit slow for indoors, but it’s the lens that I’ve got on all the time and at around $600 it’s mighty fine and with the flash, it pumps out great images. The $600 gets you the IS, but less range.
It’s hard to get a lens that fits all criteria
- long
- fast
- cheap
.. pick two ;O)
Slow isn’t much of a problem if you can control the light, it’s either that or pay more for wider aperture. There is always ebay, or sell a spare organ ;O)
When I first purchased my digital SLR I found that the kit lens did not really meet my needs. I looked at some third party zoom lenses, but decided to go with the Canon 28-135mm f.3.5-5.6 IS USM. It’s auto focusing capabilities are leaps and bounds above the kit lens. Although it’s not very fast in comparison to some of the higher end L series zooms, overall the lens functions very well in most lighting conditions. The extra price for the IS is definitely worth it, as I often found myself shooting without a tripod. Canon has a rebate program on until the end of December and you can pick up the lens at the Camera Store for around $570 (a little bit less if you pair it with another one of their products).
The 28-135 is very versatile as a walk-around lens, and until very recently it was my primary lens. Due to the FOVC the lens is roughly equivalent to a 45-216mm lens. I found this to be an easy range to work in, for both portraiture and nature shots. The Sigma lens that you mentioned would be more of a super zoom and the quality is not that much better than your existing kit lens. Plus you would have the hassle of changing lenses when you wanted to switch between a wide angle and super telephoto, which although not that hard, it can be a pain when you are shooting outside at minus 20 and want to capture a wide angle shot of the majestic landscape one moment and then a closer crop of something off in the distance only minutes later. Most of my early work is shot with the 28-135 (some sample shots are on my flickr photostream). I sometimes wished for a longer zoom, but I would just compensate by walking a little closer to my subject.
The weight of the lens is quite different from the kit lens, but my friend who has the XT finds that it balances out his camera. I highly recommend replacing your kit lens all together for the 28-135mm, only keeping the kit lens around for those wide angle shots that might be necessary from time to time. My first camera bag was a Lowepro Toploader Zoom and it had more than enough room for my kit lens at the bottom with my camera and zoom up top… and there was even space for my speedlite and extra batteries. The whole kit was light enough for me to carry everywhere in all sorts of weather conditions.
Obviously I’m a big proponent of the Canon lens as my short little recommendation has become anything but short. I’ve been really happy with my lens and it’s still in heavy use even after upgrading my equipment.
Raffaella, thanks SO much for the long but detailed comment. I’ve been thinking the 300mm lens might be too long (lugging a tripod/monopod around everywhere would be a pain, and how often do I need to shoot that far away?), and the 70mm too long for everyday use.
I think I’ll keep saving my shekels and pony up for the Canon 28-135mm you mentioned. The IS would be really handy (I don’t have the steadiest hands on the planet), and moving up a level in build quality would be good too. Maybe for Christmas?
I forgot to mention that with the great low noise performance of the Canon cameras really helps the lens as well.
I have this lens. It’s great! Recommended to me by Kris Krug. Bought it with my camera back in 2005. Most of my flickr digital SLR pics were shot with this lens. ISO 3200 on my 20D plus this lens means I can shoot indoors usually (except in really low light,then i switch to my 50MM Canon f1.8 prime) with no problems thanks to IS.
No real complaints. I wish Canon had an equivalent lens like the Nikon 18-200VR. Now that would be a lens worth saving up for. A great all in one lens from what I can tell.
that settles it, then. If kk+ recommends a lens, that’s the one to get