Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
Giorgio N

What do you think of the "superzooms" ?

Recommended Posts

After having purchased a cheap DSLR (the Canon 1200D), I'm now thinking of the next step in terms of lenses I may need.

The camera came with the standard 18-55 lens, that is fine for a lot of situations form what I see, however I'm now klooking at expanding my kit.

I'm thinking of buying a 55-250 lens from Canon as they seem compact enough and I believe that I wouldn't need anything more powerful. At the same time I've seen that there are on the market a number of so-called "superzoom" lenses with a 18-200 or even 18-270 range.

I understand that such lenses have limitations and tend to have a "barrel effect" at the lower end of the range, however the idea of a single lens capable of covering somehow a wide range is appealing, particularly in situations like holidays or the weekend out where I may have to take pictures very different and I would like to avoid carrying a bag with 2 or 3 lenses.

Anyone with experience of these ? Any thought or suggestion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 1000D and use the Canon 70-250 (I think) IS zoom. It's fine as a general lens but I'm thinking of getting something with longer reach for airshows and general aircraft spotting - maybe a Sigma up to 500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a 7D with a Sigma 50-500 ............

Good shots can be had when the f is in the middle range....... it's very heavy and I'm thinking of changing to a Canon 100-400.... better optics and lighter .

HTH

Dick

Edited by jenko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superzooms have their place, but all that range does indeed make the optical quality suffer. In the end, it's your choice - convenience or maximum quality. Personally, I cart around Nikon's holy Trinity of f/2.8 zooms as well as a 300/4 and sundry other bits of lensware. For me, quality rules, but not everyone wants 15kg of camera gear with them all the time.

It's not that the superzooms are terrible, rather that there's better to be had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only you can make the decision about ultimate quality versus flexibility - I prefer using a prime, with the limitations it comes with. I also find that using a "super zoom" adds another set of decisions that have to be made during the shooting - with a prime you are stuck with what you have got and have to make the best of it..

I can stick a good prime on my daughter's Nikon D3100 (slightly worse spec to your Canon I think) and you cannot tell with the majority of the results that they are taken on a £200 body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a Sigma 18 to 200 OS lens which I've had for 5 or so years. Not perfect and a little soft at 200, but I've found its great when you want to take only 1 lens. Like when you're traveling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends very much on what you are shooting....

My first zoom for my Canon EOS60D bought two years ago was the Canon 70-200 f/4 L non-IS model and for the money it is IMO a superbly useful and sharp lens that complemented the 18-55 kit lens.

Since then I have gone down the prime lens route, mainly for birding with a second hand 300mm f/4 L IS and a 400mm f/5.6 L which I use mainly for birding and so far one airshow.

But it is still 15kg to carry round......

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the comments, some good food for thought here !

The Sigma 18-200 is from what I read the best in its cost class and one I was considering myself. The Canon 70-200 is another lens I was considering, although maybe the 55-250 would be more flexible (again, thoughts on this are welcome). Guess that the 50-500 is in another class though in terms of size, is this correct ? At the moment I'm not considering very long distance shots.

It should be said that the Sigma 18-200, the Canon 55-250 and the Canon 70-200 all seem to be reasonably priced at the moment, maybe I should get both a 70-200 AND the superzoom, with the former to be used for more serious pictures and the latter for those weekends where I don't want to carry much with me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Giorgio

You should avoid any zoom with in excess of 3x zoom

You end up with a whole load of distorsion and and the edge definition sucks, thats where the centre is in focus and the edges are soft.

primes are best but 70-200 is good remembering that the sensors in the entry level cameras are 1.5 x apsc so your 70-200 is really a 105-300 in 35mm money

Edited by oggy4624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My standard setup on the 7D is a 17-85 . A great little lens. the extra 30mm makes a big difference. Then a 70-300 and then the big Sigma. A couple of hours holding the Sigma is like a morning down the gym !!

At the end of the day with lenses you get what you pay for. There are plenty of test reports on the net. Also have a chat with some of the people you work with. One of them may have the lens you are thinking about and might let you have a play with it,

Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Giorgio,

As you don't seem to really know what you need, I would get the natural complement to the Canon 18-55, which is the 55-250. These two lenses plus your 1200D give you a lightweight, inexpensive kit that you can learn photography on. :photo:

Kind regards,

Adam (in Canon-land since the 450D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not used the 55-250 but have heard good things, not sure if you would get the 'barrel effect' either, that normally tends to happen on lenses like the 16-300mm, 28-300mm etc and you also get a drop in quality. My advice is to buy the best lens you can afford.. Have you thought about buying second hand lenses? The 70-300 IS USM (can be had for around £230) is a superb lens, sharp throughout the range and also has two modes of IS if you want it (It can be switched off).

Just my 2p worth..

70-200 is good remembering that the sensors in the entry level cameras are 1.5 x apsc so your 70-200 is really a 105-300 in 35mm money

1.6crop on a Canon..

Edited by Radleigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam is right, I actually don't know much what I need.. :D

I have to say that I don't really intend to get into "professional" photography, I'd simply like something to be able to take shots when I go sailing or when I walk on the alps, plus manage to take pictures at an airshow where the aircraft is not a small insect in the middle of a large blue rectangle...

From the various replies I'm starting to think that a 55-250 is probably the best option, at least at the moment. I may later move to something else if I learn how to take pictures properly

Thanks again for all the valuable input !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For airshows, think 400mm minimum. And things get stupid expensive after 300mm (you can get by with a GOOD 300mm and a 1.7x teleconverter, but it's not ideal.) The big lenses (x-500/600)mm from Sigma and Tamron are OK, but I've found my Sigma 50-500 more than a little disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found my Sigma 50-500 more than a little disappointing.

Join the club !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule of thumb is that you will change the camera body before you change the glass. Therefore get the best that you can afford. The canon 100-400 has just been superseded for a newer version so I would look out for that or the 70-200 although the reach is lacking for airshows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I used a superzoom for just over a year before I purchased the 120-400, the one I was using was the Sigma 28-300mm.

Not a bad lens in all honesty just lacking the reach at the top end for airshows, couple of shots below at 28mm and 300mm

28mm
15033006327_941b0345a1_c.jpgIMG_7189 by John Rooney, on Flickr
300mm
14659222861_48745691b8_c.jpgAAC AH-64D Apache 0 by John Rooney, on Flickr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the original Canon 100-400 to replace my Sigma 135-400. I got it primarily for aircraft photos. I couldn't be happier with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...