Additional Lens Help

LiveStrong2009

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wi
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I bought the Canon Rebel T1i about a month ago, and now I am starting to realize that I want something longer and nicer than the kit lens. I am curious, what do I need to pay most attention to when considering a new lens? Obviously F-stops as well as focal length, but what else should I focus on?

At this point I have considered 2 lenses-

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276578237&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B000IBLMHQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1276578491&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom…[/ame]

At this point, I am leaning toward the 18-250mm simply because I could just leave the kit lens at home. The kit lens is an 18-55mm, so if I did go with the 55-250, I would probably want to carry both lenses.

Also, Which lens hood do you prefer and why? Is there anything I need to pay attention to when considering a hood?

Thanks!
LiveStrong
 
Well, I can't be of much help because i'm quite inexperienced myself, but I would reconsider if you truly need a zoom lens. If you've been getting along quite fine with your 18-55, i'd opt for a 50mm prime like [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1276581173&sr=1-2]this.[/ame]

The sharpness compared to your 18-55 or to the other two choices you have posts will probably be amazing. I'm discovering myself after buying one myself that theres something to be said about composition without the laziness to just zoom in, Forces me to think and consider the shot, and the field of view compared to my zoom lens is golden. It has been a wonderful learning experience, especially in conditions where my subjects don't stop on my account or aren't immobile. A lens like I posted above would allow you too the ability to shoot in lower lighting, great for indoors or morning/evening shots.

Anyway, to the other two choices you have i'd probably opt for the first one. I'm a little leery of the smaller appature on the long end of the Tamron, my experience has been that its never large enough.

But as I said, my opinions are far below second rate compared to others here, and this is all based on my experience, its really up to you.
 
I agree about the prime lens - they're too cheap and too good not to try. Look at the photos you've taken that you really like and see if there is any correlation with the focal length used to take them. If it happens that you like a particular focal length consider a prime lens. It will be faster and sharper, and if you gravitate toward that focal length, you'll get a lot of use out of it.
 
Bigger doesnt mean it is better. Very fast prime lens is a must.
 
I'm also considering a lens in the 18-250 range. Though I doubt if the images will be any better than your kit lens. When a lens with that range is built you have a lot of glass. The more glass the more flare and softness your get. Especially in the price range of the Tamaron or Sigma lens. Take a look at A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras) It's a Minolta/Sony site but has the best collections of reviews I have found.

I aslo agree with Schwetty a fast prime is a must. I went with the sigma 30mm f1.4 Lens flare can be a issues with that lens and the razor thin dof can be a pain. But the images it takes are incredible.
 
As far as the 18-250 mm:

The convienience a single lens solution offers, is offset by issues related to image quality (IQ).

All super zoom lenses (10x+ zoom range) are a collection of design compromises. The further beyond 10x the zoom range, greater number of design compromises.

The Tamron is 13.8x, and like virtually all super zoom lenses has geometric distortion across much of it's zoom range. Chromatic Aberration is usually problematic at both ends of the zoom range.

I have read of people having problems with slow and indecisive auto focus with several of Tamron's zoom lenses.

A couple of the reasons 3rd party lenses have a lower price than camera maker lenses is there electronics have been reverse engineered, which could mean the lens won't work on newer cameras as they are introduced without being 'rechipped' after the 3rd party lens maker reverse engioneers the newer camera.

The other reason for lower prices is lesser build quality and a somewhat lower expectation of durability and lifetime.

If convienience of use is more important to you than IQ and durability, you will be quite happy with a super zoom lens like the Tamron.
 
Specifically, what prime lens would you recommend? Why would you recommend that lens?

I am still interested in more opinions about the specific lenses that I posted.
What did you mean "you are leery about the aperture" on the Tamron?
 
If convienience of use is more important to you than IQ and durability, you will be quite happy with a super zoom lens like the Tamron.

Seconding some good advice here..

Also consider your long time photography goals. If you really start to get into it and demand quality, you might regret buying the lens... but if you stay casual you probably won't.
 
I really hope to start selling photos soon, so quality is somewhat important to me. Durability is the most important to me, because I am a college student on a budget.

Chromatic aberrations were mentioned earlier, what other effects would I notice? As far as durability goes, what issues would I face?
 
The Canon 55-250 is slow to focus, very soft and suffers from CA.
As said earlier, if this is a casual hobby, you can't beat the price.
You plan on selling high quality images? Forget it.

As far as the "fast primes" suggestion. You need to look at what YOU need. I have the 50mm 1.8 and I never use it. Ever! But that's because of my subject matter.
 
How exactly are you determining what these issues may be? Is it based on price range?
Model? Personal Experience?

What would you think about something like this:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Optical-Stabilizer/dp/B000NOSCGM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276748572&sr=8-2]Amazon.com: Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC AF OS (Optical Stabilizer) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics[/ame]

I am just a DSLR noob who is trying to learn these things...
 
As far as the 18-250 mm:

The convienience a single lens solution offers, is offset by issues related to image quality (IQ).

All super zoom lenses (10x+ zoom range) are a collection of design compromises. The further beyond 10x the zoom range, greater number of design compromises.

The Tamron is 13.8x, and like virtually all super zoom lenses has geometric distortion across much of it's zoom range. Chromatic Aberration is usually problematic at both ends of the zoom range.

I have read of people having problems with slow and indecisive auto focus with several of Tamron's zoom lenses.

A couple of the reasons 3rd party lenses have a lower price than camera maker lenses is there electronics have been reverse engineered, which could mean the lens won't work on newer cameras as they are introduced without being 'rechipped' after the 3rd party lens maker reverse engioneers the newer camera.

The other reason for lower prices is lesser build quality and a somewhat lower expectation of durability and lifetime.

If convienience of use is more important to you than IQ and durability, you will be quite happy with a super zoom lens like the Tamron.

This. If you want a zoom lens it is advisable to stick with ones with a shorter focal range, like the Canon 70-200mm for example. Of course that is an L lens, it's cheapest version is the f/4 non IS for around $600. If your on a budget you'll just have to come to terms that when it comes to zoom lenses you get what you pay for. To get similar quality from a zoom lens to that of a prime lens you need to pay for it. I decided to skip the Canon 55-250 and save up for the 70-200mm f/4.

If you need one right now though, I suggest looking up a used 70-200mm for example.
 
How exactly are you determining what these issues may be? Is it based on price range?
Model? Personal Experience?

.
If that is directed at me, it's from experience. I own the 55-250.
It's pretty crap.

Read reviews of the lenses. They pretty much lay it out for you, so you can make an informed decision. And yes, I knew what I was getting with the 55-250. It was what I could afford at the time. I learned a lot using it. It made it easy to justify dropping $1.6k on a good lens.

Don't discount some of the third party lenses either. Some are on par with the Canon brand, but quite a bit less $$$. Again read and compare reviews!
 
Unfortunately the reviews vary a lot. The 55-250 that I had a link to has a review of about 4.5 out of 5...

Reviews do tend to have a huge impact on many of my purchasing decisions.
 
Unfortunately the reviews vary a lot. The 55-250 that I had a link to has a review of about 4.5 out of 5...

Reviews do tend to have a huge impact on many of my purchasing decisions.

the-digital-picture.com and photozone.de are good sources for reviews on lenses. Try to avoid reviews on retailer's sites, like B&H and Adorama for example. It is too easy for someone who knows nothing about photography to go in there and say a given lens is "So awesome, 5 out of 5!" and call himself a Semi-Pro. That is not a reliable review, in the least.

What is nice about the first site up there is that they do very thorough and legitimate tests on all the lenses they review, you can view the pictures taken from the lenses to compare stuff like sharpness and vignetting to judge these aspects for yourself. Here's a comparison between the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 for example, you can see why we say the 55-250 is crap.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top