# Lens suggestions



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I have a Canon Rebel XTi DLSR camera, 10 mpx. Its a few years old. I am not camera guro, I do like to take pictures and use manual settings, but only because I can play and see what works as its digital. I have the lense that came with the camera, not sure what it is. I am most likely heading to Africa in May/June of 2011 and would obviously be bringing my camera. I am looking to increase my zoom, but don't want a huge lense that does not pack well. Ideally I would like one lense that can do it all (if that exists) so I don't have to carry around a huge camera kit, I like to pack light. So whats a good upgrade in lense that gives me a better zoom for a safari if I go on one, but is also good for day to day shooting around a medical clinic/school/small village?

Thanks


----------



## ahMEmon (Sep 27, 2005)

If you arent too hung up about image quality, then there are several superzoom lenses on the market. I have a Sigma 18-200 f 3.5 - 6.3 that serves me well, but they are available from Canon and Tamron to name a few.

These kinds of lenses have a few shortcomings:

1. Not the best quality images. At it's extreme zooms, there will be evidence of chromatic and/or barrel distortion. Images also arent as sharp as a prime or regular zoom lens.
2. Lens creep. The tendency for gravity to cause the lens to zoom in or out if the camera is being held at an angle.
3. Zoomed in, the widest aperature is only 5.6 - 6.3, so low light shooting is almost out of the question without extra lighting.

All that being said, it is still a great all-in-one lens, perfect for travel.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

There are also super zoom lenses with faster, wider apertures like a Sigma 18-200 f2.8 but they are quite expensive. They will be subject to similar issues but for convenience they can't be beat and the wide aperture even at extreme zoom will make for better pictures in a place like Africa (where you can't get too close to your subject).

Not a small lens though.


----------



## ahMEmon (Sep 27, 2005)

I totall forgot about that lens, Mac. That thing is HUUUUGE!


----------



## ChilBear (Mar 20, 2005)

I have a 17-85 IS USM as my everyday lens.

It makes sense that you should have tons of sunlight while out and about. Therefore perhaps a 2X or 3X extender may work as a zoom extension since I understand it knocks off 2 stops on the light side of the equation - hence the lots of sunshine idea. I doubt though a 160/255 zoom (2 or 3x85) will suffice for safari. Google "Kenko 3x"

If you like this lens option we could work something out as it has lots of what you need and I am looking for a L series zoom upgrade myself.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Thanks for the replies everyone, I forgot I posted this. I am thinking I might actually need 2 lenses rather then try and find the best of both worlds in one lens. I was looking at Canons website, and well, the terminology is foreign to me. I looked at 2, they seem pretty similar and would be at the peak of what I wanted to spend. How do you all think these would fare as good zoom lenses?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The 70-300mm might be ok for wildlife but not very practical for shooting around a clinic/village. With the crop sensor of your XTi those values become 105-450mm equivalents in 35mm photography. 

You had a good recommendation in the 18-200mm earlier and Canon makes one. I'd get that and perhaps a 1.4 tele converter when you need to stretch that 200mm. You can't travel lighter than that. 

I always carry the nikon version of the 18-200 and my 50mm f1.4 for low light situations. Will probably get a 24mm or 35mm f1.2-1.4.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

kps said:


> The 70-300mm might be ok for wildlife but not very practical for shooting around a clinic/village. With the crop sensor of your XTi those values become 105-450mm equivalents in 35mm photography.
> 
> You had a good recommendation in the 18-200mm earlier and Canon makes one. I'd get that and perhaps a 1.4 tele converter when you need to stretch that 200mm. You can't travel lighter than that.
> 
> I always carry the nikon version of the 18-200 and my 50mm f1.4 for low light situations. Will probably get a 24mm or 35mm f1.2-1.4.


I looked at the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC which is $400 and Sigma tele convertors, cheapest was $340. I think thats all American prices as well. I have somewhat resigned myself to keep the stock lens that came with the camera for use around the clinic, and have a secondary lens for zoom. Again, not being fluid in terminology or what all the numbers mean, would the Sigma (with tele converter) have equivalent zoom capabilities to the 2 canon lenses I posted previously?
18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC - Multipurpose Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

wonderings said:


> Thanks for the replies everyone, I forgot I posted this. I am thinking I might actually need 2 lenses rather then try and find the best of both worlds in one lens. I was looking at Canons website, and well, the terminology is foreign to me. I looked at 2, they seem pretty similar and would be at the peak of what I wanted to spend. How do you all think these would fare as good zoom lenses?


Try to avoid the two lens thing, especially for travelling. I've got a Nikon with an 18-70 and a 70-300. I went back and forth between this combo and the 18-200. For everyday stuff, I like the combo because of the added focal length of the bigger lens. But when I'm travelling, I constantly find that I'm switching lenses too often. 

Also depending on the lighting conditions, you might want to look for a faster lens. Anything with a variable f-stop can be a pain. I'm currently looking for a used 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor lens. I rented one for the Thanksgiving weekend and it was fantastic. Wonderful depth of field.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

wonderings said:


> Again, not being fluid in terminology or what all the numbers mean, would the Sigma (with tele converter) have equivalent zoom capabilities to the 2 canon lenses I posted previously?


I'm not sure I understand...200mm is 200mm on any lens. A 1.2/1.4/1.7 tele converter @200mm will give you the same magnification on a Canon as on the Sigma.

If you're going to take your kit lens with you, then just get the 70-300mm Canon and you should be set, but I still like the idea of the Canon 18-200mm even though it is a bit more expensive than the Sigma.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> Anything with a variable f-stop can be a pain.


I'd agree, but he has half the budget needed for even the cheapest of low aperture lenses.



> I'm currently looking for a used 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor lens. I rented one for the Thanksgiving weekend and it was fantastic. Wonderful depth of field.


If you don't need the VR of the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 consider a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at a considerable savings while maintaining pretty decent IQ. I own the Sigma, but both lenses are large, heavy and unwieldy and lugging such around all day can also be a real pain.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

kps said:


> I'd agree, but he has half the budget needed for even the cheapest of low aperture lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't need the VR of the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 consider a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at a considerable savings while maintaining pretty decent IQ. I own the Sigma, but both lenses are large, heavy and unwieldy and lugging such around all day can also be a real pain.


Sorry but I've always been a believer that the investment should be in the glass i.e. the lenses.

Plus for what I normally do, I need the VR.


----------

