need help picking a lense

[civicrider]

Hey guys,

I want to get my GF a lens for her Canon Rebel XSI. All she has is the lens that comes with it, she says she wants something with good zoom. She takes it traveling a lot so it can't be huge. I looked on the canon site and there is a ton of different zoom lenses, so I'm looking for some explanation to the differences between them.

Thanks

[89coupe]

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/products?m=gp&pid=2378

Hands down the most versatile lens out there, she would absolutely love it.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I would suggest the 55-250 IS ($340). It's a decent lens, it's light for travel, and it's cheap. It also is designed to compliment the 18-55 kit lens that would have come with the XSi.

Unfortunately Canon offers very little in the "budget zoom" category, especially towards the long end (200mm+).

Other more expensive options are:

70-300 IS $675 (rip off)

70-200/4 L, $700 (great lens, no IS, larger and heavier than other options)

70-200/4 L IS, $1,300 (same lens as above with IS)

I would not recommend the cheaper, non-IS, 70-300mm lenses. IS is extremely helpful in that focal range, and the cheaper 70-300's have pretty poor image quality compared to other options, especially wide open. Shooting in anything but ideal light with these lenses would likely be frustrating for a beginner.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by 89coupe
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/products?m=gp&pid=2378

Hands down the most versatile lens out there, she would absolutely love it.

I'm just guessing, but I don't think a 1mm increase on the wide end is what the OP's GF meant when she said she wanted more "zoom".

Also, lens versatility varies greatly depending on individual shooting styles. 17-55 is a nice range indeed, but it certainly isn't automatically the most versatile lens ever made for all shooters.

[syeve]

For a zoom travel lense, IMO the best would be the 70-200 F4 IS or the 15-85 has some decent reach for it's size. Could also try a 135mm prime?

What's your budget?

[civicrider]

what about something like this?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/canon-canon-ef-75-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-ii-usm-lens-75-300-f4-5-6-lll-us/10009174.aspx?path=da3572856054eaeb63859f9496d769a6en02

I'd like to keep it around $500, shes a rookie in the camera game so I just want to get her something to get her started.

[AccentAE86]

For travel? This is the one that I would get. It's a good one!

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/canon-eos-mount/sigma-18-200mm-f35-63-os-hsm-canon-mount

7 year warranty! You can leave the 18-55 lens at home with this lens.

[syeve]

^^yep, thats a great lense for the $

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by civicrider
what about something like this?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/canon-canon-ef-75-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-ii-usm-lens-75-300-f4-5-6-lll-us/10009174.aspx?path=da3572856054eaeb63859f9496d769a6en02

I'd like to keep it around $500, shes a rookie in the camera game so I just want to get her something to get her started.

Thats a pretty poor lens overall.

The 55-250 IS I recommended I think would be better, at least you get image stabilization out of the deal. It's also well under $500. Especially if she's a beginner, I suspect she would appreciate image stabilization and a more compact lens more than she would an extra 50mm on the long end.

http://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/zoom-lenses/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56

Canon provides very little option for people looking for a budget zoom, probably because they want you to buy the 70-200/4 or better.

The Sigma 18-200 isn't bad but 6.3 on the long end is very slow. It's advantage is that it's the cheapest of the 18-200's. It would also replace your GF's 18-55 completely.

[syeve]

.

[clem24]

For traveling, definitely any of the super zooms (i.e. 18-2xx). I'd never take 'bright' zooms for traveling.

[civicrider]

so what are the pro's and cons between these two?

(thanks for all the help guys you're awesome)

http://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/zoom-lenses/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/canon-eos-mount/sigma-18-200mm-f35-63-os-hsm-canon-mount

[BerserkerCatSplat]

55-250 has a bit more reach at the long end (250mm vs 200mm), and is slightly faster (f/5.6 vs f/6.3).

18-200 covers a much larger range of focal lengths, but is slower at the long end as mentioned above, and any zoom range that large will have optical compromises, ie. some distortion. On the upside, it replaces the coverage of the stock 18-55, so if you buy it you only need to take a single lens traveling, rather than both the 18-55 + 55-250.

Both lenses have optical stabilization, so that's a wash.

For travel convenience, I think I'd go for the 18-200.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by civicrider
so what are the pro's and cons between these two?

(thanks for all the help guys you're awesome)

http://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/zoom-lenses/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/lenses/slr-lenses/canon-eos-mount/sigma-18-200mm-f35-63-os-hsm-canon-mount

Canon 55-250 IS

Advantages
- Cheaper
- Small & light
- More reach (250mm vs 200mm)
- Image stabilization
- Designed specifically to compliment the 18-55 kit lens (no overlap)

Disadvantages
- It's not a 1 lens solution, so your GF will need to change lenses between this and the 18-55. Thats a bigger deal to some than others, but changing lenses is the whole point of a SLR camera. On vacation though it may be less desirable.

Sigma 18-200 OS

Advantages
- More zoom range than the 55-250 as it starts at 18mm not 55mm.
- Will also replace the 18-55 kit lens
- Image stabilization
- Awesome travel lens (not so much for everything else)

Disadvantages
- "Jack of all trades, master of none" lens
- VERY slow on the long end being f6.3 (without ideal light your shutter speeds are going to be pretty slow at f6.3)
- More expensive ($500)
- Third party lenses have far more sample variation (eg. if you buy two, one might perform much better than the other)


If I were you I'd get the 55-250 IS, combined with the 18-55 that combination is still incredibly small and light for travel, it covers more range than the 18-200, and it's cheaper. The downfall is having to change lenses if you want more or less than 55mm. If the only thing your GF cares about is convenience, consider the 18-200, but it has a lot more compromises elsewhere.

[civicrider]

carrying an extra lens isn't a big deal as we already have a huge backpacks to drag around, I just have seen some lenses and they are huge!!!!

[dragonone]

unless you're bird hunting or alike, go wide. ppl take shots at the wide end far more often when they're traveling.

i'm not sure what price you can get the 55-250 for but at around $300 it might be even more convenient to get a travel compact with 10-15x zoom. i sold my 55-250 and i don't miss it much, can't use it hand-held for anything else other than good light.

and going back to the wide focal length range ideas (i.e.18-270mm) on paper and tests, it's true that it's not optically stellar at any aperture or focal length. but i know more than one person that owns one and they are all very happy with its versatility. But remember that if the user gets any more serious into this hobby, he/she will yearn for a sharper/faster lens and will want to sell this.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by dragonone
unless you're bird hunting or alike, go wide. ppl take shots at the wide end far more often when they're traveling.


That completely depends on the person, the destination, and the type of holiday. I'd say 75% of my travel photos are taken with a 70-200/2.8 and they aren't all wildlife. I use a crop body too.

The OP's GF also specifically said she wanted more zoom/reach, so I'm not sure wider would be what she wants.

[Go4Long]

^ yeah that

I try to avoid making assumptions for what kind of shooting other people are going to do, especially when the contradict what the person said they are looking for.

I agree with mitsu...get the canon. Not to say there aren't some great third party lenses out there, because there are (Zeiss anyone?). Just as a whole you're going to find a lot more consistency in the Canon offerings.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Sigma 18-200 OS

- VERY slow on the long end being f6.3 (without ideal light your shutter speeds are going to be pretty slow at f6.3)


:rolleyes: So the 55-250 @ 250mm is not slow..? And yes it's got extra reach but I can bet that it probably needs f/5.6 by the time it hits 200mm.

You can also consider the Canon 18-200 IS. A bit more expensive but according to Mitsu, it's *much faster* because it's f/5.6 a full tele. And on a crop, 250 is 400. That's unheard of in the film days on a consumer lens. Not many people need 400mm. So the 50mm extra reach is almost completely irrelevant here. There's really not much diff between 200 and 250mm, unlike the *huge* diff in just mm for a wide.

Anyways... I myself love wide. But I'll make no assumptions on what your GF's shooting style is like. Keep this in consideration: if she does end up going wide, then you're MUCH better off with one of the 18-2xx lens, because then she'll be carrying around 2 lens, and an 18-2xx + a wide is a *perfect* travel companion in my books. If she kept the 18-55 and goes with a 55-250, and then decides she wants wide, that's 3 lenses to travel with.

This "jack of all trades master of none" crap is so overused. It's just a camera with a lens that takes pictures. It sounds like to me like she has no clue what optical distortions are. I've been shooting for about a decade now and I am perfectly happy with my Nikon 18-200 on trips. I think she will be too.

[89coupe]

I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM and on my vacations it gets used about 1/10th of the time my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM gets used.

But thats just me.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by clem24


:rolleyes: So the 55-250 @ 250mm is not slow..? And yes it's got extra reach but I can bet that it probably needs f/5.6 by the time it hits 200mm.

You can also consider the Canon 18-200 IS. A bit more expensive but according to Mitsu, it's *much faster* because it's f/5.6 a full tele.

You've got to be kidding me. Please tell me where I said f5.6 is "much faster" than f6.3. Neither of those words even appear in my post. Do not put words in my mouth.

Both are slow, but the vast majority of budget zoom lenses are f5.6 on the long end (including Nikon and Canon versions of the 18-200). Very few of them are as slow as 6.3, therefore it's worth pointing out. F5.6 is slow enough already, another third stop slower would be even more frustrating. If his budget is $500 and he wants to buy a lens with decent "zoom", his only option is pretty much to take f5.6 on the long end.

I'm glad you're so happy with your 18-200, but that lens most certainly isn't for everyone.

[civicrider]

sorry what do you mean by adding a wide? is it a lens you can add to the 18-200?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by civicrider
sorry what do you mean by adding a wide? is it a lens you can add to the 18-200?

No, they are suggesting that instead of buying a lens with more zoom/reach like your GF wants, you buy something even more wide than the 18-55mm she has, for example a 10-20mm lens. That is completely up to your GF though, and is going the opposite direction of more reach/zoom. They were suggesting adding an additional, separate, wide angle specific lens.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by civicrider
sorry what do you mean by adding a wide? is it a lens you can add to the 18-200?

I think he meant a separate lens dedicated for while angle

Such as
Tokina's 12-24 f/4
or 11-16 f/2.8

[civicrider]

No zoom is really what she wants with this lens, so many times in Japan we didn't have enough zoom to get the right shot. Maybe i will recommend she looks into a wide lens for her next purchase.

[civicrider]

just went down to the camera shop, man its crazy there! Anyways I decided to get the Canon 55-250 IS, She said all she wanted was zoom so it seemed like the better choice (she can always exchange it if I'm wrong). Thanks a lot guys you really helped me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by civicrider
just went down to the camera shop, man its crazy there! Anyways I decided to get the Canon 55-250 IS, She said all she wanted was zoom so it seemed like the better choice (she can always exchange it if I'm wrong). Thanks a lot guys you really helped me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good choice. It's a nice lens considering the price.

[civicrider]

I looked at wide angle lenses, but starting at $750 is out of my price range.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by civicrider
I looked at wide angle lenses, but starting at $750 is out of my price range.

There are actually some great options with 3rd party wide angle lenses, such as the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24 and especially the Tokina 11-16. They are highly regarded, and cheaper than the Canon branded ones.

Find out what she wants though. For a lot of people, 18mm, even on a crop sensor, is more than wide enough. For some, it is not. Depends entirely on what she likes to take pictures of.

[civicrider]

Tokina is what I looked at today for just over $700 the Canon was $900

[clem24]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


You've got to be kidding me. Please tell me where I said f5.6 is "much faster" than f6.3. Neither of those words even appear in my post. Do not put words in my mouth.

Umm.... Read your own recommendations man. In the 55-250 disadvantages, no where does it say *SLOW*. In the 18-200 recommendation, you point out *SLOW*. Who's putting what in who's mouth?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by clem24


Umm.... Read your own recommendations man. In the 55-250 disadvantages, no where does it say *SLOW*. In the 18-200 recommendation, you point out *SLOW*. Who's putting what in who's mouth?

Both are slow, but 6.3 is slower than f5.6 so I made a point of it. Very few consumer grade zooms are 6.3, nearly all of them are 5.6. Also, since we're talking about 18-200's, Nikon and Canon's versions are 5.6, Sigma's is 6.3. I think it was a point worth mentioning. It goes without saying 5.6 is slow, but 6.3 is unusually slow in that range, even for a consumer zoom.

Anyways I don't really care, it's not worth arguing about, especially since the OP already made his choice lol. Also I sounded like a bit of an ass in my previous post, I apologize.