"Hi-zoom" lenses?

[akerosid]

I'm currently using (or as the screeners would probably say, "misusing"! ) a Canon EOS 350D/75-300mm (non-image stabilised) lens.

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of dust spots and I was thinking about getting a combined "single" lens, which would give me the versatility to move from 28-500mm without having to change lenses.

I had a quick look at Jessops (a major UK camera shop) and they have quite a good selection:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Camera%20Accessories/Lenses/products/Tamron/28-300mm%20f3.5-6.3%20XR%20VC%20lens%20-%20Nikon%20AF%20AFS-75823/Show.html

However, a salesman in my local shop suggested that this might not be a good idea, as the sensors on these cameras tend to be significantly smaller and therefore the quality of photos I'd get might not be as good.

Another option might be to go for the TAMRON A-20 (a 28-300mm lens, with image stabilisation), which I could use as the sole lens for my existing camera, once I get it cleaned (again!).

What would you suggest?

[LX-A343]

My suggestions:
1) When you decide for a lens, go for the best optical quality you can get for the money you want to spend. A Tamron or Sigma 28-300 mm won't do you a big favour.
2) Get used to clean the sensor yourself more often. It's easy to do. I often do it the night before a "photography day".
3) Buy a 2nd body and attach two different lenses to the bodies. That way you have the whole zoom range with the best possible quality and minimised dust spots at your fingertips. OK, that was the rather expensive tip .

[wrxflyer]

One important rule I'd like to add to Gerardo's list:
-Never by a lens with a max zoomrange, whitch is 4 times more than the min zoom.(so 100-400 is max zoomrange)
For example, if minimum is 28mm, then 110mm should be the max, or 70-300 (if you understand what I mean.)

Freek

[arjenp]

One important rule I'd like to add to Gerardo's list:
-Never by a lens with a max zoomrange, whitch is 4 times more than the min zoom.(so 100-400 is max zoomrange)
For example, if minimum is 28mm, then 110mm should be the max, or 70-300 (if you understand what I mean.)

Freek

So, 50-500 is a bad choise?

[seahawk]

I own the non stabilized version of the Tamron 28-300 and I must say that it is a nice lens for holiday use, but it is a dog for spotting. You can´t go over 200-250mm with out getting awfully soft pics. And at the wide end it also lacks in shaprness and has some distortions.

For spotting a 70-300 is a good all around lens, which would only need a 18-70 something addition.

PS. the 50-500 is a good lens, but compared to the Sigma 100-300 it lacks quality.

[akerosid]

Thank you all very much; this is very interesting information. It looks like my best choice might be a 100-400m (or maybe 150-500).

I saw a very nice Sigma 150-500; any good recommendations on that?

[Taliesin]

If dust is a real issue for you, you may want to consider a camera with good dust protection, like Olympus. Ive been using my E-510 for a year now and even though the mirror and the viewfinder have seen their fair share of dust, Ive never ever had a problem with dust on the chip.
Also, Olympus has a smaller chip with a crop factor of 2 instead of 1,6 like Canon. Of course with a smaller chip, noise becomes more of an issue, but not so much that it would outweigh the advantages of more focuslength.
My 70-300mm is equal to a 140-600mm lens at F5,6. Camera and lens weigh about 900grams and cost me about 500 dollars.

Just thought Id throw that in

[Top_Gun]

So, 50-500 is a bad choise?

Not in my book, I've been using mine for a few years and love it. It's not a low light lens but just know your limitations. At a show line it's a huge benefit of being able to be at 50mm as they taxi by and then have the 500 for take off or flight shots.

It's a little soft at the end, but the range is great.

[arjenp]

At a show line it's a huge benefit of being able to be at 50mm as they taxi by and then have the 500 for take off or flight shots.

That's way I want that lens. (if I have the money)

[brianw999]

You say you have a Canon 350D ?

I haven't checked around but you could prpobably get a second body (350 or 400) reasonably inexpensively. Add in an 18-75 or 18-135 and you've got everything covered focal length wise.

I started out with a Nikon D70 with a kit 18-75 lens and a 70-300 non VR lens. Changing lenses and sometimes having the wrong lens on for the situation prevailing was a pain in the arse and turned the body into a vacuum cleaner for dust every time I changed the lens.

The solution was to sell the D70 and lenses as a full kit, together with the CF cards and buy a D80 body with an 18-135. I was going to get a Sigma 50-500 but trying one for a couple of days revealed problems with softness at full zoom and the fact that it needed good light in the 350-500 range. That idea got binned then and I quickly bought a second D80 body and a 70-300VR lens.

Benefits ?......

-Since then dust spots have virtually ceased to be a problem ( yes, I do get the occasional spot but nowhere near as bad as before ).

-The 18-135 overlaps the 70-300 focal length for those "Hmmm, which should I use ?" situations.

-The VR feature on the 70-300 is simply excellent. It does all that Nikon claim. I would imagine that the Canon "IS" system is the same.

My recommendation ?
Two bodies each with their own lens which doesn't come off except for the occasional clean, which should be done anyway.

[polarbear]

You say you have a Canon 350D ?

My recommendation ?
Two bodies each with their own lens which doesn't come off except for the occasional clean, which should be done anyway.

I support the idea of 2 bodies 200% although I tend to go very wide on D70 and very long on D90.

BAck to original question, D70 seems to be getting a lot more dust sports then D90. I believe it has something to do with how filter is positioned in relation to sensor. Not sure if it is true in Canon world - but in Nikon land - new body may be the best answer.

[rohank4284]

I'm currently using (or as the screeners would probably say, "misusing"! ) a Canon EOS 350D/75-300mm (non-image stabilised) lens.

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of dust spots and I was thinking about getting a combined "single" lens, which would give me the versatility to move from 28-500mm without having to change lenses.

I had a quick look at Jessops (a major UK camera shop) and they have quite a good selection:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Camera%20Accessories/Lenses/products/Tamron/28-300mm%20f3.5-6.3%20XR%20VC%20lens%20-%20Nikon%20AF%20AFS-75823/Show.html

However, a salesman in my local shop suggested that this might not be a good idea, as the sensors on these cameras tend to be significantly smaller and therefore the quality of photos I'd get might not be as good.

Another option might be to go for the TAMRON A-20 (a 28-300mm lens, with image stabilisation), which I could use as the sole lens for my existing camera, once I get it cleaned (again!).

What would you suggest?

Canon's 75-300 mm lens was a notorious under-performer, so maybe just buying the 70-300 IS lens might be a better choice. In my experience it's far superior to the 75-300 mm non-IS lens. In addition, a 70-300 mm lens provides a very good range for aviation spotting.

If you have the money, buying a second body might be a good idea. The Canon Rebel XSi i(450D) is going for $680 new with the 18-55 mm kit lens.

Regards,

Rohan