Trying to choose my all-around zoom.

S

Snapper123

Well-known member
So hey, for awhile I've been harking on about how I want (and think it's a good idea), for everyone to have a lens like the 18-135mm IS kit, an all in one zoom lens that both has good quality, has the useful IS, helps you learn perception and distance on the go, and is honestly a good lens for outdoor video work and even certain indoor situations. I'm also interested in photography beyond what my 18-55mm is giving me (I'm always so far away from what I want to photograph!) and while the 18MP's give me a bit of freedom there, it's surprisingly not by much + you loose the depth of field effect there. Mainly, I want this lens for more practice and learning with photography, where using high ISO's are no problem for me.

But which lens to choose? I had my heart set on the 135mm, seemed enough zoom for me, seemed cheap enough for me ($300), and had all the features I like. But I just looked on DP and the quality of the 18-200mm version is actually a step better, and seems to have the least distortion of many of Canon's zoom lenses, or even any of Sigma or Tamron's versions. At most, the 200mm side of things on this lens looks a bit fringy in the mid frame and corners, but the sharpness and depth is surprisingly kept almost 100% even in those areas; most every other lens on DP of this range starts giving out completely around 135mm.

Now, I'm not exactly a lens quality fanatic, I'm sure that either the 135mm or 200mm, or even Tamron or Sigma's versions, would leave me very happy, but I am big on getting my money's worth. The 18-200mm seems to be an incredibly high quality lens for $400, while the 135mm seems just a bit less for $300, and Tamron and Sigma's versions are around $200, but seem to be in much lesser quality. Any opinions? Any experiences? $400 pushes my buttons a little more than I like but at the same time...it seems to be a good lens.

P.S. I wish the 15-85mm IS was a bit cheaper than $700, manual override focus, more of a wide angle range for crop work, 4-Stop IS, 72mm diameter (I invested in a 72mm filter set), good quality, ect ect....
 
Last edited:
Buy 24-70 f.2.8 , dont take zooms with different fstops at wide and telephoto ranges .
18-135 mm has f/3.5-5.6 its not good .Your video will show flicker when zooming in/out with this lens,do you like that ?There is also 15-55mm f.2.8
 
Snapper123 said:
Any opinions?
Click to expand...

Get a constant aperture f2.8 zoom lens. 17-50 2.8 is the best you will find to cover most hand held daily walk around shooting. IS will take out some vibrations but won't give you a good stead shot, the camera will still have too much movement. Anything longer will require a tripod, or eventually you will get seasick watching your footage.
 
Last edited:
Most of my work is run and gun stuff, plus a lot of live gig filming which requires being able to pick out people or action very quickly. This influenced my choice of kit to purely fast constant aperture lens with IS/VC, so I only have Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II. These cover almost everything I could need in everyday shooting.
 
The constant aperture issue only matters if you're zooming while filming... other factors are more important imo such as lens speed, sharpness, and focus throw length.
 
steventimothy said:
The constant aperture issue only matters if you're zooming while filming... other factors are more important imo such as lens speed, sharpness, and focus throw length.
Click to expand...

There may be more to it than that. I've owned many cine zoom lenses and rarely if ever zoomed while filming. The most important element is exposure consistency. If you light a set and the exposure changes when repositioning the zoom you must compensate. The case where you only have an f2.8 exposure at the wide end, when you zoom in you will not have enough light to achieve the same shot. With DSLRs you simply up the ISO, but with film you would either have to change the film stock or add more light. In either case it's far better and more efficient to remain constant.

Another factor is that the variable aperture lenses are slower not just on the long end, but the wide end as well. Most or all are f3.5 or f4 wide and drop down to f5.6 at the long end.
All the f2.8 zooms start out much brighter at the wide end and remain constant.
The difference between f3.5 and f2.8 is more than you might think in low light.

The other important factors you mentioned, lens speed, sharpness, and focus throw length are separate, but equally critical. Constant f2.8 zooms in many cases have better glass and mechanical elements, and are likely to contain these additional requirements.
 
Last edited:
One relatively simple solution for someone who may not afford or want a constant aperture zoom is to light for the highest stop at the tele end and compensate with ISO or NDs while at the wide end.
 
Michael is the perfect person to talk to about this as he shot for a long time with the kit 18-55 lens on his T2i before he moved the the tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc. He is super practical and experienced in this situation. Save your money and get the good lens. 2.8 to 5.6 is the difference between shooting at ISO 800 or ISO 3200 not to mention other factors such as DOF etc.
 
ROCKMORE said:
You may not be able to afford, but believe me, you want.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is both sharp and cheap.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 is sharp and expensive.
Both excellent choices depending on your budget.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I want the 17-50 and go for the 17-70? For me the extra tele reach that would allow me to use a single lens for both wide and close-up coverage was crucial. I really like this practicality.

I don't know how the Tamron 17-50 compares to the Sigma 17-70 optically though AND how it translates into usefulness to the current gen of Canon video which isn't too demanding of sharpness.

PS: Yes, I agree with you in the end, I just happen to be an oddball who appreaciates how handy a zoom can be and put this in high regard. :D
 
Last edited:
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Why wouldn't I want the 17-50 and go for the 17-70?

:D
Click to expand...

This is why.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Never mind what some people say about sharpness and contrast not being important in HD video. It's all that matters. And as far as moire and aliasing it has been almost a non issue for me in one year of shooting with a Canon DSLR. If you find it in your shot focus on something that has none.

Now here is what your Sigma looks like at 70mm f4 compared to a Canon 70-200 f4 at 70mm. Which do you think would produce a better image?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=104&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, well yeah, perhaps it would be better to get a 17-50 2.8 and a Bower/Samyang 85mm 1.4 as a close-up lens. Sounds like a plan for the budget minded too.

And thanks for presenting me to that site, I didn't know it!
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Hmmm, well yeah, perhaps it would be better to get a 17-50 2.8 and a Bower/Samyang 85mm 1.4 as a close-up lens. Sounds like a plan for the budget minded too.

And thanks for presenting me to that site, I didn't know it!
Click to expand...

You won't be disappointed with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as long as you get a good copy stamped "Made in Japan" on the lens casing. There has been some speculation about the quality control coming out of the Taiwan plant. I ran my own test on a lens in low light wide open at the dealer, put a deposit on that serial number lens and took the files to my computer to see the results. The Digital Picture chart was impressive but the actual live test was better than I expected

You should examine and test the Bower/Samyang 85mm 1.4 the same way. I have a 500mm Bower I bought years ago for a hundred bucks. It's very slow at f8 but I did get some good close ups of the sun.

You are wise to stick to fast f1.4 lenses, just be sure you don't have to stop them down to 2.8 to get focused. Another great deal out there for a sharp lens is the Canon 85mm 1.8. Compare that against the Bower because the Canon 85mm 1.8 for sure is a keeper. Don't be sold by impressive numbers alone. Test the 2 lenses side by side yourself.

I think Canon makes great sharp lenses, but they are not without their issues as well. I'm very disappointed with my Canon 24mm f2.8 I used only twice. The focus ring is as cheap as they come, noisy sloppy auto focusing, but what I can't live with is I swear it's not in focus at infinity wide open.
 
Last edited:
One thing I noticed with my tamron 17-50 is that with manual focus, when you change the zoom, you need to refocus. Maybe I'm not as knowledgable about zoom optics as I should be, but do ALL zooms require refocusing as the focal length changes?

Also, whats the quality control with Tamron lenses, I have one, labelled made in japan. Is it a good idea to actually purchase 2 or 3 lenses, and do your own tests?
 
eco_bach said:
One thing I noticed with my tamron 17-50 is that with manual focus, when you change the zoom, you need to refocus. Maybe I'm not as knowledgable about zoom optics as I should be, but do ALL zooms require refocusing as the focal length changes?
Click to expand...

Not all of them require refocusing, but some do.

Zoom lenses that change focus when you change their focal lengths are called varifocal lenses. They are often of lesser optical quality than parfocal lenses of the same speed/range, which maintain the same focus position at all available focal lengths.

It's something to consider when buying a zoom lens as a multipurpose lens.
 
jscottprice said:
Not all of them require refocusing, but some do.

Zoom lenses that change focus when you change their focal lengths are called varifocal lenses. They are often of lesser optical quality than parfocal lenses of the same speed/range, which maintain the same focus position at all available focal lengths.

It's something to consider when buying a zoom lens as a multipurpose lens.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever come across a still zoom lens that held focus through a zoom, I thought that was why video and film zooms cost X10 or more, that and speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top