More lenses advice, please!

Hi there,

I´m considering getting a new zoom lens and I´d like to hear from you before I acquire one.

I currently own 4 lenses ranging from 10 to 300mm, but I find it really too bulky to carry the 4 lenses on long multi-days walks (I´m a very tiny person really, carrying very heavy packs already when considering food and water).

I wast thinking of something on the 28-200/300mm range, so that I would have to carry only two compact lenses.

I thought about the Canon 28-200mm, but I´m afraid I´m going to miss the 300mm.

There are also the Sigma 28-200 and 28-300mm, and the Tamrom 28-300mm, in addition to the Tokina 24-200mm.

Any ideas??

Thanks for your help.

Bia

I forgot to mention that sharpness is important for me!

Having no idea of what you like to shoot, it's hard to make suggestions. But carrying 4 lens sounds silly on a hiking trip. Ideally you'd get one wide-angle zoom like a 17-35, 17-55 and perhaps a longer lens like 70-200, 300. If sharpness is your priority, then I'd skip those super zoom lens like the 28 - 200 type as the wide angle as the quality is usually inferior compared to a lens specifically made for those lenths.

Hi Richard,
thanks for your reply. That´s exactly what I mean...it´s silly to carry 4 lenses, and I tend to leave one or two at home, but then I always seem to miss them when I´m out there.

I know the super zoom lenses are not as sharp as the fixed lenses or smaller range zooms, but I was wondering if I could get SOME sharpness with one of the lenses above for these kinds of trips. The problem is I like shooting all kinds of things, and if I leave one of the lenses at home...

Hope someone can help me out.

Thanks,

Bia

I'll give you a personal example. I own 3 lenses. A 17-35, 60mm macro and a 70-300. I usually carry one, or two lenses at most depending on where and what I'm expecting to shoot. I don't shoot big game nor birds 100 feet up in the tree so I'm more than adequately covered with my lenses. I mainly use the 17-35, and I do too shoot a large variety of things. Very rarely do I wish, damn if only I'd had so and so zoom.

My primary lens is a Tamron 28-300mm zoom--it's on the camera all the time unless I'm doing something "special." I use it often at 300mm for "grab" bird shots, lizards, etc., and also at intermediate distances for things I don't want to get too close to (cactus spines with little bugs on them, etc.) I work on foot, shooting everything from bugs to birds, with a lot of plant details, as well as documentary shots of things we're doing on the land (so, reference views of a field at the same time of year in successive years, etc. I've been satisfied with the sharpness I get out of the Tamron, and (having had a 200mm for my film cameras) I'm often glad to have that extra bit of focal length.

My "bird" lens (300mm, faster than the Tamron and always attached to a 1.4 tele-converter) is always with me, in a daypack; the macro lens stays home unless I know I'm going to be shooting macro. This old Nikkor 300mm is a tad crisper than the Tamron, besides being several stops faster, and when I set up to watch a waterhole for awhile, it's the one I put on...but it's way too bulky and inconvenient to carry around in my hand (and I can't do close-up work with it, such as the dragonfly landing on the ground at my feet, which the Tamron handles easily.

But everyone has different needs, and there are always compromises. I never need wide-angle (which some people need) and since I live in a high-sun area, I don't need as fast a lens as people who are working in woods, forests, or areas with persistent cloud cover. (It's nice, but not necessary for much of the work I do.)

Hope this helps.

Elizabeth.

The lenses I carry are Canon 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L with 1.4TC. There is a bit of a gap between the two and I've considered filling it with a 50 f1.4. This covers the range from 17mm to 280mm. And I usually don't miss having left the big glass behind. The 70-200 f4 would save some weight over the f2.8 for lomg hikes. A 70-300 variable aperture lens would combine versatility with small size and light weight,

There is a perfect lens for you. Unfortunately, it's the Nikon 18-200mm VR. It's amazingly sharp from what I've seen and read--the VR really helps. If you aren't getting sharp images, I would bet money you aren't using a tripod. A tripod will do more for sharpness than a lens will (although that Nikon 18-200mm really surprised me.)


Kent in SD

Whenever I have to keep the number of lenses to a minimum I have my trusty 100-400 IS as my work horse lens. I am lucky to have a sharp one and have about 10,000 images through it and still like it a lot. I know it is not as sharp as my 500 f4, but it is less than 1/2 the weight of the 500. For the wide range I chose between my 17-40 L or my 24-85. The 24-85 is not the sharpest lens in my bag, but it is versitle and light weight and it is of adequate sharpness. If more sharpness and wider are important the 17-40 goes with me. If I take the 17-40 and 100-400 it has been a rare occasion I miss the 41-99 mm not covered. I then accept this as the compromise I made to weight saving and equipment simplification.

The pictures that you do take will always be sharper than those that you don't!