- Status
Michael said:
You can compare the IQ between the 18-200 and 70-300 DO at The Digital Picture website. Here is a link for those 2 lenses: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=476&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=243&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
You can change the drop down list on that page to a selection of many lenses.
My advice is to go with the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L as 2 high (image) quality, yet portable zooms. I have this combination on my 7D when I travel (and I travel often). The 15mm wide end and 300mm tele-end of the respective lenses covers a lot!
Best wishes
Paul
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Whatever you do, don't buy the 70-300 DO brand new - unlike most lenses, it is much cheaper than new on the used market (usually sells in the $700-800 range). I bought one used a couple of years ago, subsequently sold it for the same amount I bought it for. It was conveniently sized - same as the 24-105L, although a bit heavier. The IQ was ok, not stellar. The zoom creep was horrible - hold the zoom ring when pointing the extended lens upwards, or risk a black eye from the force of the extension retracting due to gravity. On the whole, though, I wasn't thrilled with anything but the size.
Given the choice today, I'd pick the 70-300 L (which wasn't available when I bought the DO) over the DO with no hesitation. Here's a comparative review of the two.
I do have the 28-300L, and it's very useful as a walk around lens. IQ is equivalent to the 24-105L across the range (i.e. very good, although not quite at the level of something like my 70-200 II, for example). But...that's on my FF bodies - I would not use it for that on an APS-C camera, since there are no wide angle focal lengths thanks to the crop factor. Check your 18-200mm EXIF to see how much you use the 18-27mm range.
The TDP comparisons between lenses are only valid when comparing them on the same camera (which makes it hard to compare EF-S lenses to EF lenses on TDP).
I do agree that the 15-85mm or 17-55mm plus the 70-300 L would be a great travel combination.
Given the choice today, I'd pick the 70-300 L (which wasn't available when I bought the DO) over the DO with no hesitation. Here's a comparative review of the two.
I do have the 28-300L, and it's very useful as a walk around lens. IQ is equivalent to the 24-105L across the range (i.e. very good, although not quite at the level of something like my 70-200 II, for example). But...that's on my FF bodies - I would not use it for that on an APS-C camera, since there are no wide angle focal lengths thanks to the crop factor. Check your 18-200mm EXIF to see how much you use the 18-27mm range.
NO, you cannot. The link shows the 18-200mm on a 50D, and the 70-300 DO on a 1DsIII - that is not a valid comparison. Since those bodies are the only options for those lenses, respectively, you cannot compare the performance of those lenses on TDP (unless you're planning on using the 18-200mm on a 50D and the 70-300 DO on a 1DsIII or 5DII, then compare away).pj1974 said:
The TDP comparisons between lenses are only valid when comparing them on the same camera (which makes it hard to compare EF-S lenses to EF lenses on TDP).
I do agree that the 15-85mm or 17-55mm plus the 70-300 L would be a great travel combination.
Upvote
0
Hi Michael.
Consider the new Tamron 18-270 lens. I had one on my first Canon a 60D and it was excellent. I did a 5week holiday and cruise around USA and Panama. Camera was not too heavy to carry all day and the lens is compact when not extended. Because the lens covered all ranges I was never missing shots while changing lenses. There may be lenses that will give a slightly better image in a particular situation but overall its hard to beat the size price and practicality.
Consider the new Tamron 18-270 lens. I had one on my first Canon a 60D and it was excellent. I did a 5week holiday and cruise around USA and Panama. Camera was not too heavy to carry all day and the lens is compact when not extended. Because the lens covered all ranges I was never missing shots while changing lenses. There may be lenses that will give a slightly better image in a particular situation but overall its hard to beat the size price and practicality.
Upvote
0
Please take a look at your travel pictures and find out what are focal length that you have used. If most of them are on the short end, then may be a 17-55 f2.8 IS is good enough as a general lens. then you can get a cheaper and lighter longer lens just in case. alarge zoom ration lens is always a compromise and you cannot expect a real good IQ.
Upvote
0
I've been contemplating this myself a bit lately, as my camera pack is quite heavy with everything loaded into it (T2i + 5Dc + 10-22 + 24-70 f/2.8L + 70-200 f/2.8L II + 2X extender + 50 f/1.4). I think if I were to travel somewhere that I wanted to keep things lighter than my current setup I'd bring one full frame camera (preferably a 5D II/III or the hopefully soon-to-be-announced $2K full frame), a 24mm f/1.4L and the 70-200 f/4L IS. Maybe the 50mm f/1.4 as well. It wouldn't be the lightest/smallest/cheapest but I think it would get the best possible photos for the size and weight. Unfortunately I'd have to ditch most of my existing setup as most of it doesn't match what I've described... :-\ Anyway take my recommendation with a grain of salt as I would mix primes with zooms and I may have a different shooting style than you.
BTW I've shot a few thousand shots with the 70-300 DO and was not happy with the IQ compared to any of the other 70-x00 telephotos... The only advantage I think it has is size.
BTW I've shot a few thousand shots with the 70-300 DO and was not happy with the IQ compared to any of the other 70-x00 telephotos... The only advantage I think it has is size.
Upvote
0
P
PCM-Madison
Guest
Michael
The best travel setup is something I struggle with as well. It requires balancing image quality against size and weight. As one post mentioned, the Tamron 18-270 VC can be an attractive option. I own this lens and took it on several trips that included shooting wildlife, landscapes, and urban environments. Strengths include reasonable size and weight, excellent VC (I get 4 stops advantage), do-everything focal length, and good maximum magnification. I was very happy with this lens when my main camera was an 8 megapixel 30D. I am less happy using this lens with my current 18 megapixel 60D, and I have not travelled with this lens since upgrading my camera. Compared directly to other lenses I own or have owned, the Tamron has better IQ than the 18-55 IS and 28-135 IS kit lenses. It has inferior IQ to my 10-22mm EFS and 28-70 F2.8L lenses, but the Tamron does quite well in the 18-135mm focal range. The weaknesses in this range are more distortion than the 10-22mm at wide angle and slightly reduced sharpness/contrast. The real weakness of the Tamron 18-270 lens is the longer focal lengths. It has clearly inferior IQ (sharpness, contrast, CA) to Canon's 70-200 F4L IS and 100-400mm IS lenses at longer focal lengths. I also don't know how Tamron measures focal lengths because at typical subject distances its field-of-view at 270mm is nearly identical to my Canon lenses at 200mm. Reviewing my photos with the 18-270mm lens, I used the extremes of 18mm and 270mm more than all other focal lengths combined. My current travel setup with my 60D is the 10-22mm EFS + 60mm EFS macro + either the 70-200mm F4 IS or 100-400mm IS depending on the potential subject (i.e. the 100-400mm if the trip will include significant wildlife). Good luck.
Paul
The best travel setup is something I struggle with as well. It requires balancing image quality against size and weight. As one post mentioned, the Tamron 18-270 VC can be an attractive option. I own this lens and took it on several trips that included shooting wildlife, landscapes, and urban environments. Strengths include reasonable size and weight, excellent VC (I get 4 stops advantage), do-everything focal length, and good maximum magnification. I was very happy with this lens when my main camera was an 8 megapixel 30D. I am less happy using this lens with my current 18 megapixel 60D, and I have not travelled with this lens since upgrading my camera. Compared directly to other lenses I own or have owned, the Tamron has better IQ than the 18-55 IS and 28-135 IS kit lenses. It has inferior IQ to my 10-22mm EFS and 28-70 F2.8L lenses, but the Tamron does quite well in the 18-135mm focal range. The weaknesses in this range are more distortion than the 10-22mm at wide angle and slightly reduced sharpness/contrast. The real weakness of the Tamron 18-270 lens is the longer focal lengths. It has clearly inferior IQ (sharpness, contrast, CA) to Canon's 70-200 F4L IS and 100-400mm IS lenses at longer focal lengths. I also don't know how Tamron measures focal lengths because at typical subject distances its field-of-view at 270mm is nearly identical to my Canon lenses at 200mm. Reviewing my photos with the 18-270mm lens, I used the extremes of 18mm and 270mm more than all other focal lengths combined. My current travel setup with my 60D is the 10-22mm EFS + 60mm EFS macro + either the 70-200mm F4 IS or 100-400mm IS depending on the potential subject (i.e. the 100-400mm if the trip will include significant wildlife). Good luck.
Paul
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks Neuro... you're right (as usual
)... I appreciate your heads up on this particular set of TDP comparison (which doesn't allow a direct camera to camera, lens vs lens analysis). Glad you and I agree on what can be a great 2 lens combination for an APS-C.
Cheers!
Paul
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
pj1974 said:
Actually, Paul, I owe you an apology - I should have thought more about the implication of the comparison you linked. While its true that the comparison is techincally invalid, the reason for that is the 1DsIII gives an (unfair for lens comparisons) advantage. But, setting both lenses to 135mm wide open, the 18-200 still looks better, despite the FF advantage for the 70-300 DO. That makes it a practically useful comparison, in that it says a lot about the sharpness of the 70-300 DO, and not much of what it says is good...
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
My own travel camera solution
Sorry to stray off the exact topic, but I'd like to contribute my own rather unusual travel camera solution to my own set of needs.
Several months ago I was getting ready for a motorcyle trip to Utah with plans to take photos for an article in a motorcycle magazine. I needed a camera that would fit in my tank bag, but still give stellar image quality. I had been using my S90 for motorcycle trips, but it's only 10 MP and you can't put a polarizer on it. My 7D or 5D would not fit easily in the tank bag.
My solution was to pick up a T2i with the 18-55 IS II kit lens from the Canon refurbished website on a day when they had a 20% discount code. I paid under $500 for the kit.
The T2i has an 18 MP sensor, which is perfect for my needs and it fits fine in my tank bag. The kit lens is not something a pro would use, but if you shoot between F5.6 and F11 it is a very sharp little lens. It is also stabilized very well, which means you don't have to carry a tripod except for night shots or self portraits. The max focal length is 80mm equivalent, but the resolution on the 18 MP sensor was high enough that I was able to crop at will.
It worked great in Utah, where the sun was always bright. It even worked well enough inside dim museums.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box!
Sorry to stray off the exact topic, but I'd like to contribute my own rather unusual travel camera solution to my own set of needs.
Several months ago I was getting ready for a motorcyle trip to Utah with plans to take photos for an article in a motorcycle magazine. I needed a camera that would fit in my tank bag, but still give stellar image quality. I had been using my S90 for motorcycle trips, but it's only 10 MP and you can't put a polarizer on it. My 7D or 5D would not fit easily in the tank bag.
My solution was to pick up a T2i with the 18-55 IS II kit lens from the Canon refurbished website on a day when they had a 20% discount code. I paid under $500 for the kit.
The T2i has an 18 MP sensor, which is perfect for my needs and it fits fine in my tank bag. The kit lens is not something a pro would use, but if you shoot between F5.6 and F11 it is a very sharp little lens. It is also stabilized very well, which means you don't have to carry a tripod except for night shots or self portraits. The max focal length is 80mm equivalent, but the resolution on the 18 MP sensor was high enough that I was able to crop at will.
It worked great in Utah, where the sun was always bright. It even worked well enough inside dim museums.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box!
Upvote
0
C
CanonCollector
Guest
I traveled to Paris with a 17-40L, 50 f/1.4 and 70-300 L. That provided great options for the many places and people I saw. With the 5D II w/grip and a few gadgets it all did get a little heavy. You might also want to check out the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS (non-L) as it is smaller, lighter and black and seems to provide very good results with many different bodies.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8726.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8726.0
Upvote
0
M
Michael
Guest
Hi again!
As I started this discussion I would like to thank you all once again for sharing your wide experiences and knowledge which has helped me so much. After a long "inner debate" I'm now buying the 5D mk III combined with the 24-105 L and 70-300L. Yes its an awful amount of money spent but ... you only live once ... and I love photographing... and yes I stay up late at night postprocessing photos ... and I have got an opportunity of a lifetime to travel with my family. I also think about to 'revigorate' my old 450D and perhaps buy a used Tamron 18-270mm as a travelling complement.
Thank you guys out there
Michael
As I started this discussion I would like to thank you all once again for sharing your wide experiences and knowledge which has helped me so much. After a long "inner debate" I'm now buying the 5D mk III combined with the 24-105 L and 70-300L. Yes its an awful amount of money spent but ... you only live once ... and I love photographing... and yes I stay up late at night postprocessing photos ... and I have got an opportunity of a lifetime to travel with my family. I also think about to 'revigorate' my old 450D and perhaps buy a used Tamron 18-270mm as a travelling complement.
Thank you guys out there
Michael
Upvote
0
L
lexar
Guest
I just came back from a trip to Epcot with my family. I brought a Canon t2i, 15-85, and a 55-250 (this is the best travel telephoto! Its very light, good range, and pretty sharp)
However I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! My 55-250 was put on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it.
It really depends on how you like to shoot. I took about 500 shots in 1 day
I did an analysis of my ranges with Exposureplot (very good software to determine how you really shoot)
- 50% of my shots were below 38mm. That means that on a crop the 24-105 would not be useful since its really (38.4-168). I would definitely need a 10-22 but then I would of had to keep switching lenses!
- 26% of my shots were below 27mm and 15% above 88mm. That means I would of lost those 41% if I brought only 17-55. Or would of had to bring 3 lenses to compensate. (10-22, 17-55, 70+)
The only challenge was indoor shooting and night time! Looking back I think maybe 15% of my shots were low light. So if that is more of a priority for you then maybe you have to look at other options.
The indoor ride pictures were at f3.5 and still hitting 3200 ISO and were not that great.. so f2.8 would likely not help. Only a prime might be better but then indoors you have limited choice of movement and distance.
The restaurant and other general indoor pictures would of likely been better with a f2.8 but I am not sure by how much and would it really of made that much of a difference for me considering its a small percentage.
Like I said.. it really depends on your priorities and how many lenses do you want to carry !!
If I knew that I was going on a trip primarily to a museum or lots of indoors then I would take a 17-50 f2.8.
However for general site seeing with minimal weight and lens changes you cannot beat 15-85!
However I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! My 55-250 was put on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it.
It really depends on how you like to shoot. I took about 500 shots in 1 day
I did an analysis of my ranges with Exposureplot (very good software to determine how you really shoot)
- 50% of my shots were below 38mm. That means that on a crop the 24-105 would not be useful since its really (38.4-168). I would definitely need a 10-22 but then I would of had to keep switching lenses!
- 26% of my shots were below 27mm and 15% above 88mm. That means I would of lost those 41% if I brought only 17-55. Or would of had to bring 3 lenses to compensate. (10-22, 17-55, 70+)
The only challenge was indoor shooting and night time! Looking back I think maybe 15% of my shots were low light. So if that is more of a priority for you then maybe you have to look at other options.
The indoor ride pictures were at f3.5 and still hitting 3200 ISO and were not that great.. so f2.8 would likely not help. Only a prime might be better but then indoors you have limited choice of movement and distance.
The restaurant and other general indoor pictures would of likely been better with a f2.8 but I am not sure by how much and would it really of made that much of a difference for me considering its a small percentage.
Like I said.. it really depends on your priorities and how many lenses do you want to carry !!
If I knew that I was going on a trip primarily to a museum or lots of indoors then I would take a 17-50 f2.8.
However for general site seeing with minimal weight and lens changes you cannot beat 15-85!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I'm not sure, but the fact that you're using 27mm and 88mm (1.6x 17-55mm) suggests you may be suffering from the misconception that EF-S lens focal lengths are somehow 'corrected' for the 1.6x crop sensor. They aren't.lexar said:
The 24-105 on 1.6x does go below 38mm...it starts at 24mm. In other words, setting 24mm on an EF-S 15-85mm on APS-C gives exactly the same angle of view as the 24-105mm set to 24mm on APS-C.
If you want to compare EF-S vs. EF lenses used on the same camera, don't mulitply anything by 1.6x. You only do that if you want to compare a lens (EF or EF-S) mounted on APS-C to a lens mounted on FF.
Upvote
0
L
lexar
Guest
I converted to 35mm equivalent (actually exposureplot software does).
38mm on an EF-S is 24 equivalent, and 88mm on an EF-S is 55 equivalent.
What I was pointing out is that 50% of my shots were between 15-24mm on the 15-18 EF-S and therefore the 24-105 would not of fit the bill.
And then another 27% were 15-17mm on the 15-85 EF-S..
38mm on an EF-S is 24 equivalent, and 88mm on an EF-S is 55 equivalent.
What I was pointing out is that 50% of my shots were between 15-24mm on the 15-18 EF-S and therefore the 24-105 would not of fit the bill.
And then another 27% were 15-17mm on the 15-85 EF-S..
Upvote
0
K
knocker
Guest
Hi all
I know you have made your chose but just to add my pennies worth, I went on hols last week and took an EF-S 15-85 and an EF 70-200 f4 II used the 15-85 95% of the time this was its first outing as I only got it with my new 7D a month ago and wow what a lens, I was going to upgrade the f4 to the new F2.8 II but because I hardly used the 70-200 I am not sure I will do that now.
But when I did use the 70-200 I was clad I had it at hand
Knocker
I know you have made your chose but just to add my pennies worth, I went on hols last week and took an EF-S 15-85 and an EF 70-200 f4 II used the 15-85 95% of the time this was its first outing as I only got it with my new 7D a month ago and wow what a lens, I was going to upgrade the f4 to the new F2.8 II but because I hardly used the 70-200 I am not sure I will do that now.
But when I did use the 70-200 I was clad I had it at hand
Knocker
Upvote
0
- Status
