[Twix]

I'm looking into buying a new lens for my t3i. I'm thinking either a 18-200mm as recommended by a guy I work with or a 55-250mm as recommended by a camera shop here I'm town.

Guy from my work said the 18-200 Is really good for just about any situation.

Guy at the camera store just said the 55-250 It's a good lens, never said why.


Anyone have any better input? I'm looking for a lens with more zoom than my kit lens add it didn't do well with objects which are far away that I can't close in on

[M_Six]

The 18-200 is far more useful. Makes a great walk-around lens. You lose a tiny bit of reach on the far end, but not having to change lenses when you're touring around a city is a good thing.

[ddk632]

What lens do you have now?
What is the budget?

The 55-250 gets great praise from its owners. It's meant to be a relatively sharp and versatile EF-S lens.

It also has more range than the 18-200 at the long end, which serves your goal better of getting further away objects.

The 70-300 IS USM is also a decent lens, with more reach than either while sacrificing the wide end.

That's why I ask what lens you have now. If you have an 18-55 (most likely that's the kit lens you have), than an 18-200 might not make sense since it overlaps so much of the range you already have covered, whereas a 55-250 would perfectly complement your current lens. The 70-300 would give you more range but then you would have nothing from 55-70. That might or might not be a big deal to you. Price also might be a concern which is why your budget is important.

Also if you don't want to change lenses much, the 18-200 is more convenient than an 18-55 and 55-250 combo, while sacrificing 50mm of range.

It's all a compromise and these are the questions you should ask yourself when looking into purchasing a new lens.

[Twix]

That's exactly what the guy I work with told me. I'll have to shop around to see who will give me best price

[Itsed65]

I will just throw in that I keep a Sigma 18-250 on my old 40D that I leave in the car all the time, and it has worked out really well for an all around lens. I just keep it at ISO 200 and set at AV on f8, and kind of use it like a point and shoot, and have been pretty impressed with it. It goes new right now for about 350.

[vachss]

The 55-250 is very sharp for the money (compares pretty closely with the 70-300 which costs twice as much). The 18-200 is a decent superzoom, but suffers somewhat at either the wide or tele end compared to dedicated wide angle or telephoto lenses. If you're only going to carry one lens the the 18-200 is a reasonable choice. If you don't mind a 2 lens walkaround kit the 18-55 and 55-250 were designed to be just that for EF-S bodies.

[P1]

I just bought the 70-200mm L and so far I am impressed with it.

[ddk632]

I think (guess) 70-200L is in a different budget category to what OP is looking to spend. I have not yet hard of anybody NOT impressed with that lens, any version.

[Twix]

I don't think my photography skills are up to snuff to drop $2500 on a lens haha. I see the points about the overlap, but how much difference will there be
between my kit lens 18-55 and the 18-200?

[ddk632]

Both are regarded as decent lenses.

The only question is about changing lenses, i.e., convenience.

If you get the 18-200, you can walk around with it all day and never change your lens, no need to carry a second lens with you, so the 18-55 can stay home. In fact, you can even sell it if you want.

If you get the 55-250, you'd need to carry both lenses if you want to shoot wider angles (18-55), but the positive is that you'd have 50mm extra reach.

The trade off is convenience vs. extra reach.

Only you can make the call.

[M_Six]

Canon just came out with a new version of the 55-250mm called the STM. It's much sharper than the previous version and considerably sharper at 200mm and above than the 18-200. But there again, you'll need to carry two lenses if you want wide angle and tele. If you stay with photography for any length of time you'll come across this trade-off over and over. The "Do All" walk-around lenses come with compromises, but they are convenient.

[Nate4641]

I love my 100-400, but it sounds like you want something more all around. If you dont mind carrying 2 lenses the 100-400 is a lot of zoom at not a lot of money spent, relatively speaking.

[p1nk50ck]

you generally want to purchase the sharpest lens you can afford. i would go with the 55-250 if they are similarly priced, or within your budget. the new 18-55's are pretty darn good, and it'll be what you carry around with you when shooting indoors, portraits, or general shooting. if you're going to shoot outdoors, you'll appreciate the added reach with the 250, but you'll also want a tripod or monopod (at full zoom, it'll be difficult to get sharp shots while going handheld).

[khaye1]

the suggestions in here are all over the place. I'm not great at photography but I do get lucky every now and then. The fact is, there's a lens for every job...18-200/55-250 are okay at best. For the money, yes they will do just fine but ask the guys that are in this thread and some of them invested a small fortune on gear. If you think you'll be keeping up with the hobby then invest in nice glass. They keep their value, so you can sell if you decide it's not for you.

Here's another option for you...it doesn't cover as much as the 18-200 but look into the 24-105 F4L. The image and build quality is far superior than the 18-200. If you want the reach at the telephoto end just stack in TC. They can be had for less than $700

[druu]

What is your Budget and what do you find yourself photographing the most (what do you think you'll be using it for?)

If you don't need super tele, then i would suggest a higher quality walkaround zoom.

the 24-105L has IS, is relatively fast (constant f4 aperture) and has good optics. The wonderful thing though, is that people are always trying to get rid of theirs when they buy their camera's that come kitted with it. As such you can get a good deal on a quality and usually new L lens. I've seen them as low as ~$6xx.xx.

If you are satisfied with your kit zoom. Then the 70-200 f/4 L is a very affordable way to get a sharp telephoto zoom that has a constant aperture. You lose out on anything past 200mm, but you're already on a crop camera as it is and you are technically shooting a 112-320, which is plenty tele already. This lens can usually be had under 600 bucks and is excellent bang for the buck.

If you can find either of these guys used you'll save even more. It's almost always a good idea to buy used. Plus, these are full frame lenses so you'll have no trouble mounting them on a full frame camera should you ever upgrade.

[dcstep]

I don't know these particular lenses, but you'll need the 18mm on the wide angle end of the zoom. 55mm is not wide enough for much shooting. The extra 50mm on the long end is not consequential.

Dave

[Twix]

Druu,

No real budget, but as I'm not a professional, is like to keep my dollars in my pocket.

Since I'm not a pro, I find myself sitting various things. Could be a meal, a car, people to buildings and mountains. I'm planning a trip to Germany next year and I'd like to be able to shoot and not worry too much about the weight of my kit.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Twix

Druu,

No real budget, but as I'm not a professional, is like to keep my dollars in my pocket.

Since I'm not a pro, I find myself sitting various things. Could be a meal, a car, people to buildings and mountains. I'm planning a trip to Germany next year and I'd like to be able to shoot and not worry too much about the weight of my kit.

Then go with the 18-200mm to cover everything you're likely to encounter. Going over 200mm is really a "specialty" lens that'll you'll not need unless you get big into nature photography.

Dave

[druu]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Then go with the 18-200mm to cover everything you're likely to encounter. Going over 200mm is really a "specialty" lens that'll you'll not need unless you get big into nature photography.

Dave

agreed on the >200 range.

One thing though, if you settle on a superzoom, do not get the canon version. It is not only expensive and crappy (optically), it employs and old autofocus motor that is noisy and a little slow.

Originally Posted by khaye1

the suggestions in here are all over the place. I'm not great at photography but I do get lucky every now and then. The fact is, there's a lens for every job...18-200/55-250 are okay at best. For the money, yes they will do just fine but ask the guys that are in this thread and some of them invested a small fortune on gear. If you think you'll be keeping up with the hobby then invest in nice glass. They keep their value, so you can sell if you decide it's not for you.

Here's another option for you...it doesn't cover as much as the 18-200 but look into the 24-105 F4L. The image and build quality is far superior than the 18-200. If you want the reach at the telephoto end just stack in TC. They can be had for less than $700

I like the general usability of the 24-105, but if on a budget an off brand (not necessarily a bad thing) lens is also a good alternative. Just realized that 24 on a crop is not actually that wide 38.2 on the wide end (which is find for some) may not be wide enough for your tastes and even feel a little cramped indoors. The sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 aren't bad at all. they are both image stabilized lenses that go for 500 bucks or less. Both have a constant aperture of 2.8 and a useful focal length equivalent to 27-70mm on your crop camera.

Where they lack versatility on the longer end of the zoom range, they make up for in image quality and versatility in how you want your photo to look. The f/2.8 will get you more control over depth of field, and perform much better in low light than the super zooms, providing as much as 2-4x the light gathering capabilities and generally better sharpness when stopped down.

[dcstep]

Well, if you go with an non-Canon brand (Canon is NOT crappy), then make sure that your Raw conversion software has Digital Lens Optimization for the lens/camera combination. Without DLO you're not getting the most out of any lens, zooms in particular.

Dave

[druu]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Well, if you go with an non-Canon brand (Canon is NOT crappy), then make sure that your Raw conversion software has Digital Lens Optimization for the lens/camera combination. Without DLO you're not getting the most out of any lens, zooms in particular.

Dave

True, Pretty sure the distortion and fringing is going to be very prevalent on any inexpensive zoom, especially a superzoom. The expensive ones don't even get it perfect.

That said, we've still given the OP quite a few choices haha.

OP, to see what you actually like to shoot with or like the feel of, it might be worth a shot to rent a couple of these things. We can give you all the advice in the world, but a weekend shooting a few lenses that you may potentially own would probably help you narrow your choices.

[Twix]

Good idea to rent. I'll see if I can score a few of these options and take them out to the mountains ore something this week