Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

On 7/2/2013 9:29 PM, alex_m wrote:
My old Nikon D40 was stolen on a recent trip and I am looking for a
replacement. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Here is more info:

I have a Canon 1D mark ii N (long in the tooth, but I still like it a
LOT and use as a primary camera). I used D40 on trips where the weight
of 1D is a pain, with either a light prime or a 18-200 superzoom. I
played a little with small compacts (Lumix and Nikon) and realized
they do not work for me -- I like the size, but I am underwhelmed by the
pictures. Likely a part of this is my fault, but I decided to stay
with DSLRs.

Thanks again to everyone for recommendations! I am leaning to Canon
(maybe SL1, maybe a somewhat larger 70D / 7D). Now I would appreciate
recommendations and opinions on a superzoom lens.

I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?

Cheers,
Alex

"Alex M" wrote in message
...
I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?


Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
buy an SLR for.

Trevor.

Trevor wrote:
"Alex M" wrote in message

I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?

Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
buy an SLR for.

Not necessarily.

You can easily buy a small DSLR and a megazoom for convenience
and weight, while still beating the megazoom compact camera.
That's a very legitimate use.

Additionally, it can then also be a backup body. (The 70D
should also beat most compact camera video capabilities even if
they have an AF-while-shooting (if the 70D works as advertized).
This may be rather important to some people.)

Oh, and in that vein: he can decide every time if weight and
convenience will matter more than the best image quality and
low light capability.

-Wolfgang

On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Alex wrote in message
...
I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?


Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
buy an SLR for.

I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.

--
Alex

In article ,
says...

On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Alex wrote in message
...
I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?


Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go with
your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what you
buy an SLR for.

I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.

I believe that the Sigma is the only one of the bunch that has full-time
manual focus override and that the rest require that one flip the
autofocus off to do manual focus. I find lack of override to be enough
of an annoyance that, barring some huge difference in performance that I
do not believe is present among them, that would be the decisionmaker
for me.

Otherwise I'd go for the Tamron for the extra 20 on the long end.

However I have not used a camera with Canon's new touchscreen focus-
point selection--that might make the override less important to me and
might not--I'd have to use it for a while to be sure.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M wrote:
On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
"Alex wrote in message
...
I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

Looking at B&H, I see, among others.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?


Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
with
your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
you
buy an SLR for.

I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.

Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
that is your main requirement.


The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.

His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if necessary,
and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.


Trevor.

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
:
: "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
: news : On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:22:53 -0400, Alex M wrote:
: On 7/4/2013 2:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
: "Alex wrote in message
: ...
: I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
: with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
: would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
: with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
: like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
: The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.
:
: Looking at B&H, I see, among others.
:
: * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
: * Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
: * Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400
:
: Any comments / suggestions on those / others to consider?
:
:
: Yeah, forget the "one lens for all" idea and get a 70-200 f4LIS to go
: with
: your 24-105. Swapping lenses occasionally for better performance is what
: you
: buy an SLR for.
:
: I think you miss the point. I *am* looking for a "one lens" setup.
: This would be for occasional use, but exactly where swapping lenses
: is a pain I do not want. Also, for this occasional use I am leaning
: to APS-C camera, so a full frame lens adds some extra weight.
:
: Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest if
: that is your main requirement.

What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end DSLR?
Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after only
one release?

:
: The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
: have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
: when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
: don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
: flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.
:
: His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if necessary,
: and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.

Like the OP, I have the 24-105 and APS-C cameras. I think the 24-105 is too
long to be a good walkaround lens on an APS-C body. I use it as a "street
photography" lens, because there a longer lens tends to make you less
conspicuous. IMO the correct APS-C walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.
On a FF camera, OTOH, the 24-105 is a fine walkaround lens. I sometimes see
myself as a FF wannabe, which is one reason I bought the 24-105.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:31:33 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
: Well I'd probably buy a Rebel SL1 then, and the Tamron is the lightest
if
: that is your main requirement.

What is the point of that camera? Does Canon really need another low-end
DSLR?
Does it suggest that they've effectively given up on the M series after
only
one release?

Er it's the smallest/lightest available proper DSLR, the M continues as a
compact mirrorless alternative.
Personally I think options are good, even though I am not in the market for
either.


: The "walk-around" lens can be the best choice in many situations. I
: have an 18/270 Tamron lens as my walk-around lens. I'll put that on
: when I don't have a particular type of thing in mind to shoot and I
: don't want to carry my camera bag with different lenses. It's great
: flexibility for both wide angle and zoomed in shots.
:
: His 24-105 *is* a good walkaround lens IMO. You can crop a bit if
necessary,
: and I personally don't need 270mm for "walk around" purposes. YMMV.

Like the OP, I have the 24-105 and APS-C cameras. I think the 24-105 is
too
long to be a good walkaround lens on an APS-C body. I use it as a "street
photography" lens, because there a longer lens tends to make you less
conspicuous. IMO the correct APS-C walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55mm
f/2.8.

Or the 15-85 if you want more reach at the expense of a slower aperture.


On a FF camera, OTOH, the 24-105 is a fine walkaround lens. I sometimes
see
myself as a FF wannabe, which is one reason I bought the 24-105.

It's fine on an APS-C too if you prefer slightly longer to slightly wider.
And makes a good team with the 10-22mm on those cameras IMO.
But I'm not so averse to changing lenses though.

Trevor.

Le 04/07/2013 05:00, Alex M a écrit :

Thanks again to everyone for recommendations! I am leaning to Canon
(maybe SL1, maybe a somewhat larger 70D / 7D). Now I would appreciate
recommendations and opinions on a superzoom lens.

I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

I have the same feelings about the super-zoom set-up.
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.
I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.
Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

In article ,
says...

Le 04/07/2013 05:00, Alex M a écrit :

Thanks again to everyone for recommendations! I am leaning to Canon
(maybe SL1, maybe a somewhat larger 70D / 7D). Now I would appreciate
recommendations and opinions on a superzoom lens.

I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

I have the same feelings about the super-zoom set-up.
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.
I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.
Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?