all-in-one lenses. (for Canon) [Archive]

wheelhot

Dec 3, 2008, 05:55 AM

Hi,
Well I know that these all-in-one lenses wont be as good as specific lenses. But sometimes there are some occasion where you want to travel light and having a specific lens for each shot you want to take would be a trouble. So I guess these quality all-in-one would be useful especially for those on a budget cause he/she can invest on these lens (eventhough its expensive) and don't need to spend big bucks on quality lens for a specific purpose.

So what are the lens out there? I guess a 200mm lens (around those number) would be ideal for an all-in-one? a 200mm lens fitted on a APS-C sensor would be about 320mm (x1.6) and 300 (x1.5). So that would make it even better if you are looking for more zoom range.

Anyway the lens that attract my attention so far is the Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (whew that is a super long name) and according to DPReview its size is about 200mm lens which make it even better!.
Check it out! - Tamron (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/)

Is there any other lens that is similar or a all-in-one which is around 200mm ish? made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

PCMacUser

Dec 3, 2008, 06:19 AM

The Canon EF24-105mm F4.0L is a popular 'all in one' lens. Although it doesn't have the zoom that you suggested, 105mm is still pretty decent. Legs can do the rest.

wheelhot

Dec 3, 2008, 07:08 AM

The Canon EF24-105mm F4.0L is a popular 'all in one' lens. Although it doesn't have the zoom that you suggested, 105mm is still pretty decent. Legs can do the rest.

Wow, that is amazing, USM and IS, sweet. Well yeah like you said, 105 is decent and with an APS-C sensor that is equivalent to 168mm, pretty good almost reach 200. And it has a fixed aperture at f4.0. And for travel and holidays, this would make an ideal lens.

I wonder if Canon would ever release a 18-270mm similar lens?

Scarlet Fever

Dec 3, 2008, 07:53 AM

I wonder if Canon would ever release a 18-270mm similar lens?

Canon make a couple of superzooms; the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (http://www.canon.com.au/products/visual/cameras_lenses_accessories/telephoto_zoom_lenses/efs18-200mmf3.5-5.6is.aspx) , and the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L (http://www.canon.com.au/products/visual/cameras_lenses_accessories/telephoto_zoom_lenses/ef28-300mmf3.5-5.6lisusm.aspx). The EF-S costs around US$700, while the L is around US$2200.

Other than that, I think Tamron is the company most interested in superzooms :)

wheelhot

Dec 3, 2008, 09:10 AM

Other than that, I think Tamron is the company most interested in superzooms

Haha, yeah. It seems that way, thanks for the lens suggestion

OreoCookie

Dec 3, 2008, 10:02 AM

Canon make a couple of superzooms; ... and the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L (http://www.canon.com.au/products/visual/cameras_lenses_accessories/telephoto_zoom_lenses/ef28-300mmf3.5-5.6lisusm.aspx). The EF-S costs around US$700, while the L is around US$2200.
I've never seen the point of that particular lens, IQ not withstanding, it's not exactly light (hence IMO it doesn't seem like a good walk-around lens) and it's not cheap (so it doesn't appeal to a wider audience).

wheelhot

Dec 3, 2008, 10:38 AM

Yeah, those lenses are huge and only useful at certain occasions. Pity though, I once saw a person shoot with EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. That is a pretty lens and its HUGE! Even the lens diameter itself is huge. But like you say not ideal to bring around wont appeal to most consumers, it will likely to appeal to people who will use it for some events only.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens look great as an all-in-one general purpose lens but too bad its just f/4, would be great if its a f/2.8 or f/2.8 - f/4 would be okay (but best to be fixed at f/2.8 :D). Like you guys know I own a 100mm EF Macro lens and when mounted on my 1000D it gives a 160mm (and its adequate for general zoom-all purpose) so this lens would be similar except this time it is a zoom lens instead of a prime lens.

ChrisA

Dec 3, 2008, 10:42 AM

Is there any other lens that is similar or a all-in-one which is around 200mm ish? made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

compuwar

Dec 3, 2008, 10:50 AM

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

It depends on your style. I find myself at the longer end of most zooms when I'm traveling because I'm generally looking for good isolation on a particular subject, often at a distance. If I shot something like the 18-200, I'd guess that probably 85-95% of my shots would be at 200mm and most of the rest at 18mm. With slow lenses, you often don't get DoF subject isolation, so you're left with zooming in for an XCU. I'd also rather have the telephoto look of 200 than 135 for head shots of people.

OreoCookie

Dec 3, 2008, 11:57 AM

In any case, if you want an all-in-one zoom, you always compromise in terms of IQ and aperture. It's for people who don't want to change lenses.

In any case, I don't think the 24-105 makes a good walk-around lens for crop sensors, 40 mm (equivalent on full frame) on the low end isn't very much.

GT41

Dec 3, 2008, 12:10 PM

Everyone here is Talking Canon, though I don't think OP ever mentioned what camera he has. Nikon has the great 18-200 lens though I too am a Canon guy.

I find I use the 24-105 as my standard walk around lens which covers 90% of my needs for walking around. Going against the 1 lens for all purposes theory, if I'm in tight spaces where I know I need a wider angle (ex narrow streets of old European cities shooting architecture) I take my Tokina 12-24.
So not exactly what you are looking for, but that is my solution. Depending on where I am going I could only take the 12-24 and do a lot of walking, but the 24-105 covers 99% of my walk around needs.

Phrasikleia

Dec 3, 2008, 12:12 PM

I'd much rather walk around with a good prime lens and be stuck with a single focal length than have some mediocre lens that zooms to the moon and back.

compuwar

Dec 3, 2008, 12:26 PM

Everyone here is Talking Canon, though I don't think OP ever mentioned what camera he has.

You should re-read the first post more carefully...

made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 01:46 PM

Legs can do the rest.

I will let you know when I start walking on water :)

I'd much rather walk around with a good prime lens and be stuck with a single focal length than have some mediocre lens that zooms to the moon and back.

Alternately, if the superzooms dont have a locking mechanism it will constantly be wanting to hang out at the 300 length and not the more compact one.

Something worth looking at: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
$1145 on Amazon.

compuwar

Dec 3, 2008, 02:32 PM

I will let you know when I start walking on water :)

You don't always need to walk ON the water to get what you want...

http://compuwar.net/~paul/fisherman.jpg

Phrasikleia

Dec 3, 2008, 02:38 PM

You don't always need to walk ON the water to get what you want...

Indeed.

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200812/3531311.jpg

PCMacUser

Dec 4, 2008, 02:33 AM

Some people ask me why I don't use cameras with longer lenses.

I just get closer. :)

CrackedButter

Dec 4, 2008, 03:45 AM

I wouldn't use anything longer than 85mm for my street photography, and I hardly use an 85mm.

theenigmat

Dec 4, 2008, 10:09 AM

I heard Sigma is getting ready to release a new lens dubbed "the Sigmonstrosity".

Initial specs are that the lens will be a fisheye to telephoto zoom lens with a range from 8mm to 300mm at a constant f-stop of 1.8.

It comes with its own personal llama to support the lens.

Could this suit your needs?

alphaod

Dec 4, 2008, 11:17 AM

jbernie

Dec 4, 2008, 01:37 PM

Fisheye and telephoto cannot fit in the same sentence.

getting away from reality here as I doubt it would be in any way economical to produce/buy/(use?).... but I wonder if you could make a lens where the "glass" could change shape? Obviously you would need a different material to make it and all but it could be an interesting concept.

I suppose where there is a will and a lot of money there is a way :)

H2Ockey

Dec 4, 2008, 01:54 PM

but I wonder if you could make a lens where the "glass" could change shape? :)

Possible to build yes. usable no.

Think about all applications of polycarbonate as a substitute for glass. Ok in none of those cases is the poly lens supposed to bend the light. It is not reasonable to use a material other than glass when you are trying to manipulate light. Eye glasses are the prime example. You can have poly lenses for sunglasses and some that are reasonably high quality but as soon as you need to bend the light for a perscription it pretty much has to be glass lenses. A camera lens is a step up in quality of glass from there even. Once someone comes up with perscription glasses made from super light-weight plastics that have anything near the same optics for glass *maybe* you could start to move toward applying that to a camera lens. But even then the durability would be questionable.

Consultant

Dec 4, 2008, 02:19 PM

QUALITY would be a f2.8 prime zoom.

CrackedButter

Dec 4, 2008, 03:42 PM

QUALITY would be a f2.8 prime zoom.

What is a prime zoom?

AlaskaMoose

Dec 4, 2008, 11:44 PM

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

The EF 200mm f/2.8L is not bad at all. It's a small and not too heavy lens. I use it for close-up (almost macro) photos of flowers coupled to a 12mm Kenko tube, with the camera on a tripod. But for taking photos of moose and such (unless I add a tele), it's handheld for me.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Daisy081508c.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/BestLiliies081808d.jpg

Phrasikleia

Dec 4, 2008, 11:55 PM

What is a prime zoom?

It's very similar to a fisheye telephoto. ;)

flinch13

Dec 8, 2008, 10:16 AM

Here's what I suggest:

Canon 17-85 IS USM. About $300, lightweight, sweet focal length range (just about right for travel), durable and inconspicuous. This was my primary lens when I was abroad in the rainforests of Australia and it held up like a champ. If you're looking for something that you don't need to worry about because of expense or durability, this lens is a great choice. Plus its limited focal length cuts down on distortion significantly; if you get a super-zoom, it'll be much more distorted most of the time.

wheelhot

Dec 8, 2008, 11:56 AM

Wow, thanks for the advice guys.

Well for those who still don't know what camera I am using, I am using a EOS 1000D or Rebel XS, I'm still new to photography and like all things that I get myself into I will get my self involve with the accessories and etc. so when the time come I will have the knowledge into what I want and etc. (for now excuse me if my question sound childish or annoying, I'm learning! :) ) If I were to buy lenses (in the future) I will likely invest into the EF series lenses rather then the EF-S.

After reading through a lot of things about prime and zoom, it seems that most photographers use prime lenses because of the quality it produces. Either prime or zoom has its own usage.

I saw a photographer with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM (love the wide constant aperture and zoom) and of course its a very pretty lens and all but its freakishly huge, to me this kind of lens is more suitable for specific purpose and when you are on a photography journey. I don't think many people would walk around with such a huge lens around.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM looks impressive for general day-by-day use.

I like the fact that there is more prime lenses with wide aperture cause I love wide aperture lenses, I used my dad EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens and tried it outdoor with bright sunlight and it take excellent motion capture, its shutter speed is capable to reach 1/1000 and above and it makes the photo looks really good.

So let me get this right, if you are using prime, you can only use it at its fix focal length? So if you get a 135mm fixed length lens, you must walk further or nearer to the subject if you want to get the picture you want? Hmm, so what about sports photograph then? Wouldn't it be boring if the pictures is only taken at a fixed focal length?

Grimace

Dec 8, 2008, 12:37 PM

So let me get this right, if you are using prime, you can only use it at its fix focal length? So if you get a 135mm fixed length lens, you must walk further or nearer to the subject if you want to get the picture you want? Hmm, so what about sports photograph then? Wouldn't it be boring if the pictures is only taken at a fixed focal length?

Right, a prime lens by definition, has a fixed focal length so you may need to move your lazy legs a little bit.

Sports photographers are constantly moving, and use monopods instead of tripods to get the best shots on the go. Cropping helps too.

compuwar

Dec 8, 2008, 12:47 PM

Hmm, so what about sports photograph then? Wouldn't it be boring if the pictures is only taken at a fixed focal length?

Most sports photographs are taken at a single focal length, but players move around the playing surface, vehicles move around the driving surface, boats move around the water...

Plus photographers also change their position.

The focal lengths chosen are generally to get close enough to the "action" to get good shots. Most sports photographs are taken with 300mm f/2.8 lenses for outdoor human player type sports- but most good shots are far from boring.

wheelhot

Dec 8, 2008, 07:44 PM

Most sports photographs are taken at a single focal length, but players move around the playing surface, vehicles move around the driving surface, boats move around the water...

Aaah I forgot about the participants moving....LOL :D

wheelhot

Dec 8, 2008, 10:36 PM

Scarlet Fever

Dec 9, 2008, 07:53 AM

Oh yeah something I need to ask about prime lens, I got a EF100 f/2.8 USM Macro lens and it seems that it is able to focus at certain part of the range (1:5, infinity, and etc) does this apply to all prime lenses?

Prime lenses can still focus. That's why they still have a rotating ring on them. They just can't change their focal length (zoom).

flinch13

Dec 9, 2008, 07:59 AM

Wheelhot:

Zooms and primes are fundamentally used from different philosophies.

Zooms are a convenience. They are versatile in that you can use any focal length within your lens's range and frame your shot however you'd like. You'd need a bag of primes for that. On the other hand, a zoom lens has more moving parts and is considerably less solid than a good prime lens. You're also going to get a relatively small aperture and lower image quality for the price.

Primes take a little getting used to, but it's well worth it IMHO. Yes, it'll take some extra footwork, as you must move yourself to frame your shots, but considering the advantages in price, larger aperture, and build quality, getting used to it is indeed worth it. I shoot with almost all primes now, though I cut my teeth on a 17-85 IS USM which was a wonderful choice for developing skill. To be honest, you'll probably end up getting a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 eventually if you are serious about photography; it's one of the most useful fix focal length lenses out there. With primes you'll usually get buttery smooth bokeh (out of focus background) much more easily than any zoom lens, and isolate your subject for a real eye-catching picture.

As for the focusing question, all lenses focus within their range. This is a general statement, to be sure, but all lenses work basically the same way whether they are primes or zooms. The vast majority of all lenses focus to infinity. Every lens has a minimum focusing distance; that is, if you get too close to your subject, your lens will refuse to focus. Within the minimum focusing distance and infinity, you should be able to get a focused shot.

Keep in mind that focusing on close-up subjects is often a bit harder than far-away ones, as you have a significantly smaller depth of field when you are close to your subject.

Ok, closing statement. You can take GREAT pictures with ANY LENS. It's a fact. Use what you can afford, upgrade when you must. Don't let anyone tell you you "need" something when it comes to photography; there are a lot of lenses and gimmicky pieces of equipment out there. They might help, but for the most part you can do wonders with the lens your camera comes with. There are pixel peepers out there who will disagree with me, and I admit, I have spent a lot of money on my equipment in the past year, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just go with your gut; ask yourself what you NEED and what YOU KNOW YOU WILL USE WITH CONSISTENCY.

Once you have decided what you absolutely need, consider investing a bit more on an upgrade to the next level of build quality. It might be a couple hundred dollars more, but it's worth it. Your investment in a good lens will pay off in ways you cannot imagine.

wheelhot

Dec 9, 2008, 10:39 AM

Thanks flinch13, excellent write up.

Very useful and informative. And I agree with all you say.

I've been using the EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and I love the quality it produces, the image is sharper and leagues better then my standard 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens. Although with the crop field my 100mm becomes a 160mm.

I decided that if I were to get a zoom lens for daily use and for let say holiday trip which time is not on my side, a quality zoom lens like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM would fit the bill.

Other then that I will try and get use with Primes. Its amazing there is a few primes with f/1.2, talk about indoor lighting ;).

P.S: Crap there is a small dot (I think its dust) at the top left of my DSLR mirror box and how the hell did a small black ant end up in my DSLR???

compuwar

Dec 9, 2008, 11:09 AM

Oh yeah something I need to ask about prime lens, I got a EF100 f/2.8 USM Macro lens and it seems that it is able to focus at certain part of the range (1:5, infinity, and etc) does this apply to all prime lenses?

I think what you're asking about is a focus limit switch. Many primes have a focus limiter on them so they can AF quickly inside a short range and not go outside that range then back to the range you want to focus on. For instance, if you're shooting something out at the long end, and something passes in front closer by, the lens won't go all the way to the close end of its focus, then all the way back out, making re-acquisition of your target easier. Not all primes have focus limit switches, but they're very useful at times if they're there- just don't forget to switch it back off once you're done.

benpatient

Dec 9, 2008, 11:32 AM

You'll also find a focus limit switch on better zoom lenses, like L series zooms.

I know the 70-200 4.0 and 2.8 lenses have zoom lock.

And I would say if you're looking for two good lenses, the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/4.0L (IS if you can afford it) would be a good combo.

The 70-200 lenses are all the zoom you would ever need for a crop-sensor camera. Unless you're shooting bald eagle nests from 200 yards or something. The non-IS one is really affordable, too. One of the cheapest L-series lenses. The 2.8 is obviously a better lens, but it also weighs something like twice as much. It's a heavy enough that you want a tripod mounted to the lens instead of the camera at that point. The 4.0 non-IS is light enough to carry around...although people will stare at you because you have a big white lens on your camera...

It's kinda fun to point it at them when they stare, though...

ChrisBrightwell

Dec 9, 2008, 01:17 PM

My favorite light-weight do-it-all combo is the 17-85/IS and the 70-300/IS.

If you want a one-lens kit, there's really only one option: the new EF-S 18-200.

PCMacUser

Dec 9, 2008, 05:06 PM

And I would say if you're looking for two good lenses, the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/4.0L (IS if you can afford it) would be a good combo.

That's the exact combo I use - it's good, although 24mm isn't very wide on a crop sensor.

Scarlet Fever

Dec 9, 2008, 05:24 PM

That's the exact combo I use - it's good, although 24mm isn't very wide on a crop sensor.

Same here. I use 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS on a 40D. They play beautifully together, although the 24-70 is a touch soft at 70mm, but that's overcome by foot zooming.

I'm itching to get the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 just to get the gapless range from 12-200mm :D

wheelhot

Dec 9, 2008, 07:03 PM

Aaah okay, thanks guys.

So the 70-200 f/4L is the lightest among the bunch and cheapest. Owning such lens would be great for some outdoor events where you dont have the luxury of walking :)

The 24-70/2.8L would be great for day by day use lens and would be a definite upgrade over the kit lens. I guess if wide-angle-lens is required I can always go prime since wide-angle-lens is not meant for zooming :D

PCMacUser

Dec 9, 2008, 07:29 PM

Same here. I use 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS on a 40D. They play beautifully together, although the 24-70 is a touch soft at 70mm, but that's overcome by foot zooming.

It's also helped by not shooting wide open at f/2.8. At f/4 or 5.6 it's much much sharper.

AlaskaMoose

Dec 9, 2008, 10:30 PM

Another nice and not too expensive L lens, if you can get by with a prime is the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM. It has no IS, but costs around $600.00, and is very sharp. As I mentioned before, sometimes I use it to take close-ups of flowers and such, as well as wildlife (large animals, or small ones at close range). I took these with that lens:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/IMG_0999b.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/TresAmigos.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Seagullc.jpg

wheelhot

Dec 10, 2008, 09:21 AM

jamiewiseman

Dec 10, 2008, 11:52 AM

CATinHAWAII

Dec 10, 2008, 11:54 AM

I got the 24-70,, nice lens, and 10-24 EF-S canon, pretty cool also, got some neat pictures with both at recent trip to DC,,, but in camera bag, they get very heavy,,,

wheelhot

Dec 10, 2008, 09:46 PM

Yeah, zoom lens is definitely getting favoritism cause it is convenient but like others point out, if the user requires wide Aperture, and want a better image quality, prime is the way to go.

AlaskaMoose

Dec 11, 2008, 01:38 AM

Wow, not bad that is pretty sharp :).

Oh yeah does the Canon zoom 200mm lens size different? between f/2.8 and f/4? Cause I saw a 200mm and it seems smaller then the one beside it (in terms of diameteR)

The EF 200mm f.2L (above) is not a zoom, but a telephoto (a prime). A zoom would be one such as this: Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8 lens, or Tokina 12-24mm f/4.

This 200mm prime is not very heavy or large, so I often shoot offhand. I just place the lens barrel on my left hand (my fingers off the focus ring), and hold the camera and lens this way. You can also re-focus the lens manually while auto-focusing. However there is a way to do this without damaging the lens: press and hold the shutter button halfway, the camera/lens focus on the subject and disengages. Right then (with the shutter still half pressed) you can manually readjust the focus as needed. You can also flip the MF/AF switch to manual if you want :)

AlaskaMoose

Dec 11, 2008, 01:42 AM

I loved the 28-300mm Canon lens, but you do need one of the bigger camera bodies to balance the weight of it. (Have since moved to Nikon and do miss it) These days zoom lenses are so well made that they are mostly as good as their prime lens equivalent. In shooting terms though zooms do make life easy- quips about being too lazy to move are slightly unhelpful- for every one photographer who got THAT shot, there are usually another three standing next to him who were changing lenses or just too far away (or too close) when the moment passed. I can't think of a news photographer that doesn't use zooms.

Heavy lenses mount directly on the tripod, and some include a threaded mount. Other lenses require the use of a tripod ring. It's a terrible idea to balance the lens with a camera regardless of how heavy this camera may be, because too much pressure is placed at the camera's base where the lens it's mounted on. It's like holding a 2"x4" horizontally by grabbing it by one of its ends :) The camera should be in the air, being held in place by the lens. This is true when the heaviest lenses are used.

jamiewiseman

Dec 11, 2008, 07:33 AM

Heavy lenses mount directly on the tripod, and some include a threaded mount. Other lenses require the use of a tripod ring. It's a terrible idea to balance the lens with a camera regardless of how heavy this camera may be, because too much pressure is placed at the camera's base where the lens it's mounted on. It's like holding a 2"x4" horizontally by grabbing it by one of its ends :) The camera should be in the air, being held in place by the lens. This is true when the heaviest lenses are used.

Ever heard of ergonomics? The fulcrum (in this case your left hand or tripod) needs to be in the middle of the 28-300 to operate it properly. With a smaller camera body attached, your left hand needs to be somewhere other than the middle to balance it all up- and then you can't operate the lens properly.... no one should be using both hands on the camera body itself to support any SLR with any lens attached. (That would indeed be like holding a 2"x4" from one of the ends, and it would be silly and break your camera as you say.)

wheelhot

Dec 11, 2008, 09:52 AM

The EF 200mm f.2L (above) is not a zoom, but a telephoto (a prime). A zoom would be one such as this: Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8 lens, or Tokina 12-24mm f/4.

Aaah okay, what I meant is the Canon zoom lens 70-200, I saw both models behind the glass mirror and one is surprisingly much smaller (in terms of diameter) compared to the other one, does this has something to do with the aperture?

Ever heard of ergonomics? The fulcrum (in this case your left hand or tripod) needs to be in the middle of the 28-300 to operate it properly. With a smaller camera body attached, your left hand needs to be somewhere other than the middle to balance it all up- and then you can't operate the lens properly.... no one should be using both hands on the camera body itself to support any SLR with any lens attached. (That would indeed be like holding a 2"x4" from one of the ends, and it would be silly and break your camera as you say.)

Erm, is there people who use SLR and place their 2 hands on the camera body? I never seen it, all the people who uses SLR so far I see has one hand on the body and the other on the lens.