Decision time - new zoom lens for the XTi

[SuperjetMatt]

I am torn between the new 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens for about $600 or the older EF 70-200mm f/4L for about the same money.
The review I've read of the 18-200mm wasn't all that glowing. Barrel distortion, pin cushioning, aberration, the goods.
The L is lacking IS, though.

I am hoping to hear some advice.

EDIT: I want to use this mostly for outdoor sports and as a general walkabout lens.

 

[Fardringle]

I honestly haven't used either lens, so take this for what it is worth (and completely ignore it if someone else says I'm wrong).

From what I have seen, the 18-200 lens is great for what it is designed for - a single solution with a wide range of focal lengths for people who don't want to switch lenses. It's not perfect at anything, but it does well in its intended purpose.

While the 70-200 L doesn't have IS, it will give you significantly better pictures. You might just need a bit of practice holding it steady if you need slower shutter speeds at the long end of the zoom...

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Thank you.

I am certainly open to suggestions for other zoom lenses in my price range, if anyone has any.

 

[996GT2]

The 18-200 is a GENERAL purpose lens...basically meaning it is a jack of all trades. Mediocre in everything, not excellent in anything. Build quality is acceptable but nothing special, performance is average, but this lens is built for convenience, not optical performance or great build quality.

For outdoor sports, I would recommend the 70-200L. You don't really need IS in daylight, and the L is much, much sharper than the 18-200. The 70-200 also focuses much faster thanks to the ring ultrasonic motor, which also gives you full time manual focusing override without the need to flip a switch.

The 55-250 IS is another good choice at half the cost of the 18-200 IS, and will be just fine for sports (where wide-angle is not really needed since you tend to zoom in on one player).



However, for around $600 I would also advise you to check out the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM. Fast ultrasonic motor (HSM), a full stop faster than the Canon 70-200 f/4, and excellent build quality. If you don't need a red ring and the letter "L" stamped on your lens, the Sigma EX is a great choice.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Tell me more about the Sigma. I just googled it and found them for around $700ish.

 

[996GT2]

Read this review of the Sigma:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-...ab-test-report--review

Photozone says it's competitive (maybe even slightly better than) the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L at 70 and 135mm, with slightly worse performance at 200mm unless stopped down to f/4 or so.

Overall, a great lens especially when you consider it costs $3-400 less than the non-IS Canon version.

And another review of the Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensre...-200_2p8_n15/page6.asp

The sigma was scored an 8.0/10 on image quality, compared to 8.5/10 for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS costing $1400.

Since the Sigma only costs about $100 more than the Canon 70-200 f/4L brand new, I would suggest you look into it. The extra stop means that IS probably isn't necessary, and the Sigma is definitely no slouch in image quality.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

The extra stop and IS are intriguing.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
The extra stop and IS are intriguing.

No, the sigma doesn't have IS. It has f/2.8 constant aperture, but no IS.

Still, I think having f/2.8 makes IS pretty unnecessary especially if you shoot in daylight.

It all depends on how much you want to spend...

EDIT: I just noticed you want to use this lens as a general walkaround lens too...in that case, the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 choices are probably all too heavy and not wide enough for "walkaround" use.

It is up to you to decide whether you can accept the image quality compromises of the 18-200 IS, or whether you want to buy the faster, better zoom lens and a separate walkaround lens, like a Sigma 17-70 or Canon 17-85 IS.

 

[randomlinh]

the f/4 isn't all that heavy compared to the f/2.8 from either canon or sigma. but yeah, a bit cumbersome as a walk around. and maybe too long (focal wise).

But of those two, I'd get the f/4 no doubt if you're using it outside. I loved mine. Sold it because I rarely used it outside, and prefer to have 2.8 (but don't have it because of the weight, ha).

 

[ghostman]

I have the 70-200mm F4L. The lens is great - fast focus, lightweight (relative to other 70-200mm lenses) and sharp. And of the two lenses you've listed, I'd definitely choose this lens over the 18-200mm. I don't like do-it-all lenses because they tend to do everything poorly. I take it you already have a kit lens since you're looking at the long end. If that's the case, I see no reason to overlap the 18-55mm region.

Having said that, please realize that you WILL hit limitations with the 70-200mm F4L. It's relatively long, for one, so hanging it off our neck isn't very practical. It is probably too long for a walk-around lens in my opinion, but to each his own. Indoors, you'll probably need a flash or a tripod to use it (which can be said of the long end for the 18-200mm lens as well). On a recent overcast day, I needed to use ISO 800 to get a fast enough shutter speed. But if you're willing to buy used, you can probably find it for around $450-500.

The next step up (price-wise) is probably the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 (~$700 new), then the Canon 70-200mm F/4 IS and Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 (~$900-1000 new), and lastly, the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS (~$1400-1500 new). I don't know about the Sigma, but the lenses get quite a bit heavier and bigger when it hits F/2.8.

 

[bobdole369]

Chances are you probably won't miss IS. Use a monopod or tripod or just learn to hold it right and just shoot shutter at > your focal length. The F4L is a great shooting lens and quite a step up from the 18-200 IS. Its very long though.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Read this review of the Sigma:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-...ab-test-report--review

Photozone says it's competitive (maybe even slightly better than) the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L at 70 and 135mm, with slightly worse performance at 200mm unless stopped down to f/4 or so.

Overall, a great lens especially when you consider it costs $3-400 less than the non-IS Canon version.

And another review of the Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensre...-200_2p8_n15/page6.asp

The sigma was scored an 8.0/10 on image quality, compared to 8.5/10 for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS costing $1400.

Since the Sigma only costs about $100 more than the Canon 70-200 f/4L brand new, I would suggest you look into it. The extra stop means that IS probably isn't necessary, and the Sigma is definitely no slouch in image quality.

photozone isn't the most trustworthy site. I have my suspicions about them, and I since haven't paid attention to them. I wouldn't even consider suggesting a Sigma lens of that price to anybody just starting out or asking this kind of simple question. I have dealt with Sigma's poor QC and customer service for too long to say otherwise. Copy variation is way too much in high end Sigma lenses. I wouldn't want anybody to get a lens and then have to ship a lens back and forth to Sigma in a giant UPS argument.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
I am torn between the new 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens for about $600 or the older EF 70-200mm f/4L for about the same money.
The review I've read of the 18-200mm wasn't all that glowing. Barrel distortion, pin cushioning, aberration, the goods.
The L is lacking IS, though.

I am hoping to hear some advice.

EDIT: I want to use this mostly for outdoor sports and as a general walkabout lens.

If you are going to use a lens for outdoor sports, you will most likely have a shutter speed fast enough that IS won't even matter.

EDIT: typos

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
I am torn between the new 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens for about $600 or the older EF 70-200mm f/4L for about the same money.
The review I've read of the 18-200mm wasn't all that glowing. Barrel distortion, pin cushioning, aberration, the goods.
The L is lacking IS, though.

I am hoping to hear some advice.

EDIT: I want to use this mostly for outdoor sports and as a general walkabout lens.

If you are going to use a lens for outdoor sports, you will most like have a shutter speed faster enough that IS won't even matter.

Very true. For sports you'll probably shoot at 1/500 or faster, so IS is a non-issue.

I have the 70-200 f4 and have had no inclination to upgrade to IS or f2.8. It's incredibly sharp, very light (easy to hand hold) and looks purdy, too. It's very affordable and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Another thing to remember is that lenses tend to keep their value very well, so it's not like you can't upgrade in the future without taking a massive financial hit.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Thanks for all the helpful advice.
Reading through the posts has helped me define what I really want out of this lens.
So, my primary needs are:
1. Outdoor sports photography at a distance - shooting standup jetskis from river and ocean shores.
2. Taking pictures of the kids outside, unobtrusively
3. Taking hiking pictures.

I realize now that a jack of all trades type of lens probably isn't a good choice. I believe I'll go with the 70-200 f4 and get a 50 f1.8 or maybe even 50 f1.4 later for those fast indoor shots.

I have not been overly impressed with the 18-55 kit lens, but I have managed to take decent pictures with it.
Samples:
http://superjet.smugmug.com/ph...461728735_V3ZL5-X2.jpg

Here's an example of where extra reach would be nice:
http://superjet.smugmug.com/ph...486398476_LN8zi-XL.jpg

 

[996GT2]

The 18-55mm IS (XSi and XS kit lens) is a pretty nice lens...noticeably better than the 18-55mm that came with your XTi. If you are on a budget you might want to consider that.

But yes, 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens at a great price. The autofocus is a little wonky on that lens, though, so keep that in mind especially if you're shooting in low light with the Nifty Fifty.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
photozone isn't the most trustworthy site.

Why do you say that? You are the first person that I've seen to say that about photozone.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: GoSharks

Originally posted by: foghorn67
photozone isn't the most trustworthy site.

Why do you say that? You are the first person that I've seen to say that about photozone.

Their opinions of lenses seem to be in line with reviews from other sites...so I don't see a problem

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
Thanks for all the helpful advice.
Reading through the posts has helped me define what I really want out of this lens.
So, my primary needs are:
1. Outdoor sports photography at a distance - shooting standup jetskis from river and ocean shores.
2. Taking pictures of the kids outside, unobtrusively
3. Taking hiking pictures.

The 70-200 f/4 USM will be great for telephoto zoom. The 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM for the same price would get you closer, but at the expense of one stop of light. You'll appreciate the medium and constant aperture of the 70-200 f/4 on overcast days; it's a good compromise between large constant aperture and size and weight. But for taking photos of jetskis way out on the water, 300mm and IS would help, particularly with autofocus and framing.

200mm is plenty close for unobtrusive child shots.

You will not want to take any constant-aperture telephoto lens hiking, because they're all too big and heavy.

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
I realize now that a jack of all trades type of lens probably isn't a good choice. I believe I'll go with the 70-200 f4 and get a 50 f1.8 or maybe even 50 f1.4 later for those fast indoor shots.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
I have not been overly impressed with the 18-55 kit lens, but I have managed to take decent pictures with it.

Keep the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens anyway, even if you get a direct replacement such as a 17-55mm f/2.8 or 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, because it has actually got pretty decent center quality and is a very small and lightweight lens. You can sell it and replace with a 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6, though.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

How about using a teleconverter to extend the 200mm, if the need arises?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
How about using a teleconverter to extend the 200mm, if the need arises?

As long as you're using a 1.4x and not a 2x, you'll be fine and AF will still work.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Nice. I am waiting for a check from my savings account to arrive, then I'll order the lens.

Prices seem to be right at $600 wherever I look.
I suppose I'll go with either Amazon or Newegg, whomever is closest to me.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Alright, ordered the 70-200 f/4 L and a battery grip from Adorama today.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Hooyaa......liking this lens.
I am glad I got the battery grip at the same time.

Sample:

http://superjet.smugmug.com/ph...490859857_xVZSv-XL.jpg