File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I'm wondering, why doesn't Canon have a zoom lens that's actually wide on the wide end? I'm talking about 17/18mm - 100+ mm. The closest lenses I can find are either the very overpriced and inexplicably slow 17-85 or their standard zoom 28-105mm.

I'm entertaining getting a 40d but I want a walkaround lens and the only ones I can find are either the 18-250mm Tamron or the 18-200mm Sigma. Why is there anything like this but first party? Is Canon going to release one in the future or what?
>> Anonymous
It's very hard to design a lens with a big zoom range that doesn't suck. Canon probably prefers to leave the risk to 3rd party manufacturers (they already kinda failed with the slow, soft and expensive 17-85)
>> Anonymous
there pathetic answer is a two lens kit.

the new 18-55 IS and the 55-200 IS.

yea itll have slightly better quality than an 18-200ish but theyre still slow and most likely will be crappily built....

shoot primes FTW!!! 30 & 50 on crop wins
>> Anonymous
Didn't Canon have an 28-200 3.5-5.6 L? Or am I completely out of my mind and mixing it up with the 70-300 4-5.6?

Also superzooms suck and you suck for wanting one.
>> Anonymous
>>85381
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM is not a L-series lens, and reportedly it's pretty bad. Plus it sucks at versatility on a crop-sensor camera because the wide end is not really wide.

>superzooms suck and you suck for wanting one
Enjoy switching your primes during a dust storm.
>> Anonymous
>>85397
And how often are you in a dust storm?
>> Anonymous
1. A small set of primes (Say, an ultrawide, wide, normal, and MT) will fill you out better except in a "sandstorm."

2. If you're so afflicted, OP, I think you're going to have to drop a huge wad of cash to move to the 1Ds series and a 24-70L for 24-105L. A comparison is available here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

I'm pretty sure weathersealing is a must for sandstorms, but I've never shot in one, so I can't say for sure. Most lenses won't have that; these do.

3. Don't get the Sigma. For some reason, almost all of Sigma's lenses don't focus accurately with autofocus on Canons. Not "almost all of Sigma's lens models," almost all of the *lenses.* Some people get lucky and get the rare fluke that does, but I've heard of Canon users ordering a lens from Sigma, sending it back and getting a replacement four or five times, and still mever getting one that accurately focuses. A search for "Canon Autofocus Sigma" ought to turn up some things.

4. Do you really need such a big focal length range? 28.8-88 (from an 18-55 on a 1.6x crop) isn't something to laugh at.
>> Anonymous
>>85404
Sorry, said "sandstorm" instead of "duststorm." Same things I said hold true.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85397
Thanks, I will
>> Anonymous
>>85398
Irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Superzooms don't suck per se; they have their range of uses.
>> Anonymous
>>85404
OP here. Yeah, I actually do need such a focal length. I was on a trip to Europe last month and I can't count the times I missed a cool shot because I only had a lens that goes up to 55mm. I also found myself using the wide end of the lens (~18-22mm) a lot, so yeah... And I can't imagine carrying a bunch of lenses with me wherever I go.

Looks like I might have to stick with Nikon, since the 18-200mm VR lens seems to get a lot of praise from nigh everyone. I just wish it wasn't as fricking expensive...It just sucks that the D300 will be about $500 more than the 40D, and adding the $750 for the 18-200mm and another $100 for a 50mm prime puts me close to $3000, which isn't exactly chump change.
>> Anonymous
The Nikon 18-200 is great for what it is, but it cuts a lot of corners too. It just happens to be a really good superzoom, and superzooms are by definition really flawed in several ways. That's not to say they're useless, but is there really no other option?

(if you MUST, Tamron makes a decent one, and they're coming out with an IS one soon)
>> Anonymous
>>85422
For $3000 you could get a 5D and 24-70mm f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L.
>> Anonymous
>>85432
...and how is this relevant if OP wants a zoom lens that goes way past 55*1.6=90mm?
>> Anonymous
>>85422
Honestly, it looks to me that, all factors taken into account, the D300 is going to be the best DSLR ever made. It's definitely more than worth the extra cost over the 40D. Does the D300 have the 40D's feature where one can delay the return? Because that's the only thing I can think of that the 40D has that the D300 doesn't.

If you're strapped for cash and need a semipro body, you could always go for a used D200. You'll lose the full coverage viewfinder (which you'd also lose going for the 40D) and a few other features, but it's still a semipro body that'll mount the lens in question.

What body and lens(es) do you have now? You're talking about "sticking with Nikon," so it sounds like you might have some stuff you could sell to help out with this.

Also, saying you're missing these shots... are you missing them because they're far away, or are you missing them because they're things that inherently need a telephoto, like architectural details, wildlife, sports, etc? Because while sticking to a few (or even better, one) shorter focal length will mean you miss some shots, but it's better practice than almost anything else for photography, and you'll miss less shots over time and get better shots by doing so. Primes aren't just better because of the technical stuff; they're better because they force you to work in a way that tends to produce better photographs and gets you intimate with their particular focal length.

>>85434
105 is more than ninety. Also, it sounds like the OP shoots Nikon now, so 55*1.5 is only 82.5, not 88 as it is on a Canon 1.6x crop. 22.5mm of extra reach. Would you say there's no major difference in the FOV of a 50mm versus a 70 or 75, or a 70mm versus a 90?
>> Anonymous
>>85440
A difference of 22mm can be big or small depending on focal lengths we're talking about.

In this case, 82mm vs. 105mm means 25 degrees vs. 20 degrees of horizontal FOV; that's a mere 1.2x magnification.
>> Anonymous
Get Nikkor glass. 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 is dirt cheap.
>> Anonymous
I'm surprised Canon hasn't come out with an 18-200IS yet, since that's a big draw for Nikon...

And it'd get a lot of people to buy XTis instead of S5ISs.