Good all round travel lens: Canon 400D
 

I've splashed out(!) on a Canon 400D - a few models old, but for less than 200 quid it does everything I want.

I now need to buy a decent but not hugely expensive lense, but there are loads of options and I barely understand the terminology after a while.

So with the following in mind, can anybody recommend a solution?

- Spending no more than 500 GBP
- Can take ND/UV filters etc
- For vehicle based travel so weight/size are no problem
- Good all round travel lens - willing to consider two separate lense if it means good close ups and landscape/distant shots etc.

I'm told a 18-75mm would be pretty good?

Hi,

This might be of use....................

Any lens will take filters etc BUT what you need to know if the thread size (which is the daimeter of the business end of the lens. Sometimes you'll get a rear drop in filter for very big lenses but that won't affect you as they're usually the high end pro lenses. If you get into the habit of keeping a UV filter on the lens, it will protect it from scratches. Hoya is a good make and affordable. Look on EBAY. Likewise with ND filters. These come in grades, so depending where yo're going, something like an 0.6nd would be a good all round job.

The lens you mention is a good lens but it won't give you much in the way of distance shots. It will be OK for everyday stuff in crowds or on the street etc. If you're after a bit of reach, something like a 100mm .f2.8 macro, or if you only want one lens that does it all, go for something like a a 28-200 which you could get for about £350.00p But remember that as lenses get longer you gain in zoomability, but you loose in speed (meaning that as the lens barrel extends (not with the pro lenses tho) , the camera will operate more slowly but on the 400D you'll be able to compensate for that by dialling up the ISO - which is the film speed (albeit there's no film now, only sensors) Have a look at ABC Digital Cameras, go to SLR lenses, Canon and flick through the list. You could also try Sigma lenses as an independent option.

Pm me if you need any more info or need anything explained.

Regards

Belle

Why not consider the likes of these:

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
There are also Canon equivalents and Tamron, too. Canon will be by far the most expensive whilst the optics in the Sigmas and Tamrons should be perfectly good for an amateur enthusiastic, particularly if on a budget.

Look for the yellow links in the article text for the other lenses in the same category.

Thanks Belle, I really appreciate the time taken to write that ;)

I was kind of hoping that other 400D owners could point me to exact lens they would recommend as I'm getting bogged down reading about what I could buy and was hoping 5 people all rocked up and recommended the same lens (as I don't have much time to do too much research as most of that time is being spent on video research ;-) to make the choice easy ;)

I have been a pro photographer for 15 years and have had many many lenses and combination and have recommended more lenses to more people than I care to remember.

The first and most important thing to remember is that "cheap" and "quality" will not ever work in the same sentence in photogrpahy. You can have either one, but not both. The second is that buying anything other than canon is like buying margarine when you need butter, but not having sugar in your turkish tea... It will simply not work as well, regardless of what the salesman may tell you.

For your applications, which incidentally is similar to my mother's, I would recommend two lenses: 28 - 135mm IS Canon and a 70- 300 Canon IS (NOT 75 - 300) The 28 - 135 has macro capabilities. Your only other possible requirement will be for a wider angle lens. Canon 10 -22 is brilliant but expensive. You can get the 18 - 55mm canon kit lens which should have shipped with the 400D for just about nothing.

Do not fall for the 28 - 300mm lenses. The only one worth wile is the Canon one and that is about $3 000. The others simply do not work properly.

If budget is no concern, I would recommend the Canon 24 -105 IS L and the Canon 100 - 400 IS L. But that'll cost you more than GBP2k

Oh yeh... Well done on getting a Canon!

Thanks. I have just spent loads on video gear, so trying to limit my camera spending to match my needs ( a few pictures for the website/films and the enjoyment of walking for an afternoon taking pictures). Also as you can buy a high quality HD video camera that records video and audio for 2500GBP, paying thousands just for a lens in my situation seems crazy ;-)

There is usually a happy medium between price and quality - as 'quality' is largely in the eye of the owner and his needs.

My trusty Canon Powershot G5 took some good snaps previously (my secret for taking good photographs is to go somewhere stunning with good light and use 'auto' ;-) but I'd like to play around more....
roamingyak.org : overland travels in a landy

The two lens that came with the camera are horrible to my untrained eye and this seems a common complaint....

As I want to limit myself to two lense at most, a wide angle would take precedence over a macro lens (which would mostly be for fun shooting). But the Canon 10 -22 seems to be too expensive for my budget ;-)

If you're expecting a sudden concensus from a group of photographers, don't hold your breath.

Photography is as individual as biking, in many ways. If you want to just go for a safe bet that won't break the bank, but will give you loads of options, the likes of the sigma I posted above will be more than enough.

It's not the fastest lense at 3.5-5.6, but any faster and you'll be paying beaucoup £££. Sigma and Tamron have been making quality aftermarket lenses for the big body manufacturers for donkeys' years.

Some die-hards and enthusiasts will perhaps tell you that a higher spec model is better, but with that lense and that body, you will have more creative control and higher quality images than your G% could produce, IMHO...

My 2p....

I'm not - I'd prefer people to just post what lens they have used with this camera, their thoughts and recommendations so I can wade through them to see if there is any kind of consensus, or conclusions I can draw. I've read 100 photo blogs and reviews and not come to any conclusions, so thought asking fellow travelers for their practical experience would be a good idea ;-)

Anyway, back to talking about specific lens....

Fair enough: I hope you get useful info.

I hope my penultimate post did not seem brusque, only I have seen many posts on photographic equipment and the dozens of posts yield dozens of differing opinions, which can be overwhelming for the initial poster... 'tis all...

When you find a lense that suits, post to tell how you get on...

I have the Tokina 12 - 24 and the Tamron 28 - 75 on my EOS 450D. So far I'm very happy with the results.

The Tamron is my everyday lens, that I use when entering a new city, walking around and stuff. The Tokina gets put on for the scenic drives, photos of marketplaces and so on.

Sure the mentioned Canon Lenses might be of a higher quality, but they are also much more expensive and don't have that much more to offer (imho).

On the other hand don't fall for the all around do it all lenses, like the 18 - 250. You just throw away the biggest advantage of a DSLR, which is the ability to use specialized lenses for every oportunity. If you do really want to go down that road it's a better option to get a so called superzoom camera.

"I hope my penultimate post did not seem brusque"

Not at all! Thanks for the efforts.

And thanks to buebo also...

Perhaps I cluttered my post with too much jargon...

Not at all - all good ;-) Thought I'd thanked you above ;-p

If you really like wide angle then maybe you should go for the 10-20mm with your £500, or a really good secondhand one. They'll keep their price (not that you'll ever want to sell it) and you'll have a lot of fun! But what are the two 'horrible' lenses you have already? Maybe one could take the place at the long end? Just curious.

I would have suggested the 28-135 myself, but 28 is pretty tame and may be a compromise going by what you've said, though the range is pretty good towards the long end and would cover most stuff.

Just my thoughts. Good luck whatever you do. :thumbup1:

my 400D lenses
 

I took my 400D to South America and took these lenses:

Canon 10-22 mm
Canon 50 mm 1.4
Canon 28-135 mm

I absolutely love my 10-22 mm and the 50 mm, the 28-135 mm I bought mainly for the trip.

The 50 mm is great for portraits and for shots without much light (if you don't need the wide angle), but I might leave it at home next time. The pictures I took with it were great but I didn't use it very often, it's just not versatile enough.

I used the 10-22 mm for probably more than 90 % of my shots, it can't be beaten for landscapes or buildings (inside and outside). The pictures people were most impressed with were taken with this lens (and a few with the 50 mm). I bought a new one 2 years ago for around 400 pounds on Ebay, and I reckon it was money well spent.

The 28-135 mm doesn't impress me quality wise in comparison to my other lenses, although it is not bad (not very light though). It nicely supplements the range of the 10-22 mm and it is not too expensive. I got a used one with broken IS (didn't miss that feature much, but then I have never really used it before) for 100 pounds from Ebay.

If you like wide angle photography, I'd recommend the 10-22, 28-135 mm combo. The only problem was that I often couldn't be bothered to change lenses and since none of these lenses is a good do-it-all lens (22 isn't long and 28 isn't wide enough), I missed a few good photo opportunities.

If you like telephoto photography (for animals and celebrities), you should consider the 18-55 and the 55-250 mm lenses from Canon. They are cheap (it won't be a disaster if they get stolen!) and light, plus you have a very good range. If you also like taking pictures of people, you could get the 50mm 1.8 Canon lens, it is considered to be the best value Canon lens there is.

I hope I could help a little.
Peer

Im a Nikon person but will try to help.

You can not have it all but 3 lense will get you most of what your looking to do.

You will want a fast lense (something with low small F stop on the lense it will look like 1:1.8)
Then you want something wide NOT a fisheye (low mm like 14 or so)
then you want a something long (big mm like 200mm)

To start Canon changed its lense mount in the 1970s (1975ish?) to go to Auto focus not a bad thing but look out for Manual Focus it may not fit your camera. But most AF will even if the people selling do mot know that. You want EOS lenses.

I will start with EF-S 18-200 F3.5 to 5.6 with IS CA18200AF Will do most of what you need most of the time not grate in low light but the IS (image stalilizer) you can hand hold it 3 or stops slower than befor (like down to 1/4 sec some say) not a grate lense but grate "bang for the buck" $600 new

The Canon 28-135 mm is a better lense and at $400 not a bad deal. Not as wide or as long but better made.

18-55 f 3.5 to5.6 is another lense that will get more that you pay for at $170 still not a grate lenese but then not much at $170 will be. CA1855AFU

some that are? there the "normal" primes like the 50 f1.8 2514A002 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard AutoFocus Lens - USA Grate lense will give nice crisp shots and with the 1.8 f stop will do well in low light all for just $100 new. Buy the way going fast on lense is not cheap to get to F1.4 you will hit $400 and f 1.2 you will spend $1400

For getting out there I like 200mm+ something like the Canon 70-200 f4 for $650 or the 200mm f2.8 at $750. But for the price a 70-300mm f4-5.6 for $200 is more in the price range your looking for. 6472A002 Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA Warranty

Then there is the Bigma! The sigma 50-500 f 4-6.3 736101 Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO RF HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens with Hood for Canon EOS Cameras.
Big and soft at the top end and not a grate lense but for $ (a bit more $1000) not much else will do all that this thing can

For some closeups (macro) you want a macro lense there a bit more$ than you want to spend $500 or so for 100mm (going to 50mm or so will do you little good with anything alive)4657A006 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Auto Focus Lens - USA

There are some close up"filters" you can get that will do the job in a pinch ebay has them (wach out there not grate and all the cheap ones are about the same) Canon and Nikon are the best.

All this and none of the lense are "pro" They all seem to $1000+ fast and unless you have skill as a shooter will do you little good. The best shooters see the shot before the shutter clicks take 100s (1000s sometimes most are tossed) of shots in a day and not only look but see. The shooters I have seen that are any good are more in to the creative side of shooting and less on "what is right" there pics tell a story and have a meaning in them than gust here I am. More drama more reason for the shot. Less walk up to the posted overlook and shoot the same pick as 1000s of other people and look for a reason to shot a seen, like a shot of a bored kid there parents ignoring them and then the overlook. Takes more time takes some seeing and less looking.

But if it was me? I get the 18-55 the 50 f1.8 and the 70-300. Get UV filters for each one, a polarizing filter for the 18-55 (and the 50 if dose not fit) and the 70-300 if you got cash oh and a graduated neutral density filter. (you can get a step up rings so you dont need 2 sizes of filters)

And the time to shoot them to know when to shot what.

Thanks for all of the suggestions, but please bare in mind that I really don't want to spend more than about GBP500 including the costs of filters etc. If I could only spend GBP300 I'd be just as happy ;-)

(I appreciate you 'get what your pay for' but for GBP500 you can get something that records and audio and video in full HD so these pieces of glass seemed priced to what people will pay rather than what they are worth ;-)

For anybody else looking like me, this site is quite good as it has pictures at all of the focal lengths:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review
(click on the 17mm | 28mm | 35mm | 55mm buttons etc)

Actually the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens looks quite god apart from the GBP600 price tag ;-)

"Actually the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens looks quite god apart from the GBP600 price tag ;-) - roamingyak.org

Somebody mentioned an 18-55 kit lens earlier, which is more than capable, light and at a fraction of the price of the above lens. I believe it does macro too. There's always a danger of getting bogged down in numbers and perceived quality and forgetting the original purpose of the exercise.

You didn't mention the 'horrible' lenses you already have or what problems you've been having with them. Are they the kit lenses that go with that particular camera?

Pretty obvious where I'm going with that question. :innocent:

I have read only good things about that lens, but I find it too expensive. I read often that Sigma and Tamron lenses aren't as good as Canon lenses, but this one is supposed to be an exception: Tamron AF 17-50mm 2.8, I heard it is excellent.

The range is similar to the Canon lens you mentioned, it is equally fast and much cheaper. However, since I have the kit lens (which may not amazing but is definitely good enough for an amateur like me) I never considered spending money on a lens with the same range. People get carried with buying lenses (myself included). Things like composition are way more important than perfect sharpness in my opinion. Just make sure you have the focal length you need (and maybe one fast lens like the cheap 50 mm 1.8 if you like portraits).

"You didn't mention the 'horrible' lenses you already have or what problems you've been having with them. Are they the kit lenses that go with that particular camera?"

Yes, and the 18-55 lit lense is just awful.

Thanks for all of the feedback - the search goes on but feeling more comfortable about making a decision now...

Too technical
 

This thread is too focussed (ha ha) on the gear.

All the gear and no idea

All the kit, and still sh.... well whatever

Its all about composition. I've been a professional sports snapper for 10 years and last year worked at a world championship swimming event. It was sponsored by Nikon and they flew in 4 or 5 of their very best snappers from Japan to showcase the D3 and a 600mm lens and so on.

The pictures were printed on the day and hung up around the media and were absolutely stunning, the work of geniuses.

And of course it got me thinking, " I've gotta get a D3 blah blah" which is just nonsense, it wasn't the great lens that took the pictures, it was the composition that made them stunning.

I would go mid range consumer zoom and spend a bit of time/money researching the type/style of photography that interests you and learn as much as you can about from a) books b) t'internet and c) practising over and over and really analysing your pictures to see how they match up against the work of others and what you can do to improve them

Have fun

I'd have said stick with it as it covers all the requirements you stated, though it would go a long way if you said why you think it's no good. Save people recommending something similar and all that.

"though it would go a long way if you said why you think it's no good"

When I took pictures with it I thought the camera was broken. Blurry, fuzzy, bad colours - as most other owners have stated, I don't know why they give it away with the camera.

Sorry to hear that. I heard it was generally a good lens - obviously not as corrected at all apertures as a top range one, but pretty good all the same. Oh well.

They changed the kit lens with the introduction of the EOS 450D. The new lens even has an IS and isn't considered all that bad. Maybe you are talking about that one?

:thumbup1:

Thanks, though I actually thought it was the earlier one that was better. But you have to have confidence in your stuff I suppose. Personally, I don't think you'd see much difference in web use. Just shoot at a middle aperture if it's a worry.

I still say go for a 10-22 or something similar. Why spend all that money on a replacement that still doesn't cover your own style of photography when you can have a shit load of fun with something that does? :thumbup1:

Still. Just my thoughts.

Of course it all depends :innocent:

I'm pretty happy with my setup. A Tamron 28 - 75 which is on most of the time and a Tokina 12 - 22 which is great for scenic shots, architecture and street photos where you shoot without raising it to your eyes...

Like somebody suggested earlier, best is to find your own style and go for it, but if you just look for the one does it all, it's an entirely different can of worms...

As a few folk have said here its not so much the lens it what you do with it that counts most canon or sigma lens will give good results.

the 18-55 digital lens which comes from canon with most kits will be ok for most of your needs and im sure its only around 50 quid.

get a longer one maybe a 200mm for things like birds or animals or distance shots

high end canon lenses and sigma for zooms have things like image stabalizing[helps reduce shake at lower speeds], the canon L series is their "pro" range.

At f5.6 you will find it hard in low light to get a fast shutter speed so not good for dusk or heavy cloud, inside shots unless you set the iso higher, However if you have a sunroof buy a mini beanbag or one of those clip on tripods means you can shoot from your vehicle.

You never said where you going it is sometimes cheaper to buy in other countries if your USA/Asia bound get the expensive ones there.

Also remember if you are buying a normal lens not specific for digital cameras the range is modified by 4/3s [I think] so the zoom will be longer but also your wide angle will be reduced

Well, under a little pressure to order now, so have gone for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens, as the reviews are very good/for the price, but no Image Stabiliser is a concern.

But it is GBP260 and the next best alternative seemed to be the Canon I mention above, but that is GBP660 which is a huge difference.

Camera movements don't show up so much at wide angles when you use longer shutter speeds as they do on telephoto lenses, so image stabilization is not always necessary.

Good luck with your choices.

canon 70/300is great lens for price..

Update:

14 months & 23 African countries later and the Tamron has done well, no problems with it freezing as others have had with other Tamron or Sigma lenses. It has been a good all round lense and it was only when I hit Southern Africa with animals to gawk at that I've really felt the need for a zoom lens.

Thanks for the help....

Now onto researching a zoom....

Hi,
i do have one more. Depends on what you want. If you want to use one lens "all over" - take the Tamron 18 - 270 mm F 3,5 - 6,3 Di LD Asph. Macro. A good lense (not the best) but you do have always the right lens to do nearly everything, especially while traveling, then often you do not have the time to change the lens because of the situation - and then this lens is the best!
If you want to have better lenses, i also say the tamron 28 - 75 2,8 XR Di LD Asph. Macro - absolute great. and then maybe for really "wide things" the sigma 10 - 20 mm.
But it depends on what you want - thats it.
Good fotos on all your ways whereever you will be.
Blitz

Focal Lenghts
 

I don't think there is the ONE focal length / lens that makes everyone happy. That's why it is so hard to answer the "what lens should I take" question.
It very much depends what the photographer wants to do. Some of the best photos I've seen have been shot with a simple 35mm or 50mm lens (= 24mm or 35mm on cropped sensor).

• Landscapes and Interiors (churches, museums,...): Wide angle down to 10 or 12mm (on a cropped sensor such as the 400d).

• Bazaars & Markets: How closely do you approach people / what's your 'comfort zone'? Some people only shoot from a longer distance (telezoom), others like to be "right in the middle" – in which case you'd want a good wide-angle.

• Full face portraits: medium focal length with a large aperture (f2.8) – i.e. a 28-70 or 28-80. Environmental portraits, the max aperture becomes less important.

• Wildlife: "the more the merrier" but at least 200 or 300mm on a cropped sensor I'd say. And if someone is into bird photography, focusing speed is important as well.

The second hand market has some oldies but goldies – such as the Tokina f2.6-2.8/28-70. I think it came out about 10-12 years ago, not available new anymore. It's missing the "made for digital" tag, hence should be available for a bargain – but I'm sure its optical quality is comparable to modern lenses.

Try to find a good photography shop with a nice selection of lenses, and ask them if you can leave your passport / driving license / bike parked in front of the shop & take one or two lenses for a little walk around the block to check them out (focal lengths, focusing speed, focus accuracy,...). Take test shots with YOUR camera at different focal lengths and then have a look at them on a computer. Try to detach yourself from "wow" factors & ask yourself if you'd actually USE a certain focal length on your travels. (I've got a 12-24 on my full frame body – other travellers often envy me for this amount of "wide angle", but I actually find it's very hard to use properly. If I had to do it again, I'd probably leave the 12-24mm at home and take one or two fast prime lenses instead – I just LOVE shallow depth of field / selective focus).

Unfortunately, approaching a photo store for this kind of "favour" is often difficult these days – too many people "test in the shop & buy on the web" and of course shops are aware of that. That's why I try to buy most of my gear in my local shop & build up a relationship with them.
(That said – I've heard from one traveller that he ordered 5 lenses on Amazon (Germany), tried them all out & sent 4 of them back – no problems).