wide-to-tele lens

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

it seems that wide-to-tele lens (eg.28-200mm,f3.5-5.6) is becoming more popular todays,but i read from some photo magazine that these lenses yield poor optical quality at the tele end ie 200mm,why? Should i purchase one such lens or one 28-80mm plus one 80-200mm for the zoom range i desired? Could anyone comment on the 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 lens?I like the zoom range but not satisfied with the max.aperture. thanks

-- albert (fibrebundle@hutchcity.com), May 29, 2001

Answers

i've seen images produced from super wide to super tele zooms (28-200 or 28-300). they are often distorted at the wide end and soft at the long end. if budget allows, i would get the 28-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L to cover your range. if you are on a smaller budget, the 28-105 3.5-4.5 usm and the 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm. 55-200 is a consumer level zoom with micro usm, which means you don't get full time manual focus and i belive a plastic lens mount...

-- howard (hshen@dsgnmnky.com), May 29, 2001.

Don't get too hung up on the aperture specs. It's easy to get absorbed in the specs and not really get a handle on the basics of how the quality of the image is affected by the way we use our equipment.

A lens with f/4.5-5.6 is plenty good for many day to day applications. Some people will never know the difference between an "L" lens quality (the Canon high end professional lens) and the consumer lens simply by looking at the photos taken by each because they don't know what exactly to look for.

I once owned a Canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 and a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and got compliments all the time on images taken using these lenses.

Camera shake during exposure is one's worst enemy and if razor sharp images are wanted, a tripod is the best option. What I'm trying to say is that even the best of lenses with the worst of techniques is not a good combo. You'll get excellent photos from a 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM as long as you know the proper photographic techniques. Now maybe National Geographic may not publish your photo shot at 200mm with this lens because of such and such spherical aberration, but...?

It basically comes down to how much you're willing to spend for the best equipment available. You'll pay for quality, no doubt, but don't leave out the lenses in the f/4.5-5.6 range because of something a magazine said. Judge based on the type of photography you plan on doing (i.e. action, low light, portraiture, etc.)

Have fun shopping!

-- Susan Butler (sue@butler22.com), May 29, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ