Thinking of buying "crappy" lenses.

[KevC]

Hey.

I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 for ~$250. This seems to be an awesome deal for a travel lens. Slap it onto my Drebel and take it out sightseeing. There's also the Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 for ~$200.

I know these are hyperzooms and I can't expect quality from them like L or primes. But my purpose isn't to print large photos or sell. Seems like the perfect lens to turn my camera into a PnS on steriods.

I'm considering the 28-300mm because I might shoot some motorsports for a car club I'm part of. (Lapping days and Auto-X events). I know it'll be really fuzzy and f/6.3 will be difficult to handhold, but I'm thinking of buying a monopod and crossing my fingers for the UnSharp Mask in Photoshop afterwards. I believe the largest these photos will be printed at would be 8x10" or posters to be seen from afar.

I just can't justify spending more for something in that focal length.

Looking around some more there's also the Sigma 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 for ~$120 and a 70-300 f/4-5.6 for ~$175. Maybe my 18-55 will compliment one of these as my travel lens? But that makes it a bit more clumsy. Hm.

Thoughts?

[RikWriter]

I think you'd be better off with the Sigma or Tamron 18-200 than the 28-200. I had the Sigma 28-200 and frankly it sucked. Even compared to the DRebel's kit lens it sucked.
If the 18-200 is too much, try the 18-125.

[EOSAddict]

As you can see I have the Tamron equivalent. As a single lens for all situations you can't beat ti but you have to accept it ain't the sharpest around. I am at the stage where I would like to move up to better quality and faster lenses - prob 24-70 & 70-200 but I doubt I will sell the Tamron (or maybe get an 18-200 instead) for the situation where I want the DSLR but can't take any kit.

[Mohawk]

Sounds like a plan to me! I have a Canon EF 18-55mm I could let you have for $150.00, and I'll pay for shipping. Let me know. Real nice lens, for a real nice price. And it's better then the Sigmas, it's a Canon!

Mike

[RikWriter]

Sounds like a plan to me! I have a Canon EF 18-55mm I could let you have for $150.00, and I'll pay for shipping. Let me know. Real nice lens, for a real nice price. And it's better then the Sigmas, it's a Canon!

Mike


Umm...according to his sigline, he already has that >$100-brand-new lens...

[Andrew Pratt]

I think you'd likely be happier with either the Sigma 70-300 APO super II or a used Canon 100-300 then those hyperzoom's .

[Mohawk]

Umm...according to his sigline, he already has that >$100-brand-new lens...

Aw shucks! I missed that. :mrgreen:

Maybe next time...

Mike

[jfrancho]

I have the Tamron 28-300mm XR Di f/3.5-6.3.
Some samples can be see here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/24599588-L.jpg), here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/24599601-L.jpg), here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837650-L.jpg), here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20837654-L.jpg), here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/19534666-L.jpg), here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/23350585-L.jpg), and here (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/23350577-L.jpg). I don't think the average viewer is going to be able to see the difference in sharpness. I don't see it as a "compromise" since I would miss the shot if I only wanted to carry one lens all day.

[wilflee]

Pick the lens according to what you want out of the final picture. If you're happy with the sharpness, contrast, convenience, etc. then that lens is the perfect lens for you. Just because someone else thinks your lens is "crappy" doesn't mean it really is. It just means that someone else has an opinion that doesn't agree with yours. And in that case, big deal, you are the final judge of your own shots. They aren't.

IMHO, Sigma is a reputable company and they make good lenses. Some lenses are better than others in spec. But even the lower spec lens will produce fairly decent quality shots. If you're happy with the prints, that's all that matters. If you're not happy with the technical quality of the picture, then look for a better lens.

Technical specifications of a lens contributes to only part of what makes a good picture. Composition, lighting, etc. factors matter more than pure technical specifications of the lens. For example, there are a few "snobs" in my camera club sporting the latest D2X & 1Ds ][ cameras with 400mm f/2.8 lenses. On a recent outing to a bird sanctuary (they carried the lens in a pull-bag with wheels), they can get awesome closeups of birds. But, the pictures just aren't any good because it doesn't tell a story or stir emotion. They might as well be shooting at test targets to prove their equipment is better than everyone else's but not their pictures.

Photography is about pictures, not about equipment. So, all the power to you for getting a "crappy" lens. If it meets your needs, it's the perfect lens for you.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just need a correction here.. the proper technical term for such a lens is "Craptacular" ;)

:lol: ... I had one of these "Craptastic" wonder zooms for a while.. they are portable and handy ... :)

And please for the love of God.. do not confuse these highly technical terms in the future..
You may end with a lens that is "poop" and that would be sad indeed :( :( :(

[Citizensmith]

I just can't justify spending more for something in that focal length.


You kind of answered the question yourself. If its all you can afford then go for it, make the best you can of it, and don't feel any less for using it. Lenses like that do 6x4 and 5x7 fine, and 8x10 OK if you don't mind a little bit of photoshop work. Get the best lens you can afford and ignore what everyone else has.

With using slow lenses look to use something like the Noiseware community edition noise reduction software (or spring the $26 or whatever it is for a full version). It'll let you compensate some by running at ISO 800 or 1600 (even 3200) without worrying too much about noise.

I definitely agree with the 18-X recommendation. For me a 28-X on a Drebel is much to narrow. Whatever you go for a 17 or 18 starting point is totally worth having.

Sigma and Tamron both make some very good lenses. Sure they make some crap too, but so does Canon. Lets face it you can't do much worse than something like the Canon 75-300s.

[Citizensmith]

Just need a correction here.. the proper technical term for such a lens is "Craptacular" ;)

:lol: ... I had one of these "Craptastic" wonder zooms for a while.. they are portable and handy ... :)

And please for the love of God.. do not confuse these highly technical terms in the future..
You may end with a lens that is "poop" and that would be sad indeed :( :( :(

So where does crapesque and pseudocrap fit in? and can we describe a lens as 1337?

[Croasdail]

CyberDyneSystems - that is way too funny and yet true.... thanks for the laugh!

[buze]

The Sigma 18-200 is still my walk around lens. If I had to travel with just one, it'd be the one without hesitation. I'd miss my 50 a lot but..
And no, it's not as sharp as good primes, but the versatility makes up for it, with some extra credit too. It is an awesome, very nicely made, smooth actioned piece of kit. And it gave me a few totaly stunning keepers as well.

[mijbril]

The Sigma 18-200 is still my walk around lens. If I had to travel with just one, it'd be the one without hesitation.......

Stop saying that!!! Everytime I convince myself not to buy this lens for just the purpose you use it for, I read you saying how much you love it!!!! :D And I've seen some of your pics with it, nice :D

(Must sleep on it, no, do not go looking on ebay....)

Umm, to add something semi-intelligent then for my first post here. I suppose you just have to accept that a less than optimal lens will give less than optimal results but will conversely have an optimal effect on your wallet. Find the balance you're happy with & you've found your lens :D (Eh, I think I'll use that advice myself, hmmm, 18-200 say Buze.....)

[lkorell]

If your motive is to buy a "crappy" lens to travel with that you will not worry about, why not just stick with the 18-55? It's not that crappy compared to other "crappies" and it won't kill you financially if something happens to it.

My opinion, spend your extra money on some cheap CF cards instead and shoot lots of pictures!

Enjoy!

Lou

[buze]

Stop saying that!!! Everytime I convince myself not to buy this lens for just the purpose you use it for, I read you saying how much you love it!!!! :D And I've seen some of your pics with it, nice :D

(Must sleep on it, no, do not go looking on ebay....)

Umm, to add something semi-intelligent then for my first post here. I suppose you just have to accept that a less than optimal lens will give less than optimal results but will conversely have an optimal effect on your wallet. Find the balance you're happy with & you've found your lens :D (Eh, I think I'll use that advice myself, hmmm, 18-200 say Buze.....)

Sorry! I have no shares at Sigma's :D

What you say is true partly; "less optinal lens" is always "less optimal lens in extreme circumstances of the spectrum of use". So for example, I think everyone agrees that the Kit lens can make very good shots, in optimal circumstances. But the range and the speed makes it very, very hard to reach these fleeting moment of brilliance :D

The Sigma is like that too, if you get to know the limits a little, you'll learn to use it in it's "optinum" zone, which is very good IMO. And when someone tells you that the 70-200 f2.8 is 60% sharper at 200mm, you can tell him that the Sigma is actualy 100% sharper than the 70-200 at 69mm... :D

I did actualy a few "historical" shots with the 18-200, if you like, send me a PM and I'll send you a few shots ;D

Oh, I also have a Sigma 28-135 Macro that I got on ebay JUST for the macro bit. I paid like £40 for it, and it got me a few very nice macro shots too ! But, I'm not really a macro guy, but this lens allowed me to realize that, for cheap, and without breaking the bank.

Get cheapos, try out stuff, try out stuff some more, then try out a few more time and THEN shell out the big money for the lens you know you'll like.

[Citizensmith]

Get cheapos, try out stuff, try out stuff some more, then try out a few more time and THEN shell out the big money for the lens you know you'll like.

Now that is some very good lens buying advice.

[Skip Souza]

Just need a correction here.. the proper technical term for such a lens is "Craptacular" ;)

:lol: ... I had one of these "Craptastic" wonder zooms for a while.. they are portable and handy ... :)

And please for the love of God.. do not confuse these highly technical terms in the future..
You may end with a lens that is "poop" and that would be sad indeed :( :( :(
You are baaad. :lol:

[Skip Souza]

If I could only have one lens then it would be the Tamron 28-300 followed by most of the alphabet. I had the lens and it suited my one lens needs. Of course, what is the point of only one lens with an SLR ???
I have now upgraded to a two lens kit. :-)

[Lotto]

I have now upgraded to a two lens kit. :-)

Haha, I am still learning to shoot with the kit lens. Give me a couple of Playboy models, I bet I could make some interesting photos:lol:

Subject matters.

[muscleflex]

well, i bought a tamron 28-300 instead of a 50 1.4!!!! i've not received the lens yet...but in a way, i'm a bit upset i didn't get the canon 50 1.4!! and they were being offered to me for the same price!

[buze]

Now thats something I can't understand! missing out on a 50mm f1.4 ! :D