What lens... (I know!)

Hi,

A friend of mine has posed this question - "What should I get for my wife?"

Dangerous territory or what!

Anyway from the discussion we seem to be talking about a longer zoom, she already has the 18-55 kit lens on a 500D which isn't too bad.

He did cloud things by saying she might want to do landscapes but the 18-55 will do that fine.

Anyway the budget is £200 ($325), initially I thought the 55-250 as it fits with the range and if I recall isn't a bad lens either (I used to own one years ago, but moved to the 70-200 then 150-500 and finally back to the 100-400 so it seems like an age ago and my memory is clouded).

Third party isn't ruled out, nor I suspect is second hand (but I would need to double check that).

I'm going to ask this on a UK forum too, so don't be startled if I suddenly jump in with some oddball questions!

Cheers,

John

Oh, I just realised she mentioned that she likes macro too, so I wonder if there is an option that would work with that too?

Longer lens on a budget My choices would go for either the 55-250IS or the Tamron 70-300 VC (that is a bit higher than budget but close enough)

Ooo, you had me with the Tamron for a second until I spotted its actually £350!, almost double the budget

In fact looking at more it looks almost as sharp as my 100-400!

If all she has is the 18-55, then the 55-250 is the perfect compliment to it and within budget.

YEs that was my initial thought, but things have moved along so was thinking something may have come along to better it - anyone know much about the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG MACRO?

Don't bother with that sigma. If you're considering 70-300's, the only ones worth getting are the Tamron VC USD, Canon IS USM and Canon L IS USM.

I vote for the 55-250 or the tamron if your friend doesn't mind the extra cost

I would not go for the Sigma 70-300, I think the Canon EFS is a better/safer choice then, it has IS and is a proven value in the Canon line
Yes the Tamron 70-300VC is more money but the reviews are really good, it fits Full Frame (that might not matter to you at this time) is nicer than the Canon 70-300 with better more modern VC/OS/IS
Remember that when a zoom lens says MACRO, is not really macro lens, it just means that it focus close to the subject but is far from being a Maco lens
Macro lens are primes, like the EFS 60 2.8, the 100mm f2.8 and 180mm 2.8, tamron 90mm too
These give you real macro focus distance at 1:1 ratio

Hmn, I'm surprised about the bad feedback on the Sigma having seen some of these shots, the thinking on macro was that it might be nice as an extra without the need to fork out for another lens.

That said I don't know how it handles and the lack of OS could be an issue.

The Tamron VC images here look great too as seen here and perhaps worth the extra, but it is a fair bit more.

If she likes macro, that little 60mm Canon macro is a nice lens. No idea what it costs where you are, but it's not horribly expensive here.

My experiences with Sigma haven't been good, I won't ever try another one.

John_N wrote in post #12515641
Hi,

A friend of mine has posed this question - "What should I get for my wife?"

Diamonds usually go very well...

John_N wrote in post #12515971
Hmn, I'm surprised about the bad feedback on the Sigma having seen some of these shots, the thinking on macro was that it might be nice as an extra without the need to fork out for another lens.

That said I don't know how it handles and the lack of OS could be an issue.

The Tamron VC images here look great too as seen here and perhaps worth the extra, but it is a fair bit more.

Now that I've looked at that thread I'm quite impressed, for such a cheap lens it does seem to produce quite good IQ in the centre. However it doesn't have OS, which for me is a no-no at that focal length, and it does have quite a lot of CA, and edge sharpness is extremely bad.