Travel zoom conundrum;

I’ve got a 70D which is generally used for macro / studio work which I want to start doing travel (landscape / landmark / architectural) work with & would appreciate some lens advice.

I’ve currently got two suitable (ish) lenses, the EF 18-55 STM IS, which I’m reasonably impressed with (particularly the IS) & an EF 75-300 USM II. The last time I travelled I found that the 75-300, although slightly narrow at times was the most used as it seemed “best fit”, but ultimately images from it could be iffy. The 75-300 appears to be constructed slightly on the flimsy side, it's occasionally slow / troublesome to focus & there is a noticeable amount of play / slack in the barrels that I think resulted in the iffy images.

So I’m thinking that a better quality lens around the FL of the 75-300 or slightly shorter with IS & have considered;

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens

The 55-250 & 18-200 are best suited FL wise, but after the seeing the build / fit of my current 75-300 I’m a bit dubious of their quality / longevity. I can just about stretch the budget to the L & don’t mind paying the extra as it’s obviously in a different league quality wise, but it’s not such a good fit FL wise.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

I'd get the 55-250. It's a perfect companion to your 18-55, it is lightweight and generally a good performer.

The 70-200/4L is certainly a better built lens, but it's more expensive, heavier, and has a narrower focal length range including a small gap between 56mm and 69mm for you. It's not that this lens wouldn't be good, but I think you can get what you want from the 55-250 for a lot less.

The IQ of the 55-250 STM is light years ahead of the 75-300. The build quality is ok. It doesn't feel rattlesome or poorly built, but it is plastic and lightweight. Not so with the 70-200. But that's reflected in the obvious and huge price difference. The image quality gap is not nearly as huge. It's quite small, actually. Of course the 70-200 also comes with a constant f4 aperture, whereas the 55-250STM is a stop slower at 250mm.

This is a pretty serious crop from a shot taken with the SL1 and 55-250STM using AI Servo. I doubt you'd do much better with the 70-200.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GNCA​yX

I've really enjoyed my Tamron 18-270 (and the followup PZD version) for my small travel kit. It's got decent image quality throughout its focal range and the superzoom package is a nice, compact form factor for traveling around.

Of the ones you listed, I'd go with the 55-250...it's got as good of IQ as you're going to get in that focal range without branching into the 'L' lenses. The build on it is just fine, although the rotating front element can be fiddly.

Heya,

18-55 STM & 55-250 STM is what I'd do.

Very best,

I got the 75-300 USM III with my 300D kit, alongside the 18-55 USM (A special import Japan only spec lens with the USM). I have to say I was not unhappy when it went missing on a shoot I was doing. The image quality was really not good at all. I replaced it with a Sigma 28-300, which was definatly superior in image quality over the common zoom range. It's of a similar build quality, and is still going strong now it's getting on towards ten years old. So I don't think build quality is the issue with the 75-300, but rather a poor optical design. My Sigma actually covers the full 35mm frame size too.

When it comes to super zooms for the APS-C format, I was really surprised by the quality of the test pictures I shot when trying the Tamron 16-300 at last years NEC Photo Show. For a single lens lightweight travel option it seems like a really good option. Mated with a 100D (SL1) it's about the same size as many superzoom bridge cameras, with much better quality from having about 5× the sensor area. There are not too many 24-450 eqv bridge cameras out there either.

When it comes to higher end lenses, to get the coverage over the sort of range you seem to be looking for, you are really going to need three or maybe even four lenses. None of which are likely to be cheap, or lightweight. Who knows with Sigma's recent 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 Art series lens releases maybe we might see Canon step up with some APS-C lenses with real "L" build quality. Rather than the current generally consumer grade EF-S lenses. If they can give us the 7DII why not some similar quality lenses in useful focal lengths.

Alan

MalVeauX wrote in post #18049350
Heya,

18-55 STM & 55-250 STM is what I'd do.

Very best,

What he said.

If you want zoom for travel, I would recommend a wide angle zoom and not a telephoto zoom. Get the Canon 10-18mm instead. The images you create with it will make the viewer feel like they are there in the scene.

Although there would be significant overlap if you decided to keep the 18-55, I would suggest picking up the 18-135 STM plus the above mentioned 55-250 STM. You might find that the 18-135 STM would stay on your 7D most of the time. It's that good. As is the 55-250 STM.

On the crop bodies, I think the 18-135 STM is a great walk around lens. When I had the 18-55 and the 55-250, I found myself constantly changing them back and forth.

If I am going light for travel, I'll take the 17-50 and either the 70-200/4 IS or the 85/1.8. Even though I have the older versions of the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, they just give up too much aperture to be that useful for me.

It is hard to advise you without knowing your requirements for travel. Lightweight? The you may want to a superzoom like Tamron 16-300 or 18-270, or Canon 18-200. My wife hates changing lenses on travel, so the 18-200 is her travel lens. Architectural details? Canon 55-250 STM. Make sure it is the STM version. The 70-200 f4 is very good, but the IS version is three times as expensive as the 55-250. Do you want something for cities? Then I would suggest the 18-135 STM. Wildlife? You will need a long telephoto, and unfortunately the 75-300 is one of the worst lenses. You want him quality lenses - there plenty but they are expensive (well, expensive means different things for different people). You decide.

When the 70D was my only camera, Canon 15-85 was my only travel lens unless the purpose of travel was shooting wildlife. Then I complemented it with a long telephoto. But most of my travels was/is to European cities and towns, which requires wide angles.

Give us a little more details please, and the forum folks will offer better suggestions.

Thanks for the replies folks - all appreciated.

After reading these replies & thinking further, it's apparent that the L series, much as I would like it just isn't suited in FL terms & that there isn't a single L series for what I'm looking for. So I think I'll be looking down the lines of the 55-250 STM, or possibly one of the Tamron or Sigma equivalents.

How do Tamron & Sigma stack up in terms of general quality against regular Canon's like the 55-250 STM?

Lbsimon wrote in post #18049605
Give us a little more details please, and the forum folks will offer better suggestions.

OK - I don't need to go especially light, but I don't want more than two lenses total, so it's the 18-55 STM & something else, I wouldn't want to go past the 70-200L in terms of size though.

The majority of pics will be city landmarks - grand buildings, large statues / sculptures & the likes with some zoom on specific features of these. I imagine that the majority of these will be the type that I can stand back from rather than being forced close to by narrow street's or the like.

Apart from that I'm just looking for your typical tourist style broader landscape pictures.

Cheers.

fergusm wrote in post #18049883
The majority of pics will be city landmarks - grand buildings, large statues / sculptures & the likes with some zoom on specific features of these. I imagine that the majority of these will be the type that I can stand back from rather than being forced close to by narrow street's or the like.

Apart from that I'm just looking for your typical tourist style broader landscape pictures.

Cheers.

You almost describe my vacation. Almost, because I mostly travel to Europe and there is no way to back out to shoot big buildings - the streets are usually narrow. I used to take a normal zoom, 18-55, 17-70, 15-85, plus a long telephoto. Eventually I realized that I do not use the telephoto often enough to warrant carrying this weight, and I started taking only the 15-85. Long enough, and wide enough. I think that should I have stayed with a crop camera, I would continue with the 70D and the 15-85. The 18-135 was not wide enough for Europe.

I switched to a full frame, and now my only lens for travel is 24-105. Happy with this setup.

I had a project that took me to Germany monthly for about two years. For a while I tried lugging along various lenses.....UWA, wide zoom, telephoto. After a while I stopped bringing most of that stuff and I just tend to carry a 5D3 with 24-105L. That covers travel for me quite well. The EF-S 15-85 would seem to be the 1.6X equivalent.

When I'm travelling by car (I do a lot of RV trailer camping) I do bring along the whole kit, but that's because I can stick the whole thing in a bag in the trunk.

But when it comes down to times I'm flying, or when I'm away from a car and walking a lot, I find a 5D3 + 24-105L just gets the job done. And I rarely need wider or longer. 15-85 on crop would be the same.

fergusm wrote in post #18049883
...
How do Tamron & Sigma stack up in terms of general quality against regular Canon's like the 55-250 STM?

...

For build, they're all roughly on par; but the 55-250 is a standout in that range in that it is optically about as good as you can get without going into the expense of "professional" level/priced lenses. Especially given the price you can usually get this lens for (check the Canon refurb store regularly). The Tamron/Sigma lenses are 'fair' to 'good', optically, but not really outstanding for the most part; since their lenses that cover that range are all superzooms, they give up a fair bit in chromatic aberration and some distortion, as is typical for such a large focal range in one barrel.