Budget Canon Superzoom Comparison - Any Thoughts?

IMO many of the cheaper superzooms are a real compromise, and generally have relatively poor IQ. Yes they are convenient, but the IQ you will get out of a 18-55mm + 55-250 EF-S combo will easily best the IQ of certainly the Sigma and Tamron options (not sure about the Canon 18-200mm).

Perhaps look around for good used kit lenses as mentioned above - many people upgrade from them, so they are usually quite readily available, often with low use in great condition. Yes, it means changing lenses, but that is what DSLRs are all about - otherwise we would buy superzoom compacts.

Colin

If you are looking in the 55 to 300 mm range, I would second the vote for the canon 55-250 STM. Very good lens for not a lot of money.

awdprac wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm a very amateur photographer, but I've been shooting with my entry-level Canon DSLR (1000D) for about nine years now and, for a birthday/wedding/holiday treat for myself I'm looking to pick up as good a superzoom as I can for my budget, before I go travelling a few times over the next couple of years.

Due to my relatively low budget, I'm opting to go second-hand, so I realise the answer to my question will be dependant on the condition of the individual lenses I can get my hands on. However, I've managed to whittle it down to 3 deals, and I'd love your input:

£229 - Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM
£204 - Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD
£204 - Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

I've read the DPR reviews on here and am leaning towards the Sigma at the moment, due to the faster auto-focus than the Tamron and the greater FL reach than the Canon; what I'm really after is versatility for the travelling. However, this is really only my second, and priciest, attempt at picking up a new lens so I'm keen not to get stung.

Do you have any thoughts? Even if it's that I look at a particular different lens? Sadly my budget really won't stretch over £250 at the very most.

Thanks all! Any input appreciated!

A

I sort of was leaning to recommend something like a 55-250 lens as well. However, for such a recommendation, it is important to know what lenses you already have. Given you have a 1000D, I presume you have already a 18-55 lens, presumably the 18-55 IS (?), which is a reasonable lens. You could complement that with a 55-250 IS, which should be quite cheap to pick up. A bit better would be the 55-250 STM, which seems to go for around 150 pounds on amazon uk.  I'm surprised that the old 55-250 IS is not much cheaper than the STM version when just doing a search now, it shouldn't be more than about 100 pounds if the STM version is ~150 pounds.

Anyway, it does entail changing lenses, but image quality is better. As to the lenses above, neither of them really is striking as being on obvious choice. You could try the image comparison tools for the lenses (and also compare with your existing lens) at "the digital picture".

Are you looking at super zooms because you want the convenience of not changing lenses or because you think its the only way to cover everything with your budget?

If you are looking for the best quality then you would be better with a couple of lenses. First the tele end is easily sorted - 55-250 STM is £110 new (I've bough from this seller and absolutely no problems) http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-IS-STM-Lens-White-Box-New-/112189699417?epid=219521665&hash=item1a1f06f559:g:4roAAOSwx2dYGFBX

Then you want a standard lens for up to £130. You could risk a 2nd hand 17-85 IS, I've had one I got brand new which turned out to be a dud and later a 2nd hand one I got for my bother which was impressive. Or something like http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6-STM-IS-Lens-White-Box-/111939759623?epid=219963682&hash=item1a10212e07:g:RJUAAOSwpIdW61r3

gimp_dad wrote:

I agree with all of these comments about the 55-250/STM. It is many times better than any superzoom and nearing the image quality of $1000 lenses. An amazing complement could be the 24 pancake lens which is also very cheap and has amazing IQ. It's a great walk around lens and will give you an appreciation for top quality image creation.

I think that's a good suggestion.  The gap between 24mm and 55mm is unlikely to be missed and can easily be dealt with by taking a few (careful) steps.

Tamron 16-300. I've always thought 18mm (28mm on FF) to be too limiting. I get more use out of the wide angle than the telephoto end.

Dont know if its in your buget but i will consider a 18-135 STM and adding later a 55-250 STM. Both lenses looks good in term of quality and the 18-135 is very flexible without loosing quality optically. I've used tamron and sigma on Nikon bodies and have found when you reach the tele end there is no gain in detail, so i see no point in having all that range.

I have both the tamron 16-300 pzd vc II and canon 18-135 STM.   get the canon 18-135 STM.  honestly for travelling, thats a 28-200 equivalent focal length which should meet all travelling needs. I do wish it was a little wider.

Optically its quite good however.  Others have recommended the 18-55 and 55-250 STM.  good suggestion if you can do 2 lenses, but there is undeniably  a convinience to one lens, and not having to change lenses.

do you also have exoperience with the 17-55? If yes, how compare to 18-135?

I am not sure how 17-55mm would be included in a superzoom discussion, or a "budget" discussion for that matter, because it is neither

Colin

Andy01 wrote:

I am not sure how 17-55mm would be included in a superzoom discussion, or a "budget" discussion for that matter, because it is neither

Colin

Maybe with a couple of 2x extenders?

mordor_74 wrote:

do you also have exoperience with the 17-55? If yes, how compare to 18-135?

yes, I owned the 17-55 for a few years. it was on a lower resolution sensor, and a while ago, so I did not have it along side the stm 18-135.  I am sure it was optically better.  also bigger and heavier.  Its not a superzoom, but considered to be optically excellent.  Its also an f2.8, so big difference compared to any superzoom.

you nail the point. I mean 18-55 stm. Freudian error maybe!

Andy 01 wrote:

I am not sure how 17-55mm would be included in a superzoom discussion, or a "budget" discussion for that matter, because it is neither

Colin

sorry i mean 18-55 (3.5-5.6 & cheap!)

https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=35