all-in-one lenses. (for Canon)

[wheelhot]

Hi,
Well I know that these all-in-one lenses wont be as good as specific lenses. But sometimes there are some occasion where you want to travel light and having a specific lens for each shot you want to take would be a trouble. So I guess these quality all-in-one would be useful especially for those on a budget cause he/she can invest on these lens (eventhough its expensive) and don't need to spend big bucks on quality lens for a specific purpose.

So what are the lens out there? I guess a 200mm lens (around those number) would be ideal for an all-in-one? a 200mm lens fitted on a APS-C sensor would be about 320mm (x1.6) and 300 (x1.5). So that would make it even better if you are looking for more zoom range.

Anyway the lens that attract my attention so far is the Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (whew that is a super long name) and according to DPReview its size is about 200mm lens which make it even better!.
Check it out! - Tamron

Is there any other lens that is similar or a all-in-one which is around 200mm ish? made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

 

[PCMacUser]

The Canon EF24-105mm F4.0L is a popular 'all in one' lens. Although it doesn't have the zoom that you suggested, 105mm is still pretty decent. Legs can do the rest.

 

[wheelhot]

The Canon EF24-105mm F4.0L is a popular 'all in one' lens. Although it doesn't have the zoom that you suggested, 105mm is still pretty decent. Legs can do the rest.

Wow, that is amazing, USM and IS, sweet. Well yeah like you said, 105 is decent and with an APS-C sensor that is equivalent to 168mm, pretty good almost reach 200. And it has a fixed aperture at f4.0. And for travel and holidays, this would make an ideal lens.

I wonder if Canon would ever release a 18-270mm similar lens?

 

[Scarlet Fever]

I wonder if Canon would ever release a 18-270mm similar lens?

Canon make a couple of superzooms; the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 , and the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L. The EF-S costs around US$700, while the L is around US$2200.

Other than that, I think Tamron is the company most interested in superzooms

 

[wheelhot]

Other than that, I think Tamron is the company most interested in superzooms

Haha, yeah. It seems that way, thanks for the lens suggestion

 

[OreoCookie]

Canon make a couple of superzooms; ... and the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L. The EF-S costs around US$700, while the L is around US$2200.

I've never seen the point of that particular lens, IQ not withstanding, it's not exactly light (hence IMO it doesn't seem like a good walk-around lens) and it's not cheap (so it doesn't appeal to a wider audience).

 

[wheelhot]

Yeah, those lenses are huge and only useful at certain occasions. Pity though, I once saw a person shoot with EF70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. That is a pretty lens and its HUGE! Even the lens diameter itself is huge. But like you say not ideal to bring around wont appeal to most consumers, it will likely to appeal to people who will use it for some events only.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens look great as an all-in-one general purpose lens but too bad its just f/4, would be great if its a f/2.8 or f/2.8 - f/4 would be okay (but best to be fixed at f/2.8 ). Like you guys know I own a 100mm EF Macro lens and when mounted on my 1000D it gives a 160mm (and its adequate for general zoom-all purpose) so this lens would be similar except this time it is a zoom lens instead of a prime lens.

 

[ChrisA]

Is there any other lens that is similar or a all-in-one which is around 200mm ish? made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

 

[compuwar]

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

It depends on your style. I find myself at the longer end of most zooms when I'm traveling because I'm generally looking for good isolation on a particular subject, often at a distance. If I shot something like the 18-200, I'd guess that probably 85-95% of my shots would be at 200mm and most of the rest at 18mm. With slow lenses, you often don't get DoF subject isolation, so you're left with zooming in for an XCU. I'd also rather have the telephoto look of 200 than 135 for head shots of people.

 

[OreoCookie]

In any case, if you want an all-in-one zoom, you always compromise in terms of IQ and aperture. It's for people who don't want to change lenses.

In any case, I don't think the 24-105 makes a good walk-around lens for crop sensors, 40 mm (equivalent on full frame) on the low end isn't very much.

 

[GT41]

Everyone here is Talking Canon, though I don't think OP ever mentioned what camera he has. Nikon has the great 18-200 lens though I too am a Canon guy.

I find I use the 24-105 as my standard walk around lens which covers 90% of my needs for walking around. Going against the 1 lens for all purposes theory, if I'm in tight spaces where I know I need a wider angle (ex narrow streets of old European cities shooting architecture) I take my Tokina 12-24.
So not exactly what you are looking for, but that is my solution. Depending on where I am going I could only take the 12-24 and do a lot of walking, but the 24-105 covers 99% of my walk around needs.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I'd much rather walk around with a good prime lens and be stuck with a single focal length than have some mediocre lens that zooms to the moon and back.

 

[compuwar]

Everyone here is Talking Canon, though I don't think OP ever mentioned what camera he has.

You should re-read the first post more carefully...

made from Canon or any other 3rd parties?

 

[jbernie]

Legs can do the rest.

I will let you know when I start walking on water

I'd much rather walk around with a good prime lens and be stuck with a single focal length than have some mediocre lens that zooms to the moon and back.

Alternately, if the superzooms dont have a locking mechanism it will constantly be wanting to hang out at the 300 length and not the more compact one.

Something worth looking at: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
$1145 on Amazon.

 

[compuwar]

I will let you know when I start walking on water

You don't always need to walk ON the water to get what you want...

 

[Phrasikleia]

You don't always need to walk ON the water to get what you want...

Indeed.

 

[PCMacUser]

Some people ask me why I don't use cameras with longer lenses.

I just get closer.

 

[CrackedButter]

I wouldn't use anything longer than 85mm for my street photography, and I hardly use an 85mm.

 

[theenigmat]

I heard Sigma is getting ready to release a new lens dubbed "the Sigmonstrosity".

Initial specs are that the lens will be a fisheye to telephoto zoom lens with a range from 8mm to 300mm at a constant f-stop of 1.8.

It comes with its own personal llama to support the lens.

Could this suit your needs?

 

[alphaod]

I heard Sigma is getting ready to release a new lens dubbed "the Sigmonstrosity".

Initial specs are that the lens will be a fisheye to telephoto zoom lens with a range from 8mm to 300mm at a constant f-stop of 1.8.

It comes with its own personal llama to support the lens.

Could this suit your needs?

Fisheye and telephoto cannot fit in the same sentence.

 

[jbernie]

Fisheye and telephoto cannot fit in the same sentence.

getting away from reality here as I doubt it would be in any way economical to produce/buy/(use?).... but I wonder if you could make a lens where the "glass" could change shape? Obviously you would need a different material to make it and all but it could be an interesting concept.

I suppose where there is a will and a lot of money there is a way

 

[H2Ockey]

but I wonder if you could make a lens where the "glass" could change shape?

Possible to build yes. usable no.

Think about all applications of polycarbonate as a substitute for glass. Ok in none of those cases is the poly lens supposed to bend the light. It is not reasonable to use a material other than glass when you are trying to manipulate light. Eye glasses are the prime example. You can have poly lenses for sunglasses and some that are reasonably high quality but as soon as you need to bend the light for a perscription it pretty much has to be glass lenses. A camera lens is a step up in quality of glass from there even. Once someone comes up with perscription glasses made from super light-weight plastics that have anything near the same optics for glass *maybe* you could start to move toward applying that to a camera lens. But even then the durability would be questionable.

 

[Consultant]

QUALITY would be a f2.8 prime zoom.

 

[CrackedButter]

QUALITY would be a f2.8 prime zoom.

What is a prime zoom?

 

[AlaskaMoose]

200mm on a crop-sensor is getting into the specialty lens range. How many of your photos are shoot at 200? 135mm is about right for just walking around casual use.

The EF 200mm f/2.8L is not bad at all. It's a small and not too heavy lens. I use it for close-up (almost macro) photos of flowers coupled to a 12mm Kenko tube, with the camera on a tripod. But for taking photos of moose and such (unless I add a tele), it's handheld for me.