Lenses for EOS Canon 400D

[martyn29]

Just wondered if anyone knew of a lens that is 17mm-200 or 300mm? I have a 17-70mm one and a 50mm-200mm but wondered if anyone knew if there was one so I dint have to keep changing the lens!

 

[devon_metro]

Google?

 

[martyn29]

sorted...

 

[asylumxl]

Superzooms are extremely compromised in terms of quality. I know lens changes can seem like a chore but they are worth the better image quality.

 

[yorkie]

17-300 is a large range. There's a thread here on a digital photography site with advice on suitable lenses that will cover that range. One lense won't do it.

 

[16CSVT2700]

I'd rather lug my 17-85 IS and 70-200 2.8LIS around than having a doubtful quality "superzoom" which is debatable at both wide and telephoto range..

 

[mumrar]

I'd rather lug my 17-85 IS and 70-200 2.8LIS around than having a doubtful quality "superzoom" which is debatable at both wide and telephoto range..

Remember the old bywords, quality not quantity. I'd prefer to limit my zoom range and bag 20 good shots from one day with my no zoom at all 50mm f1.8, rather than 120 questionable fringed, distorted and soft images with an 18-200mm.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Ive got the 18-55 and 90-300 lenses. Need a tri/mono-pod with the long one though!!

 

[Swiss Toni]

Long lenses create a foreshortening effect from certain angles, making the loco and coaches/wagons appear short and compressed.

 

[martyn29]

thanks for the advice

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Long lenses create a foreshortening effect from certain angles, making the loco and coaches/wagons appear short and compressed.

Yea, I like that look on some photos IMO

 

[507 001]

Telephoto lenses in general compress the fore and backgrounds, not just superzooms

 

[Ilove165's]

For my 400D I have:

18-55mm and 75-300mm, but I wouldn't mind getting my hands on my dad's 200-500mm lens....

 

[Sun Chariot]

Build up a selection of the best lenses you can afford; not one-size-fits-all.

Yes, it's expensive and unwieldy, but the right lens makes a bigger difference than the right camera body.

Canon L-series lenses are optically superior; 16CSVT2700's 70-200mm F2.8 L IS lens is arguably the best-performing Canon zoom out there.

I use 100-400mm F4 L IS, 24-70mm F2.8 L and a 2x teleconverter. They cost me a packet, they give me a hernia; but I wouldn't swap 'em for owt!

 

[16CSVT2700]

Canon L-series lenses are optically superior; 16CSVT2700's 70-200mm F2.8 L IS lens is arguably the best-performing Canon zoom out there.

Hence why I bought it!
I'm after the 24-70mm 2.8L or 24-105mm 4LIS next...

 

[D1001]

I have a cropped sensor 400d and I bought the Canon 70-200 L f/4 last August - it is a marvellous bit of glass and I have had some great results from it, but in retrospect, I find I use it less and less for rail photography. I'm also looking at the 24-105L because that will give me a better range with L quality optics - eventually I will then add the 100-400 'pump', but not until the exchange rate has improved!

I agree that something with a very wide range is a major compromise, and I find that changing lenses isn't a chore. However, I also find that I decide on either my 70-200 or my 17-70 and stick with it for a session - only occasionally does that end up in a duff shot because I had the wrong focal length.

I also try and use the 70-200 when a special is due because of the extra quality of the glass - I happened to be trying it out for the first time when this came along (PIC). I have also learnt that different lenses behave optimally in different ways and I am now getting very good results from my Sigma 17-70 (PIC) which I was initially disappointed with.

So, get something like the Sigma with a range of (15-25) to (70-100) and a 70-200 and forget about buying a do it all zoom as I think you will be disappointed.

 

[Demps]

Small superzooms have ba ba quality.

How about a 70-200 f2.8 l, 24-70 2.8 l, 24-105 l, 28-300 l lol