Best all around lens for Canon T3i DSLR

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone could help me with deciding on a lens to buy or rent for my Canon EOS T3i. Going on a southern Caribbean cruise and really don't like having to change lenses to get any appreciable zoom and also to get normal pictures. Is there a good compromise lens out there? Thanks in advance to all the knowledgeable CC members. :D

I've heard very good things about the Canon EF-S 18-200. A friend has it and puts it to great use. I'd also suggest browsing the options at lensrentals.com and read the "Roger's Take" (or similar) for any lenses that catch your eye. That insight is just as useful for purchasing decisions as rentals.

I have the Canon 18 - 200 and it gives good results. However, right now there is a nice rebate on the Tamron 18 -270 that makes it more than a good value. I also have that lens and it does a great job. If I had to buy one lens now, it would be the Tamron.

My dad bought the Tamron 18-270 for Alaska and enjoyed it thoroughly. Personally, I'm holding out for the Canon EF 8-800mm f2.8L IS II USM with built-in 2x TC. :D

I appreciate everyone's help. Now tell me how to understand the numbers and things for instance from Hickoryshampoo... what does the lens that you are holding out for do that the Tamron does not?....what does the 2X TC mean? and what is the way to tell the effective zoom from the numbers ....? Do you just divide the first numer into the last?

I appreciate everyone's help. Now tell me how to understand the numbers and things for instance from Hickoryshampoo... what does the lens that you are holding out for do that the Tamron does not?....what does the 2X TC mean? and what is the way to tell the effective zoom from the numbers ....? Do you just divide the first numer into the last?

Effective zoom is based on division of the two focal lengths, so an 18-200mm is an 11x, and a 18-270mm is a 15x.

The lens that HickoryShampoo wants is a figment of his/her imagination, as a 100x zoom for a DSLR would either have such awful optical quality that no one would buy it, or it'd be so incredibly heavy that no one would buy it. The 2x TC is a 2x teleconverter, instantly converting this imaginary 8-800mm lens into a 16-1600mm lens. Canon sells these as separate devices (1.4x TC III and 2.0x TC III are current), but they're limited to only select lenses, and there are noticeable tradeoffs when using them. Canon does have a rather neat (though ridiculously overpriced) lens, the 200-400mm f/4 which has a built-in 1.4x TC. With the flip of a finger, the TC is in or out of the optical path, instantly converting the 200-400 into a 280-560. The built-in TC is quite convenient, as you don't have to take the lens off, put the TC on the lens, then reattach the lens&TC combo to your camera.

Indeed, the last part of my post was satirical. Such a lens would have to be the size of the Hubble and would probably cost as much. For instance, the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8...

...is too big for hand-holding, and that's just a fraction of the zoom range.

Depends on your budget. I would recommend you check out the 18-135. It is a good little workhorse of a lens and it is not too heavy. When I bought my T2i, I skipped the kit 18--55 and got the 18-135 instead. It is a great lens.

I've since upgraded to the 5D3 and most often use my 24-70 2.8, and I LOVE that lens. But it is at least 3 times the cost of the 18-135 and much heavier. :)

Personally, I'm holding out for the Canon EF 8-800mm f2.8L IS II USM with built-in 2x TC. :D

Hey, cheapskate. Spend a little more and get the 1.2. :p

Indeed, the last part of my post was satirical. Such a lens would have to be the size of the Hubble and would probably cost as much. For instance, the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 is too big for hand-holding, and that's just a fraction of the zoom range.

I've read on the Canon website that the 87x and 100x zoom lenses they sell for TV cameras (think sporting events and such) have internal weights that are moved "opposite" to zooming (maybe focusing too) so the lens maintains an even balance. Sounds like one of those lenses where you attach the camera to lens, rather than the other way around.

Back to the OP and the original post: it's fairly typical that the larger the zoom range, the worse the optical quality of a lens. The 10x and 15x lenses aren't necessarily bad, but if/when you are ready to plunk down the cash for better lenses (which will probably have 3x-5x zoom ranges instead, or even plenty of lenses that don't zoom at all), you'll find that the optics are better. Every lens is a compromise in some fashion, just accept that reality and your shopping does become easier. ;)

Photography is all about balancing. You balance light/exposure, you balance portability, you balance composition, and oftentimes you have to balance quality. All of the superzooms previously mentioned are very convenient in that you don't need to change lenses as you go from wide-angle (~18mm) to telephoto (>50mm). But your compromise is generally in things like aperture size which translates to light-gathering ability and thus limits your shutter-speed. Newer cameras with their ability to pump up the ISO sensitivity can help offset that a bit.

There's nothing wrong with the superzooms. It all depends on your needs... especially in this case, the long end. Do you need to be able to zoom out to 200mm or more? If not then perhaps consider some lenses with less reach but can balance you more towards speed (larger aperture, smaller f-stop number). Some suggestions here include the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.

Now if you truly are looking for the largest range superzoom to be found, there's the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD. But I would caution you to try it out first in the store and well before your cruise. Also make sure to buy from a seller with a good return policy. The f/6.3 at the 300mm end might make for some very poor autofocus performance. Also the really small aperture means you might end up with insufficient shutter-speed and thus blurry shots. And likely the image quality isn't going to be that great.

Thanks everyone for the help. I am dumb enough about DSLR's to not get the sarcasm but hopefully I will learn. I do understand the compromise thing but just really don't like to change lenses all the time in order to get different perspectives from an outlook or something. Thanks again.

It's not that I hate changing lenses its that in a place like AK you'll be doing it all the time. Take a look at the Tamron (18 - 270). You might find it a fit. I have seen it recently for under $400 (with rebate).

Hey, cheapskate. Spend a little more and get the 1.2. :p

Just make sure it takes the 52mm filters. Those 77mm UV filters get expensive.:D

Of course we should be careful, a sense of humor is lacking on this message board these days. So funny and sarcastic posts don't go over well these days.:rolleyes:

If you have $629 to spend, you could think about the new Tamron 16 - 300. On the other hand, that is probably why the 18 - 270 is priced so reasonably now.

It's not that I hate changing lenses its that in a place like AK you'll be doing it all the time. Take a look at the Tamron (18 - 270). You might find it a fit. I have seen it recently for under $400 (with rebate).

That's the lens that I use for travel on my T3i, and I really like it. At home I use my nifty fifty about 90% of the time. Love that thing.

That's the lens that I use for travel on my T3i, and I really like it. At home I use my nifty fifty about 90% of the time. Love that thing.

Sounds like the Tamron is the way to go.... here comes my naiveté.... what is a nifty fifty?? I assume a 50 mm lens?

Yes, the nifty fifty is the 50mm 'prime lens', like the f/2.0 50mm Summicron on my Leica M3. Tack-sharp!

Sounds like the Tamron is the way to go.... here comes my naiveté.... what is a nifty fifty?? I assume a 50 mm lens?

In typical Canon circles, the nifty fifty is the 50mm f/1.8. Small, light (the only metal is the electrical contacts to trigger the AF motor and aperture motor, and of course the basics of those two motors - EVERYTHING else is either plastic or glass), cheap (perhaps $110-125...price drifts over time), and fragile (a 6" drop can be catastrophic). It's good down to f/2.8, wider than that it's not as amazing, but a fantastic foray into the world of prime (aka "non-zoom") lenses. There's also a Canon 50/1.4, a Canon 50/1.2, a Sigma 50/1.4 Art, Zeiss 50/1.4, and others.

Sounds like the Tamron is the way to go.... here comes my naiveté.... what is a nifty fifty?? I assume a 50 mm lens?

Your questions suggest you are new to DSLRs? Welcome to the most expensive addiction in the world :) It isn't the most expensive initially but considering camera addicts outlive the common drug addict you will spend much more money during your life span. Sounds like you are the vacation picture taker which is fine, that addiction is far less costly photography wise. Your choice of a nice entry level DSLR will provide you many different options depending on your needs / wants. Several great suggestions have been written here - at first blush a good intermediate zoom appears to be what you are asking about. Several postings suggested the Canon 24 - 105mm zoom. It is a great all around lens and EXPENSIVE too! Alternatively, there are some very fine third party, less expensive lens that will give you many years of use. Best way to determine what you really need / want is to rent first. Rental lens run about $23.00 (and up) per day and depending on where you live don't forget the shipping costs both ways- you pay for that. Insurance would be a good ideal if renting.

Most Canon kit lens start at 18 - 20mm for fairly good wide angle applications. The other long lens is about 70 + mm which in some cases zoom all the way out to 300mm. Your vacation photos would be safe with these or similar lens. If you want vacation shots these lens will get you there inexpensively as compared to really getting serious and going to the next level of photography. Seems like a lot of helpful, knowledgeable folks on this forum - I am new to the list but I'll be around. Good luck to you on your trip.

Several postings suggested the Canon 24 - 105mm zoom. It is a great all around lens and EXPENSIVE too!

The 24-105 is sold with many camera kits at a $600 price premium over the camera-only option. Therefore, it's a $600 lens, not what you might see online if buying it separately. There are plenty to be found on Craigslist that are totally new and unused, being sold by people who bought the kit and don't want the lens (sometimes they buy the kit when the camera-only option is out of stock).

The 24-105L is also a big heavy lens.

I am still amazed by the good old 18-55 kit lens. I got rid of my t3i body, but kept the kit lens that I use from time to time on my eos m with an adapter.